STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare pregabalin and gabapentin for mean postoperative visual analog score (VAS) for pain in patients undergoing single-level lumbar microdiscectomy for intervertebral disc prolapse at a tertiary care hospital. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Pregabalin has a superior pharmacokinetic profile and analgesic effect at lower doses than gabapentin; however, analgesic efficacy must be established during the perioperative period after lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was carried out at our institute from February to October 2011 on 78 patients, with 39 participants in each study group. Patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy were randomized to group A (gabapentin) or group B (pregabalin) and started on trial medicines one week before surgery. The VAS for pain was recorded at 24 hours and one week postoperatively. RESULTS: Both groups had similar baseline variables, with mean ages of 42 and 39 years in groups A and B, respectively, and a majority of male patients in each group. The mean VAS values for pain at 24 hours for gabapentin vs. pregabalin were comparable (1.97±0.84 vs. 1.6±0.87, respectively; p=0.087) as were the results at one week after surgery (0.27±0.45 vs. 0.3±0.46, respectively; p=0.79). None of the patients required additional analgesia postoperatively. After adjusting for age and sex, the VAS value for group B patients was 0.028 points lower than for group A patients, but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.817, R²=0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Pregabalin is equivalent to gabapentin for the relief of postoperative pain at a lower dose in patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy. Therefore, other factors, such as dose, frequency, cost, pharmacokinetics, and side effects of these medicines, should be taken into account whenever it is prescribed.
Analgesia ; Humans ; Intervertebral Disc ; Intervertebral Disc Displacement ; Lumbar Vertebrae ; Male ; Pain, Postoperative* ; Perioperative Period ; Pharmacokinetics ; Pregabalin* ; Prolapse ; Spine ; Tertiary Healthcare

Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis is a rare autosomal recessive disorder presenting with loss of pain sensation, thermal sensation defects, and self-mutilating behavior. In the present study, we recruited two consanguineous pedigree showing pain insensitivity symptoms from Pakistan for clinical and molecular investigations. In family A, one female patient displayed classical CIPA symptoms along with microcephaly and severe intellectual disability. During course of the disease, her right foot was amputated and had remarkable dental degeneration and teeth shedding. In family B, one boy presented with classical symptoms of congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis. Blood was collected from both families for molecular studies. Sequencing with the Ilumina Trusight One Sequencing Panel covering 4813 OMIM genes revealed a known homozygous mutation c.2084C>T; p.P695L of NTRK1 in family A and a novel truncated mutation c.2025C>G; p.Y681X in family B. Protein modeling analysis of both mutations (p.P695L and p.Y681X) predicted loss of the rigidity in tyrosine kinase domain of NTRK1 that led to conformational changes as well as deleterious effect on protein function. The known mutation was reported more than a decade ago in a family from Northern Israel and other non-sense mutation is newly identified. It is interested that most of NTRK1 mutations are associated with this domain. This is first ever report of NTRK1 variants in congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis patients from Pakistan.
Pain Insensitivity, Congenital

In the context of ARVC, a systematic review of the validation of the ARVC risk score can provide insights into the accuracy and reliability of this score in identifying patients at high risk of ARVC. Digital databases were searched to identify the relevant studies using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). A total of 8 studies were included in this systematic review. A total of 8 studies were included in this review. The review found that the sensitivity of the ARVC risk scores ranged from 80 to 95%, and the specificity ranged from 31 to 79%. The PPV was 55%, and the NPV was 88%. The ARVC score provided a C-index for a 5-year VA risk prediction of 0.84 [95% CI (0.74–0.93)] and a Harrell C-index of 0.70 (95% CI 0.65–0.75). The calibration slope was 1.01 (95% CI 0.99–1.03). ARVC score demonstrated a significant event 5-year threshold between 15 and 20% and the classical ARVC 5-years/freedom-from-VA rate was 0.76(0.66–0.89) and the non-classical form 5-years/freedom-from-VA rate was 0.58 (0.43–0.78). In conclusion, the validation of ARVC risk scores is an essential step toward improving the accuracy of ARVC diagnosis and risk stratification. Further studies are needed to establish the accuracy and reliability of ARVC risk scores and to address the limitations of the current evidence.