4.2 Article

Neuropathic Pin Components in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Journal

YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 56, Issue 4, Pages 1044-1050

Publisher

YONSEI UNIV COLL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2015.56.4.1044

Keywords

Neuropathic pain; spinal stenosis; visual analog scale; Oswestry Disability Index; Leads Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs

Funding

  1. Korea University [K1132311]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine the prevalence and characteristics of neuropathic pain (NP) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) according to subgroup analysis of symptoms. Materials and Methods: We prospectively enrolled subjects with LSS (n=86) who were scheduled to undergo spinal surgery. The patients were divided into two groups according to a chief complaint of radicular pain or neurogenic claudication. We measured patient's pain score using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Leads Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS). According to LANSS value, the prevalence of NP component pain in patients with LSS was assessed. Statistical analysis was performed to find the relationship between LANSS scores and the other scores. Results: From our sample of 86 patients, 31(36.0%) had a NP component, with 24 (63.4%) in the radicular pain group having NP. However, only seven patients (15.6%) in the neurogenic claudication group had NP. The LANSS pain score was not significantly correlated with VAS scores for back pain, but did correlate with VAS scores for leg pain (R=0.73,p<0.001) and with ODI back pain scores (R=0.54, p<0.01). Conclusion: One-third of the patients with LSS had a NP component. The presence of radicular pain correlated strongly with NP. The severity of leg pain and ODI score were also closely related to a NP component. This data may prove useful to understanding the pain characteristics of LSS and in better designing clinical trials for NP treatment in patients with LSS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available