Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAllen Hooper, R
dc.contributor.authorYelland, M
dc.contributor.authorFonstad, P
dc.contributor.authorSouthern, D
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T14:19:41Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T14:19:41Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.date.modified2012-02-10T02:13:35Z
dc.identifier.issn1753-6146
dc.identifier.doi10.1179/1753615410Y.0000000007
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/41661
dc.description.abstractObjectives To compare outcomes for litigants and non-litigants with chronic spinal pain treated with dextrose prolotherapy. Methods One hundred and forty-seven consecutive patients with chronic spinal pain were classified as litigants if they had retained a lawyer for an unresolved claim at the start of treatment, or as non-litigants if they had previously settled claims or sustained non-compensable injuries. Patients were treated with a solution of 20% dextrose and 0.75% lidocaine. One-half milliliter of proliferant was injected into facet capsules of the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine. The iliolumbar and dorsal sacroiliac ligaments were also injected for a total of 10 cc in low back pain patients. The Neck Disability Index, Patient Specific Functional Scale, and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scales were administered before treatment and approximately 1 year after treatment. At the 1-year follow-up, patients were also asked to rate their change in symptoms, function, ability to work, willingness to repeat treatment, and need for ongoing medications or other treatment. Results Both litigants (71) and non-litigants (76) showed significant improvement from baseline on all disability scales (P < 0.001). There were no differences in the percentage of litigants/non-litigants reporting improvement on impression of change scales for symptoms (91/92%), function (90/90%), improved ability to work (76/75%), willingness to repeat treatment (91/93%), ability to decrease medication (82/81%), and decreased need for other treatment (80/84%). Discussion Litigants and non-litigants with chronic spinal pain treated with prolotherapy showed statistically and clinically significant improvements in measures of disability, and impression of change scales. Litigation need not be an exclusion factor for future spine prolotherapy studies.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.description.publicationstatusYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationN
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom15
dc.relation.ispartofpageto20
dc.relation.ispartofissue1
dc.relation.ispartofjournalInternational Musculoskeletal Medicine
dc.relation.ispartofvolume33
dc.rights.retentionY
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchSports science and exercise
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode3202
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4207
dc.titleProspective case series of litigants and non-litigants with chronic spinal pain treated with dextrose prolotherapy
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.date.issued2011
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorYelland, Michael


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record