Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHooper, R Allenen_US
dc.contributor.authorYelland, Michaelen_US
dc.contributor.authorFonstad, Paten_US
dc.contributor.authorSouthern, Danielleen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-24T11:35:45Z
dc.date.available2017-04-24T11:35:45Z
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.date.modified2012-02-10T02:13:35Z
dc.identifier.issn1753-6146en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1179/1753615410Y.0000000007en_US
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.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherTaylor & Francisen_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom15en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto20en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue1en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalInternational Musculoskeletal Medicineen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume33en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchMedical and Health Sciences not elsewhere classifieden_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode119999en_US
dc.titleProspective case series of litigants and non-litigants with chronic spinal pain treated with dextrose prolotherapyen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.date.issued2011
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


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