Early Adjunct Treatment with Topical LidocaineResults in Improved Pain and Function in aPatient with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a pain disorder characterized by sensory, motor, trophic and autonomic dysfunction. The hallmark of the disorder is pain out of proportion of the inciting event. CRPS is difficult for clinicians to manage as there is no gold standard for diagnosis or treatment. Patients with CRPS are at risk of developing contractures, tissue atrophy, joint dislocation and severe chronic pain. While CRPS is thought to be due to peripheral and central nervous system dysfunction, there is limited understanding of the pathophysiology of CRPS. The proposed mechanisms are multifactorial and consequently, so are the proposed treatments. These treatments can be invasive, such as intrathecal drug delivery or sympathectomy, which have poor evidence for efficacy. Thus, highlighting the need for a safe, effective, and early intervention. We present a case of topical 5% lidocaine ointment as a non-invasive, inexpensive and effective adjunct treatment in the management of pain in a spinal cord injured patient presenting with early CRPS. The clinically important effect of topical lidocaine for reducing severe allodynia allowed the patient to participate in rehabilitation strategies to further manage the debilitating consequences of her CRPS, including decreased range of motion (ROM) and function. The immediate pain relief from topical lidocaine allowed the patient to tolerate physical therapy sessions directed at her CRPS. A successful outcome was measured subjectively and objectively by our patient's reduction in symptoms and improvement in ROM and function, respectively. This case study provides preliminary support for improved pain and functional outcome with early adjunct treatment of CRPS with topical lidocaine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".