METHODS: Participants (N=142) in this randomized controlled trial were office workers aged 20-50 years old with neck, shoulders, and lower back pain. They were randomly assigned to either the ergonomic modification group, the exercise group, the combined exercise and ergonomic modification group, or the control group (no-treatment). The exercise training group performed a series of stretching exercises, while the ergonomic group received some modification in the working place. Outcome measures were assessed by the Cornell Musculoskeletal Disorders Questionnaire at baseline, after 2, 4, and 6 months of intervention.
RESULTS: There was significant differences in pain scores for neck (MD -10.55; 95%CI -14.36 to -6.74), right shoulder (MD -12.17; 95%CI -16.87 to -7.47), left shoulder (MD -11.1; 95%CI -15.1 to -7.09) and lower back (MD -7.8; 95%CI -11.08 to -4.53) between the exercise and control groups. Also, significant differences were seen in pain scores for neck (MD -9.99; 95%CI -13.63 to -6.36), right shoulder (MD -11.12; 95%CI -15.59 to -6.65), left shoulder (MD -10.67; 95%CI -14.49 to -6.85) and lower back (MD -6.87; 95%CI -10 to -3.74) between the combined exercise and ergonomic modification and control groups. The significant improvement from month 4 to 6, was only seen in exercise group (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: To have a long term effective on MSDs, physical therapists and occupational therapists should use stretching exercises in their treatment programs rather than solely rely on ergonomic modification.
CLINICAL TRIAL ID: NCT02874950 - https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02874950.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate mechanical massage using an electric massage chair on labor pain in nulliparous women.
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized counterbalanced crossover trial was conducted in a university hospital in Malaysia from August 2022 to February 2023. Eligible nulliparas in labor with a minimum labor pain score of 5 (0-10 numerical rating scale) were enrolled. Participants were randomized to 30 minutes on the massage chair with mechanical massage followed by 30 minutes on the massage chair without mechanical massage or the other way around in the massage sequence. The primary outcome was a change in pain score comparing pain with and without mechanical massage as a paired comparison for the entire trial participants. The secondary outcomes were across arms analyses of maternal and neonatal outcomes. The paired t test, t test, Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Fisher exact test were used as appropriate for the data.
RESULTS: Overall, 208 women were randomized: 104 to each intervention. Data were available from 204 participants (103 randomized to massage first and 101 to no massage first). The primary outcomes of change in labor pain scores (0-10 numerical rating scale) after massage and no massage (all participants included after crossover, paired t test analysis) were 4.51±2.30 and 5.38±2.10, respectively (mean difference, -0.87; 95% confidence interval, -1.14 to -0.59; Ppain score after electric chair mechanical massage compared with no massage. On the across randomized arms secondary analyses, labor pain scores after their first massage chair session were 4.35±2.52 (randomized to massage first, received massage as initial intervention) and 5.66±1.73 (randomized to no massage first, received no massage as initial intervention) (mean difference, -1.31; 95% confidence interval, -1.91 to -0.748; Ppain) and neonatal outcomes (Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes, cord artery blood pH and base excess, and neonatal admission) were not different across randomized arms.
CONCLUSION: Mechanical massage using an electric massage chair significantly reduced labor pain, offering a potential nonpharmacologic pain management option during labor.
METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were randomized to receive SCEA (n = 19) or placebo (n = 18) during colonoscopy. Additional rescue sedation was administered to patients if they had pain or discomfort during the procedure. Visual analogue scale was used to quantify the intensity of pain from the beginning to end of the procedure. Other variables analysed were the amount of sedation used, duration from start to caecal intubation, length of time for completion of colonoscopy and recovery time to home discharge.
RESULTS: Patients who received SCEA had a lower median pain score of 4.6 (interquartile range 5.7) compared to the placebo group of 6.0 (interquartile range 3.2). Statistical analysis comparing the groups revealed a non-significant P-value of 0.12, although more than 90% of the patients indicated willingness for SCEA as the primary analgesia if they were to repeat the procedure. Throughout the study, there were no adverse complications that occurred during the use of SCEA.
CONCLUSIONS: Even though this study did not demonstrate, a significance in pain reduction, SCEA remains a safe modality which, more than 90% of patients favoured as a substitute for pain relief during colonoscopy.
METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of an international prospective cohort study from 2012 to 2014. This study included patients who were 45 yr of age or older who underwent major inpatient noncardiac surgery. Data were collected perioperatively and at 1 yr after surgery to assess for the development of persistent incisional pain (pain present around incision at 1 yr after surgery).
RESULTS: Among 14,831 patients, 495 (3.3%; 95% CI, 3.1 to 3.6) reported persistent incisional pain at 1 yr, with an average pain intensity of 3.6 ± 2.5 (0 to 10 numeric rating scale), with 35% and 14% reporting moderate and severe pain intensities, respectively. More than half of patients with persistent pain reported needing analgesic medications, and 85% reported interference with daily activities (denominator = 495 in the above proportions). Risk factors for persistent pain included female sex (P = 0.007), Asian ethnicity (P < 0.001), surgery for fracture (P < 0.001), history of chronic pain (P < 0.001), coronary artery disease (P < 0.001), history of tobacco use (P = 0.048), postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (P < 0.001), postoperative continuous nerve block (P = 0.010), insulin initiation within 24 h of surgery (P < 0.001), and withholding nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors on the day of surgery (P = 0.029 and P < 0.001, respectively). Older age (P < 0.001), endoscopic surgery (P = 0.005), and South Asian (P < 0.001), Native American/Australian (P = 0.004), and Latin/Hispanic ethnicities (P < 0.001) were associated with a lower risk of persistent pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Persistent incisional pain is a common complication of inpatient noncardiac surgery, occurring in approximately 1 in 30 adults. It results in significant morbidity, interferes with daily living, and is associated with persistent analgesic consumption. Certain demographics, ethnicities, and perioperative practices are associated with increased risk of persistent pain.
EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE:
METHODS: Forty-three participants (23 asymptomatic and 20 with CNP) underwent neck proprioception testing, returning to a NHP and THP in both sitting and standing positions (six trials for each test). A laser pointer was secured on the participant's forehead and inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors were placed beneath the laser pointer and at the level of the spinous process of the seventh cervical vertebra. Both the absolute and the constant JPE were assessed.
FINDINGS: For the asymptomatic participants, good reliability (ICC: 0.79) was found only for right rotation of the THP task in sitting. In standing, good reliability (ICC: 0.77) was only found in flexion for the THP task. In standing, good reliability (ICC: 0.77) was only found for right rotation of the THP for the absolute JPE and left rotation (ICC: 0.85) for the constant error of the NHP task. In those with CNP, when tested in sitting, good reliability was found for flexion (ICC: 0.8) for the absolute JPE and good reliability (ICC range: 0.8-0.84) was found for flexion, extension, and right rotation for the constant JPE. In standing, good reliability (ICC range: 0.81-0.88) was found for flexion, and rotation for the absolute JPE. The constant JPE showed good reliability (ICC: 0.85) for right rotation and excellent reliability (ICC: 0.93) for flexion. Validity was weak to strong (r range: 0.26-0.83) and moderate to very strong (r range: 0.47-0.93) for absolute and constant error respectively, when tested in sitting. In standing, the validity was weak to very strong (0.38-0.96) for the absolute JPE and moderate to very strong (r range: 0.54-0.92) for the constant JPE.
CONCLUSION: The reliability of the measure of JPE when tested in sitting and standing in both groups showed good reliability, but not for all movements. The results of the current study also showed that the laser pointer correlated well with the Noraxon IMUs, but not for all movements. The results of the current study support the use of the JPE using a laser pointer in clinical and research settings.
AIM: This review aimed to study the short- (≤3 months) and long-term (>3 months) effectiveness and sustainable benefit of different burning mouth syndrome treatment strategies and the associated side effects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomised controlled trials of burning mouth syndrome treatment compared with placebo or other interventions with a minimum follow up of 2 months were searched from the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane database (published to July 2020).
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and analysed. Nine categories of burning mouth syndrome treatment were identified: Anticonvulsant and antidepressant agents, phytomedicine and alpha lipoic acid supplements, low-level laser therapy, saliva substitute, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and cognitive behaviour therapy. Cognitive behaviour therapy, topical capsaicin and clonazepam, and laser therapy demonstrated favourable outcome in both short- and long-term assessment. Phytomedicines reported a short-term benefit in pain score reduction. The pooled effect of alpha lipoic acid (ALA) pain score improvement was low, but its positive effects increased in long term assessment.
CONCLUSION: A more significant volume in terms of sample size, multi-centres, and multi-arm comparison of therapeutic agents with placebo and longitudinal follow-up studies is recommended to establish a standardised burning mouth syndrome treatment protocol. Further studies are required to assess the analgesic benefits of topical clonazepam and capsaicin, alternative medicines with neurodegenerative prevention capability and psychology support in treating burning mouth syndrome and reducing systemic adverse drug reactions.Registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO):Protocol ID - CRD42020160892.
METHODS: This study was case controlled and used convenience sampling. The sample recruited was homogeneous with respect to age, sex, height, and body mass. Participants were assessed for the presence of latent MTrP in the upper trapezius and placed into two groups: an experimental group that had latent MTrP in the upper trapezius and a control group that did not. Eighteen women (mean age 21.4 y, SD 1.89; mean height 156.9 cm, SD 4.03; and mean body mass 51.7 kg, SD 5.84) made up the experimental group, and 19 women (mean age 20.3 y, SD 1.86; mean height 158.6 cm, SD 3.14; and mean body mass 53.2 kg, SD 5.17) made up the control group. We obtained strength measurements of the non-dominant arm using a handheld dynamometer and compared them between the two groups.
RESULTS: The difference in the strength measurements between the two groups was not statistically significant (p=0.59).
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of latent MTrPs may not affect the strength of the upper trapezius.