Elderly patients are more prone than younger patients to develop cerebral desaturation because of the reduced physiologic reserve that accompanies aging. To evaluate whether monitoring cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO(2)) minimizes intraoperative cerebral desaturation, we prospectively monitored rSO(2) in 122 elderly patients undergoing major abdominal surgery with general anesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated to an intervention group (the monitor was visible and rSO(2) was maintained at > or =75% of preinduction values; n = 56) or a control group (the monitor was blinded and anesthesia was managed routinely; n = 66). Cerebral desaturation (rSO(2) reduction <75% of baseline) was observed in 11 patients of the treatment group (20%) and 15 patients of the control group (23%) (P = 0.82). Mean (95% confidence intervals) values of mean rSO(2) were higher (66% [64%-68%]) and the area under the curve below 75% of baseline (AUCrSO2(2)< 75% of baseline) was lower (0.4 min% [0.1-0.8 min%]) in patients of the treatment group than in patients of the control group (61% [59%-63%] and 80 min% [2-144 min%], respectively; P = 0.002 and P = 0.017). When considering only patients developing intraoperative cerebral desaturation, a lower Mini Mental State Elimination (MMSE) score was observed at the seventh postoperative day in the control group (26 [25-30]) than in the treatment group (28 [26-30]) (P = 0.02), with a significant correlation between the AUCrSO(2) < 75% of baseline and postoperative decrease in MMSE score from preoperative values (r(2)= 0.25, P = 0.01). Patients of the control group with intraoperative cerebral desaturation also experienced a longer time to postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge (47 min [13-56 min]) and longer hospital stay (24 days [7-53] days) compared with patients of the treatment group (25 min [15-35 min] and 10 days [7-23 days], respectively; P = 0.01 and P = 0.007). Using rSO(2) monitoring to manage anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing major abdominal surgery reduces the potential exposure of the brain to hypoxia; this might be associated with decreased effects on cognitive function and shorter PACU and hospital stay.

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a chronic pain syndrome in the lower back region, lasting for at least 3 months. CLBP represents the second leading cause of disability worldwide being a major welfare and economic problem. The prevalence of CLBP in adults has increased more than 100% in the last decade and continues to increase dramatically in the aging population, affecting both men and women in all ethnic groups, with a significant impact on functional capacity and occupational activities. It can also be influenced by psychological factors, such as stress, depression and/or anxiety. Given this complexity, the diagnostic evaluation of patients with CLBP can be very challenging and requires complex clinical decision-making. Answering the question "what is the pain generator" among the several structures potentially involved in CLBP is a key factor in the management of these patients, since a mis-diagnosis can generate therapeutical mistakes. Traditionally, the notion that the etiology of 80% to 90% of LBP cases is unknown has been mistaken perpetuated across decades. In most cases, low back pain can be attributed to specific pain generator, with its own characteristics and with different therapeutical opportunity. Here we discuss about radicular pain, facet Joint pain, sacro-iliac pain, pain related to lumbar stenosis, discogenic pain. Our article aims to offer to the clinicians a simple guidance to identify pain generators in a safer and faster way, relying a correct diagnosis and further therapeutical approach.

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a chronic pain syndrome in the lower back region, lasting for at least 3 months. CLBP represents the second leading cause of disability worldwide being a major welfare and economic problem. The prevalence of CLBP in adults has increased more than 100% in the last decade and continues to increase dramatically in the aging population, affecting both men and women in all ethnic groups, with a significant impact on functional capacity and occupational activities. It can also be influenced by psychological factors, such as stress, depression and/or anxiety. Given this complexity, the diagnostic evaluation of patients with CLBP can be very challenging and requires complex clinical decision-making. Answering the question “what is the pain generator” among the several structures potentially involved in CLBP is a key factor in the management of these patients, since a mis-diagnosis can generate therapeutical mistakes. Traditionally, the notion that the etiology of 80% to 90% of LBP cases is unknown has been mistaken perpetuated across decades. In most cases, low back pain can be attributed to specific pain generator, with its own characteristics and with different therapeutical opportunity. Here we discuss about radicular pain, facet Joint pain, sacro-iliac pain, pain related to lumbar stenosis, discogenic pain. Our article aims to offer to the clinicians a simple guidance to identify pain generators in a safer and faster way, relying a correct diagnosis and further therapeutical approach.