Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter, Open-label Clinical Trial Comparing Intradiscal Biacuplasty to Conventional Medical Management for Discogenic Lumbar Back Pain

Authors: Mehul J, Desai; Leonardo, Kapural; Jeffrey D, Petersohn; Ricardo, Vallejo; Robert, Menzies; Michael, Creamer; Michael, Gofeld;

A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter, Open-label Clinical Trial Comparing Intradiscal Biacuplasty to Conventional Medical Management for Discogenic Lumbar Back Pain

Abstract

Study Design. This study was a prospective, randomized, crossover, multicenter trial for the evaluation of comparative effectiveness of intradiscal biacuplasty (IDB) versus conventional medical management (CMM) in the treatment of lumbar discogenic pain. Objective. The objective was to demonstrate the superiority of IDB over CMM in the treatment of discogenic pain with respect to the primary outcome measure. Summary of Background Data. Current therapeutic options for the treatment of chronic low back pain of discogenic origin are limited. CMM is often unsatisfactory with regard to the treatment of discogenic pain. IDB offers a minimally invasive treatment that has been demonstrated to be superior to placebo in the past. Methods. A total of 63 subjects with lumbar discogenic pain diagnosed via provocation discography were randomized to IDB + CMM (n = 29) or CMM-alone (n = 34). At 6 months, patients in the CMM-alone group were eligible for crossover if desired. The primary outcome measure was the change in visual analog scale (VAS) from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcome measures included treatment “responders,” defined as the proportion of subjects with a 2-point or 30% decrease in VAS scores. Other secondary measures included changes from baseline to 6 months in (1) short form (SF) 36-physical functioning, (2) Oswestry Disability Index, (3) Beck Depression Inventory, (4) Patient Global Impression of Change, (5) EQ-5D VAS, and (6) back pain-related medication usage. Results. In the IDB cohort, the mean VAS score reduction exceeded that in the CMM cohort (−2.4 vs. −0.56; P = 0.02), and the proportion of treatment responders was substantially greater (50% vs. 18%). Differences in secondary measures favored IDB. No differences in opioid utilization were noted between groups. Conclusion. Superior performance of IDB with respect to all study outcomes suggests that it is a more effective treatment for discogenic pain than CMM-alone. Level of Evidence: 2

Keywords

Adult, Male, Cross-Over Studies, Lumbar Vertebrae, Middle Aged, Humans, Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures, Pain Management, Female, Prospective Studies, Low Back Pain, Follow-Up Studies, Pain Measurement

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    18
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
18
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!