The Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Infiltrations Combined with Early Rehabilitation in the Management of Low Back Pain: A Retrospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Low back pain is a prevalent condition affecting 60–85% of individuals during their lifetime. Despite various proposed mechanisms, the etiology of low back pain remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of combining ultrasound-guided infiltrations with early rehabilitation in reducing pain and improving functional limitations in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted, reviewing data from January to April 2024 involving 40 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Each patient received two cycles of ultrasound-guided lidocaine and corticosteroid infiltrations at the level of the posterior lower iliac spine, followed by 10 rehabilitation sessions. Patients were assessed at baseline (T0), after the first treatment cycle (T1), and after the second cycle (T2) using the Oswestry Disability Index, Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, Roland Disability Questionnaire, and Numeric Rating Scale. Results: Significant improvements were observed across all assessment scales. The ODI scores decreased from 33.5 at baseline to 3.5 after treatment (p < 0.001). Similar reductions were noted in the QBPDS (from 61.5 to 10.3), RDQ (from 18 to 3.4), and NRS (from 7.4 to 1.3). The combination of ultrasound-guided infiltrations and early rehabilitation resulted in a significant reduction in pain and disability, with the most notable improvements occurring after the second treatment cycle. Conclusions: The integration of ultrasound-guided infiltrations with early rehabilitation is highly effective in managing chronic nonspecific low back pain, significantly reducing both pain and functional limitations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".