Posted by: Chris Maloney | March 29, 2012

The Best Pain Solutions of Dr. Oz: Bruising, Burning and Botox?

Deutsch: Patient nach Gua Sha Behandlung

Deutsch: Patient nach Gua Sha Behandlung (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’m always interested in better pain solutions.  So I was thrilled when Dr. Oz compiled the best for me.  But then I did a double-take.

Really?  These are the best pain solutions?  You may think the title is exaggeration, but here are the best practices according to Dr. Oz.

1. Best Solution for Back Pain: Gua Sha Gua Sha is a practice of bruising the skin using a fairly sharp object.  (See photo.)  It depletes all the substance P, and definitely brings blood to the area – as welts and bruising.  The practice has received attention as possible child abuse.  As of today, there are twelve medical citations, one positive one for short term neck pain and one for breast engorgement.  Nothing at all on back pain.  I’ve talked a bit about back pain, and there are other, less intensive options.

2. Best Solutions For Migraines: Botox

Believe it or not, this has research behind it.  After a year of trials, in one study the botox group had a significant reduction in pain.  But were they smiling?  I think not.  I found another study where Botox did not outperform placebo (see Maloney Medical.com under What Do I Treat and Migraines).  Again, there are less intensive ways to deal with migraines.  Often it is better to treat the cause of the migraines rather than freeze the muscle groups.

3. Neck and Shoulder Pain: HVLA (High velocity, low amplitude manipulation).

There are many, many studies on manipulation and mobilization relieving pain.

But…

In survey after survey, patients prefer mobilization of their necks over sudden manipulation.  We also see fewer side effects.  See back pain above for the relevant studies.

4. Pain From Head to Toe: Radiofrequency Ablation

For the layperson, this sounds a lot nicer than “burning your nerves.”  But this procedure does just that.  And suprisingly, there is relatively little research behind it.  While it should work in theory, it doesn’t seem to work at all on lower back pain.

Here, from my clinical practice are better solutions.

1.  For back pain:  massage.

2. For migraines:  Butterburr (see data on Petadolex)

3. For neck and shoulder pain: massage with emotional biofeedback.

4. For pain from head to toe:  changing everything in your life.  

Pain Med. 2011 Mar;12(3):362-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01053.x. Epub 2011 Jan 28.

Effectiveness of traditional Chinese “gua sha” therapy in patients with chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Braun M, Schwickert M, Nielsen A, Brunnhuber S, Dobos G, Musial F, Lüdtke R, Michalsen A.

Source

Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Department of Internal Medicine V, Essen, Germany.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Gua sha is a traditional East Asian healing technique where the body surface is press-stroked with a smooth-edged instrument to intentionally raise therapeutic petechiae. A traditional indication of Gua sha is neck pain; no data from controlled trials exist to support this claim. The researchers aimed to investigate the effectiveness of Gua sha in the symptomatic treatment of chronic neck pain.

DESIGN:

The study was designed as an open randomized controlled clinical trial.

SETTING:

The study was set in Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Academic Teaching Hospital of the University Duisburg-Essen, Germany.

SUBJECTS:

Forty-eight outpatients (58.5±8.0 years; 41 female) with chronic mechanical neck pain were the subjects of the study.

INTERVENTION:

Patients were randomized into Gua sha (N=24) or control groups (N=24) and followed up for 7 days. Gua sha patients were treated once with Gua sha, while control patients were treated with a local thermal heat pad.

OUTCOME MEASURES:

Primary outcome was change of neck pain severity after 1 week as assessed by visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes included pain at motion, the neck disability index (NDI) and quality-of-life (Short-Form [36] Health Survey).

RESULTS:

Neck pain severity after 1 week improved significantly better in the Gua sha group compared with the control group (group difference -29.9 mm, 95% confidence interval: -43.3; -16.6 mm; P<0.001). Significant treatment effects were also found for pain at motion, scores on the NDI, and dimensions of quality-of-life. The treatment was safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSION:

Gua sha has beneficial short-term effects on pain and functional status in patients with chronic neck pain. The value of Gua sha in the long-term management of neck pain and related mechanisms remains to be clarified.

Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

PMID: 21276190

J Nurs Res. 2010 Mar;18(1):1-10.

Effects of Gua-Sha therapy on breast engorgement: a randomized controlled trial.

Chiu JY, Gau ML, Kuo SY, Chang YH, Kuo SC, Tu HC.

Source

Ben-Tang Nursing Home, Ben-Tang Charity Foundation, Taiwan, ROC.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Breast engorgement is a common problem that affects the initiation and duration of breastfeeding. Limited solutions are available to relieve the discomfort associated with breast engorgement. Thus, further investigation of methods to achieve effective relief of symptoms is critical to promote breastfeeding success.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of two breast care methods, that is, scraping (Gua-Sha) therapy (administered to the experimental group) and traditional breast care (i.e., massage and heating; administered to the control group).

METHODS:

A randomized controlled trial was conducted on 54 postpartum women at a Level III medical teaching hospital. Participant inclusion criteria included postpartum breastfeeding women (a) who had an uncomplicated delivery and (b) who were experiencing breast engorgement problems. The Gua-Sha protocol selected appropriate acupoint positions, which included ST16, ST18, SP17, and CV17. Each position was lightly scraped seven times in two cycles. For the control group, we used hot packs and massage for 20 min in accordance with recommendations given in an obstetrical technique textbook.

RESULTS:

Results showed no statistical differences between the two groups at baseline. Body temperature, breast temperature, breast engorgement, pain levels, and discomforting levels were statistically different between the two groups at 5 and 30 min after intervention (p < .001). The results of generalized estimating equation analysis indicated that, with the exception of body temperature, all variables remained more significant (p < .0001) to improving engorgement symptoms in the experimental group than those in the control group, after taking related variables into account.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:

Our findings provided empirical evidence supporting that Gua-Sha therapy may be used as an effective technique in the management of breast engorgement. By using Gua-Sha therapy, nurses can handle breast engorgement problems more effectively in primary care and hence help patients both physically and psychologically.

PMID: 20220605

Spine J. 2004 May-Jun;4(3):335-56.

Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis.

Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans RL, Bouter LM.

Source

Department of Research, Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies, Northwestern Health Sciences University, 2501 W, 84th Street Bloomington, MN 55431, USA. gbronfort@nwhealth.edu

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT:

Despite the many published randomized clinical trials (RCTs), a substantial number of reviews and several national clinical guidelines, much controversy still remains regarding the evidence for or against efficacy of spinal manipulation for low back pain and neck pain.

PURPOSE:

To reassess the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and mobilization (MOB) for the management of low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP), with special attention to applying more stringent criteria for study admissibility into evidence and for isolating the effect of SMT and/or MOB.

STUDY DESIGN:

RCTs including 10 or more subjects per group receiving SMT or MOB and using patient-oriented primary outcome measures (eg, patient-rated pain, disability, global improvement and recovery time).

METHODS:

Articles in English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch reporting on randomized trials were identified by a comprehensive search of computerized and bibliographic literature databases up to the end of 2002. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed study quality according to eight explicit criteria. A best evidence synthesis incorporating explicit, detailed information about outcome measures and interventions was used to evaluate treatment efficacy. The strength of evidence was assessed by a classification system that incorporated study validity and statistical significance of study results. Sixty-nine RCTs met the study selection criteria and were reviewed and assigned validity scores varying from 6 to 81 on a scale of 0 to 100. Forty-three RCTs met the admissibility criteria for evidence.

RESULTS:

Acute LBP: There is moderate evidence that SMT provides more short-term pain relief than MOB and detuned diathermy, and limited evidence of faster recovery than a commonly used physical therapy treatment strategy. Chronic LBP: There is moderate evidence that SMT has an effect similar to an efficacious prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, SMT/MOB is effective in the short term when compared with placebo and general practitioner care, and in the long term compared to physical therapy. There is limited to moderate evidence that SMT is better than physical therapy and home back exercise in both the short and long term. There is limited evidence that SMT is superior to sham SMT in the short term and superior to chemonucleolysis for disc herniation in the short term. However, there is also limited evidence that MOB is inferior to back exercise after disc herniation surgery. Mix of acute and chronic LBP: SMT/MOB provides either similar or better pain outcomes in the short and long term when compared with placebo and with other treatments, such as McKenzie therapy, medical care, management by physical therapists, soft tissue treatment and back school. Acute NP: There are few studies, and the evidence is currently inconclusive. Chronic NP: There is moderate evidence that SMT/MOB is superior to general practitioner management for short-term pain reduction but that SMT offers at most similar pain relief to high-technology rehabilitative exercise in the short and long term. Mix of acute and chronic NP: The overall evidence is not clear. There is moderate evidence that MOB is superior to physical therapy and family physician care, and similar to SMT in both the short and long term. There is limited evidence that SMT, in both the short and long term, is inferior to physical therapy.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our data synthesis suggests that recommendations can be made with some confidence regarding the use of SMT and/or MOB as a viable option for the treatment of both low back pain and NP. There have been few high-quality trials distinguishing between acute and chronic patients, and most are limited to shorter-term follow-up. Future trials should examine well-defined subgroups of patients, further address the value of SMT and MOB for acute patients, establish optimal number of treatment visits and consider the cost-effectiveness of care.

PMID: 15125860

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1):CD004058.

Radiofrequency denervation for neck and back pain. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Niemisto L, Kalso E, Malmivaara A, Seitsalo S, Hurri H.

Source

Rehabilitation Unit of Orton Orthopaedic Hospital, Orton Orthopaedic Hospital, Invalid Foundation, Tenholantie 10, Helsinki, Finland, 00280. leena.niemisto@invalidisaatio.fi

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The diagnosis of cervical or lumbar zygapophyseal joint pain can only be made by using local anesthesia to block the nerves supplying the painful joint. There is a lack of effective treatment for chronic zygapophyseal joint pain or discogenic pain. Radiofrequency denervation appears to be an emerging technology, with substantial variation in its use between countries.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain disorders.

SEARCH STRATEGY:

We searched MEDLINE, PsycLIT, and EMBASE from start to February 2002, plus the Cochrane Library 2002, Issue 2. The references of identified articles were checked and three experts in the field of radiofrequency treatment were consulted to identify studies we might have missed.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of radiofrequency denervation for musculoskeletal pain disorders, with no language or date restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two reviewers selected RCTs that met predefined inclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the main results and methodological quality of the selected trials, using standardized forms. Qualitative analysis was conducted to evaluate the level of scientific evidence.

MAIN RESULTS:

We found only nine articles, reporting on seven relevant RCTs. Six of the seven were considered to be high-quality. The selected trials included 275 randomized patients, 141 of whom received active treatment. One study examined cervical zygapophyseal joint pain, two cervicobrachial pain, three lumbar zygapophyseal joint pain, and one discogenic low-back pain. The study sample sizes were small, follow-up times short, and there were some deficiencies in patient selection, outcome assessments, and statistical analyses. The level of scientific evidence for the short-term effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation was limited for cervical zygapophyseal joint and cervicobrachial pain, and conflicting for lumbar zygapophyseal joint pain. There was limited evidence suggesting that intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation was not effective for discogenic low-back pain.

REVIEWER’S CONCLUSIONS:

The selected trials provide limited evidence that radiofrequency denervation offers short-term relief for chronic neck pain of zygapophyseal joint origin and for chronic cervicobrachial pain; conflicting evidence on the short-term effect of radiofrequency lesioning on pain and disability in chronic low-back pain of zygapophyseal joint origin; and limited evidence that intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation is not effective for chronic discogenic low-back pain. There is a need for further high-quality RCTs with larger patient samples and data on long-term effects, for which current evidence is inconclusive. Furthermore, RCTs are needed in non-spinal indications where radiofrequency denervation is currently used without any scientific evidence.

PMID: 12535508

Headache. 2011 Oct;51(9):1358-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2011.01990.x. Epub 2011 Aug 29.

OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: pooled analyses of the 56-Week PREEMPT clinical program.

Aurora SK, Winner P, Freeman MC, Spierings EL, Heiring JO, DeGryse RE, VanDenburgh AM, Nolan ME, Turkel CC.

Source

Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. sheena.aurora@swedish.org

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate safety and efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX(®) ) as headache prophylaxis in adults with chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND:

Chronic migraine is a prevalent, disabling, and undertreated neurological disorder. OnabotulinumtoxinA is the only approved prophylactic therapy in this highly disabled patient population.

DESIGN AND METHODS:

Two phase III, 24-week, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled studies, followed by a 32-week, open-label, single-treatment, onabotulinumtoxinA phase, were conducted (January 23, 2006 to August 11, 2008). Qualified subjects were randomized (1:1) to injections of onabotulinumtoxinA (155-195 U) or placebo every 12 weeks for 5 cycles (double-blind: 2, open-label: 3). The pooled primary variable was mean change from baseline in frequency of headache days. Secondary variables included proportion of patients with severe Headache Impact Test-6 score (≥ 60) and mean changes from baseline in frequencies of migraine days, moderate/severe headache days, and migraine episodes; cumulative hours of headache on headache days; and acute headache medication intakes. The primary time point was week 24. Assessments for the open-label phase (all patients treated with onabotulinumtoxinA) compared double-blind treatment groups (onabotulinumtoxinA/onabotulinumtoxinA vs placebo/onabotulinumtoxinA) and are summarized to give a descriptive view of consistent study results, with inferences regarding statistical significance only examined for week 56.

RESULTS:

A total of 1384 patients were randomized to onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 688) or placebo (n = 696) in the double-blind phase; 607 (88.2%) onabotulinumtoxinA/onabotulinumtoxinA and 629 (90.4%) placebo/onabotulinumtoxinA patients continued into the open-label phase. OnabotulinumtoxinA/onabotulinumtoxinA treatment statistically significantly reduced headache-day frequency vs placebo/onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with chronic migraine at week 56 (-11.7 onabotulinumtoxinA/onabotulinumtoxinA, -10.8 placebo/onabotulinumtoxinA; P = .019). Statistically significant reductions also favored onabotulinumtoxinA/onabotulinumtoxinA for several secondary efficacy variables at week 56, including frequencies of migraine days (-11.2 onabotulinumtoxinA/onabotulinumtoxinA, -10.3 placebo/onabotulinumtoxinA; P = .018) and moderate/severe headache days (-10.7 onabotulinumtoxinA/onabotulinumtoxinA, -9.9 placebo/onabotulinumtoxinA; P = .027) and cumulative headache hours on headache days (-169.1 onabotulinumtoxinA/onabotulinumtoxinA, -145.7 placebo/onabotulinumtoxinA; P = .018). After the open-label phase (all treated with onabotulinumtoxinA), statistically significant within-group changes from baseline were observed for all efficacy variables. Most patients (72.6%) completed the open-label phase; few discontinued because of adverse events. No new safety or tolerability issues emerged.

CONCLUSIONS:

Repeated treatment with ≤ 5 cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA was effective, safe, and well tolerated in adults with chronic migraine.

© 2011 American Headache Society.

PMID: 21883197

Advertisements

Responses

  1. […] The Best Pain Solutions of Dr. Oz: Bruising, Burning and Botox … […]

  2. […] The Best Pain Solutions of Dr. Oz: Bruising, Burning and Botox? (alternativendhealth.wordpress.com) […]


Tell me what you think!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: