16 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
This is a Phase 1 trial. The overall objective is to evaluate the safety and potential efficacy effect of specific type of umbilical cord blood product (CFL001), which, other than specific modifications in manufacturing to render it compatible with current Good Manufacuring Practice (cGMP), is essentially similar to that reported in real-world experience.
This prospective study will be quantitatively analyzing the effectiveness of platelet-rich-plasma (PRP) injections into the sacroiliac (SI) joint in relieving sacroiliitis and low back pain originating from the SI joint. The effectiveness of PRP injections on joint pain has been well studied in the knee and shoulder. PRP injections are performed on the SI joint commonly, but there is little research documenting their effectiveness when compared to other interventions. This study will be a small pilot study to aid in closing this knowledge gap. Additionally, these injections will be performed under ultrasound guidance. Ultrasound has been proven to be of equal reliability to fluoroscopy and has the advantage of shorter time to administer and no radiation. There will be one arm to this study. The data collected will be compared to existing studies on corticosteroid SI joint injection. The experimental arm consists of the PRP injection. The PRP will be injected into the joint using the exact same technique via physical exam, special tests, and ultrasound guidance as performed in our previous studies. The outcomes will be measured with the Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) prior to the injection, immediately post-injection, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-injection. The investigators hypothesis is, "Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections in the Sacroiliac Joint using ultrasonography in conjunction with physical examination and Point of Maximal Tenderness will produce statistically significant pain relief for more than 3 months as measured by the Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)."
This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, multi-center clinical study. Approximately 208 subjects will be enrolled at approximately 12-15 active duty military, veterans' care, and civilian sites. Eligible subjects will be randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive either Sacroiliac denervation using CRF (treatment group) or standard medical management ("SMM," control group).
Trial will enroll qualified subjects at a 2:1 ration to receive radiofrequency ablation or sham. At six weeks follow up they will be unblinded; sham subjects will then be given option to receive treatment. Subjects will be followed after procedure for data collection for economic outcomes and efficacy of treatment.
Specific Aims The sacroiliac joint complex (SIJC) is a diathrodial, synovial joint and posterior ligamentous network that receives both anterior innervation from the lumbosacral plexus as well as posterior sensory innervation via the posterior sacral network (PSN). The PSN is comprised by the lateral branches S1-S3 posterior rami, with variable contributions from S4 lateral branch, L4 medial branch, and L5 dorsal ramus. Pain signals originating from the SIJC can be interrupted with image-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the PSN, thereby reducing pain and disability in carefully selected patients. A prior systematic review estimated that 32-89% of patients achieve at least 50% pain relief for six months after some type of PSN ablation. Many experts suspect that heterogenous RFA techniques and technology are responsible for the variable success rates seen across published studies. Cadaveric work suggests that targeting the PSN with a large bipolar strip lesions would result in \>95% PSN neural capture compared to a smaller lesion produced by a conventional, monopolar, periforaminal RFA technique which may capture as low as 2.5% of the PSN. Nimbus is a commonly used multi-tined RFA probe whose large bipolar lesion size make it an ideal option for complete PSN neural ablation. Both the Nimbus (N-SIJRFA) and conventional (C-SIJRFA) techniques and technologies are commonly used; however, there are no prospective RCT's comparing them, and the clinical significance remains unknown. Problem: There are no randomized controlled trials comparing novel technologies like N-SIJRFA to C-SIJRFA. Purpose: To compare pain and disability outcomes in patients with confirmed SIJC pain after randomization to either N-SIJRFA or C-SIJRFA. Central Hypothesis: N-SIJRFA will be more effective in improving pain and function compared to patients treated with C-SIJRFA at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Specific Aims: 1. Compare the proportion of participants who report ≥50% relief of pain by Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) after N-SIJRFA versus C-SIJRFA. 2. Compare the proportion of participants who report ≥15-point ODI (Oswestry Disability Index) reduction after N-SIJRFA versus C-SIJRFA. 3. Compare the proportion of participants with clinically significant improvement in the categorical EuroQol 5 Dimensions tool (EQ-5D) defined by ≥0.03, after N-SIJRFA versus C-SIJRFA. 4. Compare the proportions of participants who report being "improved" or "much improved" on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale after N-SIJRFA versus C-SIJRFA. 5. Evaluate the differences in success rates for pain improvement, functional improvement and satisfaction in those experiencing ≥ 50%, ≥ 80%, and 100% pain relief after either prognostic PSN blocks or intra-articular (IA) sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injections. 6. Determine the effect of PSN ablation on reducing pain related sleep disturbance as measured by the Pain and Sleep Questionnaire (PSQ-3). 7. Compare procedural time requirements between those treated with N-SIJRFA versus C-SIJRFA. 8. Report adverse effects. 9. Report rates of subsequent interventional healthcare utilization including repeat N-SIJRFA versus C-SIJRFA, SIJ injection, and SIJ fusion.
The purpose of this study is to determine if platelet-rich plasma is superior to steroid/anesthetic for the treatment of sacroiliac joint pain.
1. Determine the rate and incidence of peri-operative \& post-operative adverse events (complications, infections, re-operations, re-admissions) in the endoscopic approach for the treatment of SIJ arthropathy and chronic lower back pain (CLBP). 2. Determine the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) using EQ-5D scale, VAS (Visual Analog Scale) \& ODI (Oswestry Disability Index), outcomes following the endoscopic approach for the treatment of SIJ arthropathy and chronic lower back pain (CLBP) (pre- to post-operative changes).
Back pain is a huge problem for millions of Americans, including nearly 11 million Veterans. Our older Veterans suffer the most. Citizens spend billions of dollars, yet consistently get poor results. Primary Care Providers are often tasked with diagnosing and treating Chronic Low Back Pain, even though they are often undereducated in the field. These PCPs often use advanced imaging, usually MRIs to guide care. These images often show degenerative disc disease and other common pathologies in older adults, even those who are pain free, which can lead to misdiagnosis and treatment. The investigators believe that Chronic Low Back Pain is a syndrome, a final common pathway for the expression of multiple contributors that often lie outside the spine itself. For example, hip osteoarthritis, knee pain, and even anxiety could all lessen back pain if addressed and treated probably. Investigators will measure participants' low back pain-associated disability with the well-validated RMDQ. Data will be collected at baseline and monthly via telephone. The investigators hypothesize that veterans who receive PCCET will experience significantly greater reduction in low back pain-associated disability than those who receive IAUC at six months. Investigators will also measure participants' low back pain with the 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale for Pain. Data will be collected at baseline and monthly via telephone. The investigators hypothesize that veterans who receive PCCET will experience significantly greater reduction in low back pain than those who receive IAUC at six months. The goal of this study is to compare patients treated with usual care, which usually starts with imaging, versus patients who are treated by trained geriatricians who know how to recognize and address 11 key conditions that commonly drive pain and disability in older adults. The investigators believe that older patients who receive care tailored to their needs by educated PCPs will ultimately have less back pain and, more importantly, better quality of life.
In this study, the investigators are attempting to determine whether intra- or extra-articular injections are more effective; the relative prevalence rate of intra-articular and extra-articular SI joint pain; and the accuracy of extra-articular injections using fluoroscopy as the reference standard. 124 consecutive patients with mechanical low back pain below L5, tenderness overlying the SI joint(s) and at least 3 positive provocative maneuvers will be randomized to receive SI joint injections by 2 different approaches. Group 1 will receive fluoroscopically-guided injections into the joint. Group 2 will receive landmark-guided injections into the tender area around the joint. In order to determine whether the injection in group 2 was intra-articular or extra-articular, an x-ray will be done after the injection to ascertain the location of contrast spread. The primary outcome measure will be pain relief at 1-month. Patients who obtain benefit at 1-month will be followed at 3-months, while those who fail to obtain benefit will exit the study to receive alternative care.
The purpose of this randomized clinical trial is to examine the usefulness of the addition of a pelvic compression belt to a lumbopelvic stabilization program for patients with sacroiliac joint pain by comparing lumbopelvic stabilization exercises with a pelvic compression belt to lumbopelvic stabilization exercises alone. Outcome measures including the Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (OSW), the percentage change of TrA and IO muscle thickness (i.e. muscle contraction from rest to contract) utilizing ultrasound imaging, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain, and a subjective rating of overall perceived improvement using the Global Rating of Change (GROC) scale will be collected. Hypothesis: The OSW scores and NPRS scores will be lower for those who receive the compression belt in addition to the lumbopelvic stabilization program as compared to those who receive the lumbopelvic stabilization alone. The percent change of muscle thickness for the deep abdominals as well as the GROC scores will be higher for those who receive the compression belt in addition to the lumbopelvic stabilization program as compared to those who receive the lumbopelvic stabilization alone.
In order to determine whether L4 and L5 primary dorsal rami and S1-3 lateral branch radiofrequency denervation is effective for sacroiliac (SI) joint pain, we are conducting a randomized, controlled study.
This was a randomized prospective clinical trial conducted from October 1, 2023, to May 15, 2024, at the University Surgery Center in Merced, CA. The project was approved by the MetroWest Medical Center Institutional Review Board (IRB). Patients in each procedure group were categorized into groups and randomly distributed into four sub-groups based on the syringe size used (5ml, 10ml, 20ml, 30ml). A medical grade force sensor device was used to collect the necessary real-time syringe force data. An analysis of variance (ANOVA), and pairwise t test were used to make comparisons between means and determine statistical significance.
Intradiscal delivery of bone marrow concentrate (BMC) into discs, facet, epidural space, and sacroiliac joints
Observational study of axial spine pain and hyperflexibility. Patients will receive physical exam maneuvers (traditional straight leg raise, FABER, facet loading as well as Beighton's hypermobility score) and blood / urine / saliva collection. They will also be separated into pain groups based on their response to injections. A correlation between exam findings and procedure group will be measured.
The purpose of this study is to compare both techniques and analyze the data from the "Standard" technique to help design the "PAS" technique. In the "PAS" technique, investigators predetermine the distances from the needles and place them all together using our initial target needle marker in the objective anatomic landmark. Will randomized patients assigning them either in cohort 1 control "Standard" of care technique and cohort 2 "PAS" technique. After only utilizing the "Standard" of care technique, will obtain the measurements and distances from the needles inserted in patients under fluoroscopic guidance for the different pain procedures. The data will help demonstrate that is possible to predict the needle placement replicating with confidence good outcomes using the "PAS" technique to reduce the radiation exposure and time. Our data will justify the use of the "PAS" technique to become an alternative to the "Standard" of care technique for a faster, efficient, and replicable needle placement for diminished radiation exposure, to avoid complications and consistent good outcomes
1. Specific Aim: To show the safety and efficacy of prolotherapy injection for chronic sacroiliac and myofascial lumbar pain while standardizing an ultrasound guided injection technique 2. Specific Aim: To demonstrate that dextrose prolotherapy subjectively decreases lumbar back pain (LBP) associated with chronic sacroiliac (SI) and myofascial lumbar back pain/injury in patients with Hypermobile-Type Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS). 3. Specific Aim: To use ultrasound (US) guidance to identify SI and myofascial lumbar back pain/injury for targeted dextrose prolotherapy treatment and to provide objective measures of decreasing inflammation via Power Doppler and ligament repair. 4. Specific Aim: To determine if US-guided dextrose prolotherapy decreases the direct costs of care for chronic LBP in contrast to conventional therapies by reducing return visits, specialty referrals, physical therapy, medications, and unnecessary procedures.