Asymptomatic same-site recurrent disc herniation

Lebow RL, Adogwa O, Parker SL, Sharma A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ.Asymptomatic same-site recurrent disc herniation after lumbar discectomy: results of a prospective longitudinal study with 2-year serial imaging.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Dec 1;36(25):2147-51.

“Nearly one-fourth of patients undergoing lumbar discectomy demonstrated radiographic evidence of recurrent disc herniation at the level of prior surgery, the majority of which were asymptomatic. Asymptomatic disc herniation was not associated with clinical consequences by 2 years. Clinically silent recurrent disc herniation is common after lumbar discectomy. When obtaining MRI evaluation within the first 2 years of discectomy, providers should expect that radiographic evidence of reherniation may be encountered and that treatment should be considered only when correlating radicular symptoms exist.”

Ross Hauser, MD a chronic joint pain specialist and leading Prolotherapy doctor, recently commented on why there are so many unsuccessful low back pain surgeries – are MRIs the reason?

If low back surgeries are so unsuccessful, why do surgeons continue to perform them? The main reason is because they find abnormalities on MRI scans. Ironically most MRI findings have nothing to do with why the person has pain and this is the reason for most back surgery failures.

Sadly many surgeons proceed with low back surgery after misdiagnosing the cause of pain. Even worse, the uses of MRI’s seem to be increasing and are even being performed in surgeons’ offices. A study recently released by the Stanford University School of Medicine showed that MRI scan rates increase when a doctor buys or leases MRI equipment. The study also showed that patients were 34% more likely to receive back surgery when they had an MRI scan done by their doctor. In other words, seeing a doctor who has an in-office MRI scan increases your chances of getting a scan and getting surgery. Interestingly, the study author noted that MRIs and surgery are controversial because there are no proven benefits. She goes on to say that most people with low back pain do not need an MRI and even fewer need surgery. Therefore a patient should take caution when his doctor prescribes an MRI, especially if it is in the same office because your chances for receiving surgery may be increased. Unfortunately most doctors send patients straight to an imaging test without performing a physical examination or health history to determine the root cause of the problem. Since imaging tests tend to show abnormalities, even in patients with no pain at all, root causes of pain are misdiagnosed and wrong treatments are chosen. At Caring Medical, our Prolotherapy physician Dr. Ross Hauser performs a physical examination on each and every patient, even those who bring in MRI or X-ray results, to determine the exact cause of pain. He then chooses the best course of Prolotherapy treatment to heal the injury and rid the patient of pain. The average patient receives 3-6 treatments spaced four weeks apart. So if your doctor prescribes an MRI, take caution. A physical examination is essential in diagnosing pain.

Ross Hauser, MD , other Prolotherapy doctors, Prolotherapy information for patients

Hip Replacement Options

The New York Times recently reported increasing numbers of complaints of failed hip replacements. In the first half of 2011 more than 5,000 people contacted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding adverse effects of metal-on-metal hip replacements.

The Hackett-Hemwall technique of dextrose Prolotherapy used on patients who presented with over five years of unresolved hip pain were shown in this retrospective pilot study to improve their quality of life even 19 months subsequent from their last Prolotherapy session. The 61 patients with 94 hips treated reported significantly less pain, stiffness, crunching sensation, disability, depressed and anxious thoughts, medication and other pain therapy usage, as well as improved walking ability, range of motion, sleep, exercise ability, and activities of daily living. This included patients who were told there were no other treatment options for their pain or that surgery was their only option. The results confirm that Prolotherapy is a treatment that should be highly considered for people suffering with chronic hip pain. Future studies will be needed to confirm this pilot study and to document if Prolotherapy can keep chronic hip pain sufferers from needing hip surgeries including hip replacements.

Read A Retrospective Study on Hackett-Hemwall Dextrose Prolotherapy for Chronic Hip Pain at an Outpatient Charity Clinic in Rural Illinois

Case History follow up to Meniscal surgery

Case History follow up to Meniscal surgery
This post is a follow up to two recent posts

Repairing meniscal tears without reconstructing the ACL may affect meniscus healing rates or increase the risk of retears

How much Meniscus should be removed when the first surgery fails?

Meniscus Surgery for Knee Pain
Pat had meniscus surgery in October 2010.  As a flight attendant she took a desk job with the airline until she was functional after the surgery. Unfortunately her recovery took longer than expected. Shortly after the surgery she noticed crepitus, or grinding, in her knee. The crepitus eventually turned into knee pain and shin pain and she returned to her doctor for answers. To make a long story short she saw five orthopedic surgeons who all relied on X-rays and MRIs for answers.  Only one of these doctors performed a physical examination. This one particular doctor diagnosed Pat with pes anserinus tendinosis. In other words, she had a chronic injury to her pes anserinus tendon, the location where three tendons connect at the shin bone and thigh muscles.  She was offered cortisone injections and a total knee replacement, although her imaging reports did not indicate a total knee replacement was needed. She scheduled a total knee replacement but searched for other options in the meantime.

Prolotherapy for Pain After Meniscus Surgery
Thankfully she found Caring Medical and Prolotherapy. Upon physical examination Dr. Hauser discovered that not only was Pat suffering from pes anserinus tendinosis, she also had chondromalacia patella and a small meniscus tear. He treated Pat with 30 injections of dextrose Prolotherapy and instructed her to cycle 30 minutes a day and to start a supplement regimen to facilitate healing. One month later Pat returned with a good report. She told us she had a 50% improvement in her pain and was hopeful that Prolotherapy would bring about the complete healing she was searching for. Dr. Hauser treated her with 30 injections of dextrose Prolotherapy and gave her the same instructions as before. He estimated she would need one or two more treatments to reach 100% healing.

Pat is just one example of the success that Prolotherapy can bring to pain after surgery. What most people see as hopelessness, Caring Medical sees as opportunity for healing. If you or someone you know is struggling with pain after surgery, contact us at 708-848-7789 or drhauser@caringmedical.com. Our staff is more than willing to help you with any questions!

Please feel free to comment

PRP Study Commentary

Platelet Rich Plasma Prolotherapy
Ross Hauser, M.D.

Current research is proving what we know to be true: growth factor therapies are effective in healing musculoskeletal injuries. A recent article published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine showed favorable results for a specific growth factor therapy, platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections

This study involved two groups of patients with elbow tendinopathy, or tennis elbow. Each of these patients had gone through unsuccessful physical therapy treatment for tennis elbow. For the therapy used in the study, each group had blood drawn to use as a treatment. One group had the blood injected straight back into the injured joint (autologous blood injection). The second group’s blood was centrifuged to separate the platelet-rich part of the blood that contains growth factors (Platelet Rich Plasma injection). All participants received two injections into the injured elbow spaced one month apart.

The results showed that 72% of the autologous injection group had favorable results while 66% of the PRP group had favorable outcomes. Both groups had low percentages of people who ended up getting surgery, with the PRP group at just 10% (lower than the autologous blood injection group).

Br J Sports Med. 2011 Sep;45(12):966-71. Epub 2011 Mar 15.
Creaney L, Wallace A, Curtis M, Connell D. Growth factor-based therapies provide additional benefit beyond physical therapy in resistant elbow tendinopathy: a prospective, single-blind, randomised trial of autologous blood injections versus platelet-rich plasma injections. Br J Sports Med. 2011 Sep;45(12):966-71. Epub 2011 Mar 15.

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growth factor technologies are increasingly used to enhance healing in musculoskeletal injuries, particularly in sports medicine. Two such products; platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and autologous blood, have a growing body of supporting evidence. No previous trial has directly compared the efficacy of these two methods.

HYPOTHESIS: Growth factor administration improves tissue regeneration in patients who have failed to respond to conservative therapy.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, double-blind, randomised trial.

METHODS: Elbow tendinopathy patients who had failed conservative physical therapy were divided into two patient groups: PRP injection (N=80) and autologous blood injection (ABI) (N=70). Each patient received two injections at 0 and 1 month. Patient-related tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE) was recorded by a blinded investigator at 0, 1, 3 and 6 months. The main outcome measure was PRTEE, a validated composite outcome for pain, activities of daily living and physical function, utilising a 0-100 scale.

RESULTS: At 6 months the authors observed a 66% success rate in the PRP group versus 72% in the ABI group, p=NS. There was a higher rate of conversion to surgery in the ABI group (20%) versus the PRP group (10%).

CONCLUSION: In patients who are resistant to first-line physical therapy such as eccentric loading, ABI or PRP injections are useful second-line therapies to improve clinical outcomes. In this study, up to seven out of 10 additional patients in this difficult to treat cohort benefit from a surgery-sparing intervention.

Caudal epidural steroid injections do not work for lumbar radiculopathy

Comment by Ross Hauser, M.D, at
Caudal epidural steroid injections do not work for lumbar radiculopathy

Iversen T, Solberg TK, Romner B, Wilsgaard T, Twisk J, Anke A, Nygaard O, Hasvold T, Ingebrigtsen T. Effect of caudal epidural steroid or saline injection in chronic lumbar radiculopathy: multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial.
BMJ. 2011 Sep 13;343:d5278. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5278.
To assess the efficacy of caudal epidural steroid or saline injection in chronic lumbar radiculopathy in the short (6 weeks), intermediate (12 weeks), and long term (52 weeks).

DESIGN:
Multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING:
Outpatient multidisciplinary back clinics of five Norwegian hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS:
Between October 2005 and February 2009, 461 patients assessed for inclusion (presenting with lumbar radiculopathy >12 weeks). 328 patients excluded for cauda equina syndrome, severe paresis, severe pain, previous spinal injection or surgery, deformity, pregnancy, ongoing breast feeding, warfarin therapy, ongoing treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, body mass index >30, poorly controlled psychiatric conditions with possible secondary gain, and severe comorbidity.

INTERVENTIONS:
Subcutaneous sham injections of 2 mL 0.9% saline, caudal epidural injections of 30 mL 0.9% saline, and caudal epidural injections of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide in 29 mL 0.9% saline. Participants received two injections with a two week interval.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Primary: Oswestry disability index scores. Secondary: European quality of life measure, visual analogue scale scores for low back pain and for leg pain.

RESULTS:
Power calculations required the inclusion of 41 patients per group. We did not allocate 17 of 133 eligible patients because their symptoms improved before randomisation. All groups improved after the interventions, but we found no statistical or clinical differences between the groups over time. For the sham group (n = 40), estimated change in the Oswestry disability index from the adjusted baseline value was -4.7 (95% confidence intervals -0.6 to -8.8) at 6 weeks, -11.4 (-6.3 to -14.5) at 12 weeks, and -14.3 (-10.0 to -18.7) at 52 weeks. For the epidural saline intervention group (n = 39) compared with the sham group, differences in primary outcome were -0.5 (-6.3 to 5.4) at 6 weeks, 1.4 (-4.5 to 7.2) at 12 weeks, and -1.9 (-8.0 to 4.3) at 52 weeks; for the epidural steroid group (n=37), corresponding differences were -2.9 (-8.7 to 3.0), 4.0 (-1.9 to 9.9), and 1.9 (-4.2 to 8.0). Analysis adjusted for duration of leg pain, back pain, and sick leave did not change this trend.

CONCLUSIONS:
Caudal epidural steroid or saline injections are not recommended for chronic lumbar radiculopathy. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN No 12574253.