Active clinical trials for "Low Back Pain"

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of RN624 compared with placebo and compared with naproxen in the treatment of adult patients with chronic low back pain.

Patients with acute or chronic Lower Back Pain (LBP) participated in a Phase IV clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of Lidoderm administered once daily (q24h) for 2 weeks in the treatment of acute and chronic LBP.

Patients with a diagnosis of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), diabetic neuropathy (DN), or low back pain (LBP) who were currently receiving an analgesic regimen that contained gabapentin participated in a Phase IV clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of Lidoderm® administered once daily (q24h) after 14 day in the treatment of PHN, DN, or LBP in patients who had a partial response to a regimen containing gabapentin.

The primary purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two management strategies for patients with a recent onset of low back pain (LBP). One is based on usual care and the other is based on early access to physical therapy following a pragmatic treatment-based classification approach. The secondary purposes are to compare the subsequent healthcare utilization associated with two management strategies as well as to evaluate the importance of psychosocial factors on outcomes within both groups of treatment. The overall hypothesis guiding the study is that the additional initial treatment expense incurred by early implementation will result in superior short-term clinical effectiveness, and will be more cost-effective in the long-term due to reduced healthcare utilization. We will also explore the importance of psychosocial factors on outcomes within both treatment groups, which may provide insights for further improving treatment strategies.

Our clinical trial has the purpose to evaluate the effectiveness in reducing pain and improving function and quality of life during a 6-months follow-up of a therapeutic exercise program compared to pharmacological treatment with NSAIDs in patients with subacute low back pain attending the physiatrist consultation of several ambulatory health centers in Medellín during the years 2009-2010.

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial is to examine the usefulness of the addition of a pelvic compression belt to a lumbopelvic stabilization program for patients with sacroiliac joint pain by comparing lumbopelvic stabilization exercises with a pelvic compression belt to lumbopelvic stabilization exercises alone. Outcome measures including the Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (OSW), the percentage change of TrA and IO muscle thickness (i.e. muscle contraction from rest to contract) utilizing ultrasound imaging, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain, and a subjective rating of overall perceived improvement using the Global Rating of Change (GROC) scale will be collected. Hypothesis: The OSW scores and NPRS scores will be lower for those who receive the compression belt in addition to the lumbopelvic stabilization program as compared to those who receive the lumbopelvic stabilization alone. The percent change of muscle thickness for the deep abdominals as well as the GROC scores will be higher for those who receive the compression belt in addition to the lumbopelvic stabilization program as compared to those who receive the lumbopelvic stabilization alone.

The safety and performance of the Elaspine™ Implant System in the treatment of lower back pain will be evaluated with a prospective and nonrandomized, multicenter post-marketing clinical study (PMCS). The study will be enrolled within Germany and Switzerland in 3-5 clinical centres, including in average 10 patients per centre. The study is conducted in accordance with the Standard ISO 14155, where applicable on clinical investigation of medical devices for human subjects and other legal requirements.

Subjects (N=120) who have had non-radicular low back pain, believed by clinical assessment and imaging to be consistent with lumbar zygapophysial joint (Z-joint) generated pain, who have failed conservative therapy including physical therapy, have had an initial >80% pain relief on a diagnostic medial branch block, and are scheduled to undergo a routine second medial branch block for facet mediated pain will be randomized. Both groups will receive the standard of care, a medial branch block. The treatment group will also receive one set of intra-articular lumbar Z-joint corticosteroid injection and the placebo group will receive intra-articular normal saline.

Background: Models have tried to explain the driving mechanisms behind chronic non specific low back pain (CNSLBP) in order to propose better appropriate conservative treatment. Altered responses at spinal and/or supraspinal level may affect the perception of pain and degree of disability of CNSLBP patients. Recent clinical recommendations still propose active exercises (AE) for CNSLBP. However, acceptance of exercises by patients may be limited by pain-related manifestations. Current evidences suggest manual therapy (MT) induces a short-term analgesic effect through neurophysiological mechanisms at peripheral, spinal and cortical levels. The aim of this study was first, to assess whether MT has an instant analgesic effect, and second, to compare the long-lasting effect on functional disability of MT followed by AE to sham therapy (ST) followed by AE. Methods: Forty-two CNSLBP patients without co-morbidities, randomly distributed into 2 treatment groups, received either spinal manipulation/mobilization (first intervention) plus AE (MT group; n = 22), or detuned ultrasound (first intervention) plus AE (ST group; n = 20). Eight therapeutic sessions were delivered over 4 to 8 weeks. Instant analgesic effect was obtained by measuring pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale) before and immediately after the first intervention of each therapeutic session. Pain intensity, disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and fear-avoidance beliefs (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire) were determined before treatment, after the 8th therapeutic session, and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups.

The purpose of this study is to compare patients with low back pain (LBP) and Modic Changes from The Backcenter Funen, Ringe: To compare the effect of two types of non-operative treatments: A. exercise and advice to be physically active B. restitution and advice not to overload the spine To investigate if the results of the treatment are influenced by gender, age, smoking, and physical load.