Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a chronic pain syndrome in the lower back region, lasting for at least 3 months. CLBP represents the second leading cause of disability worldwide being a major welfare and economic problem. The prevalence of CLBP in adults has increased more than 100% in the last decade and continues to increase dramatically in the aging population, affecting both men and women in all ethnic groups, with a significant impact on functional capacity and occupational activities. It can also be influenced by psychological factors, such as stress, depression and/or anxiety. Given this complexity, the diagnostic evaluation of patients with CLBP can be very challenging and requires complex clinical decision-making. Answering the question “what is the pain generator” among the several structures potentially involved in CLBP is a key factor in the management of these patients, since a mis-diagnosis can generate therapeutical mistakes. Traditionally, the notion that the etiology of 80% to 90% of LBP cases is unknown has been mistaken perpetuated across decades. In most cases, low back pain can be attributed to specific pain generator, with its own characteristics and with different therapeutical opportunity. Here we discuss about radicular pain, facet Joint pain, sacro-iliac pain, pain related to lumbar stenosis, discogenic pain. Our article aims to offer to the clinicians a simple guidance to identify pain generators in a safer and faster way, relying a correct diagnosis and further therapeutical approach.

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a chronic pain syndrome in the lower back region, lasting for at least 3 months. CLBP represents the second leading cause of disability worldwide being a major welfare and economic problem. The prevalence of CLBP in adults has increased more than 100% in the last decade and continues to increase dramatically in the aging population, affecting both men and women in all ethnic groups, with a significant impact on functional capacity and occupational activities. It can also be influenced by psychological factors, such as stress, depression and/or anxiety. Given this complexity, the diagnostic evaluation of patients with CLBP can be very challenging and requires complex clinical decision-making. Answering the question “what is the pain generator” among the several structures potentially involved in CLBP is a key factor in the management of these patients, since a mis-diagnosis can generate therapeutical mistakes. Traditionally, the notion that the etiology of 80% to 90% of LBP cases is unknown has been mistaken perpetuated across decades. In most cases, low back pain can be attributed to specific pain generator, with its own characteristics and with different therapeutical opportunity. Here we discuss about radicular pain, facet Joint pain, sacro-iliac pain, pain related to lumbar stenosis, discogenic pain. Our article aims to offer to the clinicians a simple guidance to identify pain generators in a safer and faster way, relying a correct diagnosis and further therapeutical approach.

Objective. To compare two radiofrequency (RF) devices, Simplicity III (conventional RF), and SInergy (cooled RF), which are specifically designed to denervate the sacroiliac joint (SIJ). Design. Retrospective observational study. Setting. Italian National Health Service Public Hospital. Subjects. Forty-three patients with SIJ-derived pain refractory to conservative treatment; 21 and 22 patients, respectively, received Simplicity III or SInergy to denervate the SIJ. Methods. Mean numerical rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were determined for each study group up to 12 months postprocedure. Secondary outcomes included the average amount of time required to complete each RF procedure and the adverse events associated with each technique. Results. Average SInergy group NRS and ODI scores were consistently less than those in the Simplicity III cohort at each post-RF denervation follow-up, and such differences were statistically significant at six and 12 months. The Simplicity III procedure was completed approximately 2.5 times faster than the SInergy procedure, and one minor adverse event was reported in the SInergy group. Conclusions. The study results suggest that SInergy safely afforded patients with greater and more durable analgesia and disability relief than Simplicity III for SIJ-derived pain. The Simplicity III procedure may be more conducive than SInergy for bilateral procedures and for patients who have limited tolerance to be in an RF procedure–required prone position. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the implication made in this study that SInergy is the preferred RF denervation option for treating SIJ-derived pain and the disability associated with it.

Low back pain (LBP) is the symptom of a group of syndromes with heterogeneous underlying mechanisms and molecular pathologies, making treatment selection and patient prognosis very challenging. Moreover, symptoms and prognosis of LBP are influenced by age, gender, occupation, habits, and psychological factors. LBP may be characterized by an underlying inflammatory process. Previous studies indicated a connection between inflammatory response and total plasma N-glycosylation. We wanted to identify potential changes in total plasma N-glycosylation pattern connected with chronic low back pain (CLBP), which could give an insight into the pathogenic mechanisms of the disease. Plasma samples of 1128 CLBP patients and 760 healthy controls were collected in clinical centers in Italy, Belgium and Croatia and used for N-glycosylation profiling by hydrophilic interaction ultra-performance liquid chromatography (HILIC-UPLC) after N-glycans release, fluorescent labeling and clean-up. Observed N-glycosylation profiles have been compared with a cohort of 126 patients with acute inflammation that underwent abdominal surgery. We have found a statistically significant increase in the relative amount of high-branched (tri-antennary and tetra-antennary) N-glycan structures on CLBP patients' plasma glycoproteins compared to healthy controls. Furthermore, relative amounts of disialylated and trisialylated glycan structures were increased, while high-mannose and glycans containing bisecting N-acetylglucosamine decreased in CLBP. Observed changes in CLBP on the plasma N-glycome level are consistent with N-glycosylation changes usually seen in chronic inflammation. To our knowledge, this is a first large clinical study on CLBP patients and plasma N-glycome providing a new glycomics perspective on potential disease pathology.

In patients where conservative approaches have failed to relieve from chronic pain, interventional procedures may be an option in well selected patients. In recent years there has been an increase in the use and development of invasive procedures. Concomitantly, there has also been an increase in the complications associated with these procedures. Taken this into consideration, it is important for healthcare providers to take a cautious and vigilant approach, with a focus on patient safety, in order to minimize the risk of adverse events and ensure the best possible outcome for the patient. This may include careful selection of patients for procedures, use of proper techniques and equipment, and close monitoring and follow-up after the procedure. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the primary complications associated with commonly performed image-guided (fluoroscopy or ultrasound-guided) interventional procedures and provide strategies to reduce the risk of these complications. We conclude that although complications from interventional pain procedures can be mitigated to a certain degree, they cannot be eliminated altogether. In order to avoid adverse events, patient safety should be given considerable attention and physicians should be constantly aware of the possibility of developing complications.

ERAS approach (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) is a multimodal, perioperative pathway designed to achieve early recovery after surgery. ERAS has shown documented efficacy in elective surgery, and the concept of “multimodal” and “multidisciplinary” approach seems still to be of higher importance than each single item within ERAS protocols. New perspectives include the use of ERAS in emergency surgery, where efficacy and safety on outcome have been documented, and flexibility of traditional items may add benefits for traditionally high-risk patients. Obstetric surgery, as well, may open wide horizons for future research, since extremely poor data are currently available, and ERAS benefits may translate even on the baby. Finally, the concept of “outcome” may be extended when considering the specific setting of cancer surgery, in which variables like cancer recurrence, early access to adjuvant therapies, and, finally, long-term survival are as important as the reduced perioperative complications. In this perspective, different items within ERAS protocols should be reinterpreted and eventually integrated towards “protective” techniques, to develop cancer-specific ERAS approaches keeping pace with the specific aims of oncologic surgery.