PneuVation

The topic of low back pain cannot be addressed without discussing the tremendous amount of money spent, productivity lost, and pain people are experiencing. The scope of the back pain problem exceeds $100 billion annually and annual incidence is approximately 15-20% of the United States population.1,2,3 At any given time, about 1% of the U.S. population is chronically disabled due to back problems and another 1% is temporarily disabled.4

Recurrence of low back pain is very high, affecting 40% of patients within six months.5,6,7,8 Low back pain cases represent only 16% of all claims but 33% of all claims costs.9. The mean cost for low back pain exceeds $8,321 per case.10

Medical costs for low back pain represented 32% of the total costs and 66% of indemnity costs (i.e., payment for lost time). Since indemnity costs represent the greatest percentage of workers’ compensation expenditure, the primary goal of low back pain management is reduction of prolonged disability and prevention of recurrence.11

In the United States, 75% or more of the total costs of low back pain can be attributed to the 5% of people who become temporarily or permanently disabled from low back pain.12 In excess of 85% of low back pain is not diagnosable and, as such, untreatable by surgical means. However, spinal unloading or decompression of the spine does give relief according to recent clinical studies.13

With the lack of understanding as to the patient’s true pain generator in most cases, it is difficult to recommend a specific and highly effective treatment for each patient. The traditional approach to management of chronic back pain has generally been passive modalities (medications, massage, ice/heat, etc.), physical therapy, and surgery for those with specific, potentially correctable anatomic and mechanical abnormalities. Most of the modalities have been disappointing since it is difficult to match up the right patient with the right set of treatments. None of the current treatment devices are general enough to treat the wide variety of diagnoses and non-specific pain generators present in the average clinician’s patient population.

Safe and controlled spinal unloading or distraction, performed on a daily basis has proven to be a very effective means of treating patients with herniated discs who are not immediate surgical candidates. Unloading or distraction can serve as effective therapy but it is also an important means of maintaining good spine health and preventing future disability in those identified (at an early age) as having genomic problems.14

Disc disease, the most common cause of back pain, which costs the American health care system more than $50 billion annually, can be cost-effectively treated using spinal unloading or decompression.15 With the recent advances in biotechnology, spinal unloading or decompression has evolved into a cost-effective nonsurgical treatment for herniated and degenerated spinal disc disease.16

Decompression, that is, unloading due to distraction and positioning of the intervertebral discs and facet joints of the lumbar spine, has been proven an effective treatment for herniated and degenerative disc disease, by producing and sustaining negative intradiscal pressure in the disc space. In agreement with Nachemon’s findings and Yong-Hing and Kirkaldy-Willis, spinal unloading or decompression treatment for low back pain intervenes in the natural history of spinal degeneration.17,18,19

The degenerative disc may benefit by lowering intradiscal pressure, affecting the nutritional state of the nucleus pulposus.20 This clinical outcomes study, which was performed to evaluate the effect of spinal unloading or decompression on symptoms of patients with herniated and degenerative disc disease, showed that 86% of the 219 patients who completed therapy reported immediate resolution of symptoms and 84% of those remained pain-free 90 days post-treatment. Physical examination findings revealed improvement in 92% of the 219 patients who completed the therapy.21

Trekke Lumbar Lift is a revolutionary ambulatory spinal unloading device that can relieve low back pain and reduce recovery time, thereby reducing the costs associated with low back pain including lost days of work.

1. Kelsey JL, White AA III. Epidemiology and impact on low back pain. Spine. 1980;5(2):133-142.
2. SnookSH. The costs of back pain in industry. Occup Med. 1988;3:1
3. Back Pain Fact Sheet, 2007 www.aaos.org
4. Kelsey JL, White AA III. Epidemiology and impact on low back pain. Spine. 1980;5(2):133-142
5. Deyo RA, Weinstein JN. Low back pain. N Eng J Med 2001;344:363-370
6. MacDonald MJ, Sorock GS, Volinn E, Hashemi L, Clancy EA, Webster, B. A descriptive study of recurrent low back pain claims. Occup Environ Med 1997;39:35-43
7. Nachemson AL. Newest knowledge of low back pain: A critical look. Clin Orthop 1992;279:8-20
8. Rossignol M, Suissa S, Abenhaim L. The evolution of compensated occupational spinal injuries: A three year follow-up study. Spine 1992;17:1043-1047
9. Webster BS, Snook SH: The cost of 1989 workers’ compensation low back pain claims. PMID: 8059265 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
10. Webster BS, Snook SH: The cost of 1989 workers’ compensation low back pain claims. PMID: 8059265 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
11. Webster BS, Snook SH: The cost of 1989 workers’ compensation low back pain claims. PMID: 8059265 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
12. Frymoyer JW, Cats-Baril WL. An overview of the incidences and costs of low back pain. Orthop Clin
13. Shealy & Borgmeyer, A Cost Effective Treatment for Lumbosacral Pain, 1997.
14. Back Talk, Institute for Low Back and Neck Care
15. T. A. Gionis, MD, JD, MBA, MHA, FICS, FRCS and Eric Groteke, DC, CCIC: Spinal Decompression; The outcome of a clinical study evaluating the effect of nonsurgical intervention on symptoms of spine patients with herniated and degenerative disc disease, www.orthopedictechreview.com/issues/novdec03/pg36.htm
16. T. A. Gionis, MD, JD, MBA, MHA, FICS, FRCS and Eric Groteke, DC, CCIC: Spinal Decompression; The outcome of a clinical study evaluating the effect of nonsurgical intervention on symptoms of spine patients with herniated and degenerative disc disease, www.orthopedictechreview.com/issues/novdec03/pg36.htm
17. T. A. Gionis, MD, JD, MBA, MHA, FICS, FRCS and Eric Groteke, DC, CCIC: Spinal Decompression; The outcome of a clinical study evaluating the effect of nonsurgical intervention on symptoms of spine patients with herniated and degenerative disc disease, www.orthopedictechreview.com/issues/novdec03/pg36.htm
18. Nachemson AL, The Lumbar Spine, An Orthopaedic Challenge. Spine. 1976;1(1):59-69.
19. Yong-Hing K, Kirkaldy-Willis WH, The Pathophysiology of Degenerative Disease of the Lumbar Spine. Orthopaedic Clinic of North America. 1983;14:501-503.
20. American Chiropractic Association, and SpineMemphis
21. T. A. Gionis, MD, JD, MBA, MHA, FICS, FRCS and Eric Groteke, DC, CCIC: Spinal Decompression; The outcome of a clinical study evaluating the effect of nonsurgical intervention on symptoms of spine patients with herniated and degenerative disc disease, www.orthopedictechreview.com/issues/novdec03/pg36.htm