Search

Introduction: Acute pain levels following orthopaedic injury (eg, fracture) are a predictor of the onset of chronic pain, which affects nearly 50% of fracture patients and impairs functional recovery. Among current pharmacological treatments for acute pain, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been associated with delayed bone healing, while opioids inhibit effective bone remodelling, increase the risk of pseudarthrosis and carry a high risk of addiction. In light of this, the development of new pain treatments is essential. Cannabidiol (CBD), a non-addictive and non-psychotropic cannabis component stands out as a potential therapeutic agent, given its analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties as well as its potential benefits for bone healing. This randomised controlled trial aims to investigate the effect of acute CBD treatment, compared with placebo, on patients' self-reported pain, inflammation and well-being following a fracture injury., Methods and Analysis: This is a triple-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial. A total of 225 adults aged 18-70 years, who have suffered a long bone fracture and were treated at the Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, will be randomly assigned within 1 week to one of three treatment arms (25 mg or 50 mg of CBD or placebo) for 1 month. The primary outcome will be the difference in the pain score between groups at 1-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include measures of persistent pain, inflammation, opioid usage, quality of life, sleep quality, depression, anxiety, cognition and orthopaedic function. Data will be collected at baseline, 1-month and 3-month follow-ups., Ethics and Dissemination: This study obtained a Health Canada licence for use of cannabis products. It has also been approved by Health Canada and the Research Ethics Board of the CIUSSS du Nord-de-l'Île-de-Montréal (Project ID 2025-2105). The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at local, national and international conferences. The trial's results will be made publicly available on the ClinicalTrials.gov database., Trial Registration Number: NCT06448923., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.)

This study investigates the effects of theta burst stimulation (TBS) on inflammatory markers in patients with isolated upper limb fractures (IULF). Participants underwent a 10-day TBS intervention following a randomized matched pair design. Blood samples collected at three time points were analyzed for inflammatory biomarkers, mainly including interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra), IL-1β, and IL-6. Results revealed a significant interaction between TBS and time for IL-1Ra, indicating a more pronounced decrease in IL-1Ra expression over time in the active TBS group. However, IL-6 levels decreased over time regardless of TBS intervention, suggesting a natural decline in response to injury. No significant interaction was found for IL-1β. While IL-1Ra levels were associated with higher functional disability prior to treatment initiation, active TBS intervention led to a decrease of IL-1Ra levels at both follow-up time points. These changes were not associated with alterations in pain or disability, suggesting that TBS may primarily influence recovery processes independent of pain modulation. Notably, IL-1β levels were negatively correlated with disability in the active TBS group at the 3-month follow-up. This study sheds light on the potential of TBS to modulate inflammatory responses in orthopedic trauma, emphasizing the need for further research to elucidate its therapeutic implications. Clinical Significance: TBS may offer a promising adjunctive therapy for promoting functional recovery in patients with upper limb fractures., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dominique M. Rouleau reports a relationship with Bioventus LLC that includes: consulting or advisory. Dominique M. Rouleau reports a relationship with Wright Medical Group Inc. that includes: consulting or advisory. Dominique M. Rouleau reports a relationship with Stryker that includes: consulting or advisory. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Brain age prediction algorithms using structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) estimate the biological age of the brain by comparing it to a normal aging trajectory, allowing for the identification of deviations that may indicate slower or accelerated biological aging. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and sports-related concussion (SRC) have been associated with greater brain age gap (BAG) compared to healthy controls. In this study, we aimed to investigate BAG in athletes suffering from persistent postconcussion syndrome (PCS+) compared to PCS- athletes, and used SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), an explainable artificial intelligence framework, to provide further details on which specific features drive the brain age predictions. Brain age was derived from T1-weighted MRI images in a cohort of 50 athletes (24 with PCS+) from 22 to 73 years old from the general population. The results revealed that athletes with PCS+ had a brain age approximately 5 years older than the PCS- athletes, with no clinical variable associated with it. Exploratory analyses also showed a greater brain age in athletes who self-reported five or more SRCs. Regarding SHAP, the third ventricle was found to be the most informative feature in the PCS+ group, while the superior temporal sulcus posterior area was more informative in the PCS- group. This study demonstrated the potential of using brain age and explainable artificial intelligence frameworks to study athletes with PCS. Further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms driving brain aging in this population and to identify potential biomarkers for early detection and intervention., (© The Author(s) 2025. Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

Objective: In a recent sham-controlled 13-session prolonged continuous theta burst stimulation intervention protocol, recovery from upper limb fracture at both 1 and 3 months was better than anticipated in patients assigned to the sham intervention group. To determine whether potential placebo effect and close patient monitoring affected recovery, the current study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between sham-treated participants who also received standard care with similarly injured patients who only received standard care., Methods: Twenty participants with isolated upper limb fractures from the sham group were seen 13 times post-fracture (1 baseline session, 10 treatments, and 2 follow-ups [1 and 3 months]) over 3 months. They completed the self-reported Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and the Numerical Rating Scale for pain assessment at 1 and 3 months post-fracture. Two control groups were recruited: 43 participants at 1 month post-fracture and another 40 participants at 3 months post-fracture. These control groups completed the same questionnaires online, without any lab visits., Results: At 1 month, patients from the sham group reported significantly less functional impairments on the DASH (p = .010). At 3 months, significantly more patients from the control group reported functional limitations (72.5% versus sham's 40%, p = .015)., Conclusions: Although preliminary, these findings suggest clinically significant beneficial effects of the sham intervention over the standard care groups. This positive sham intervention effect may be attributed to a placebo response that includes the placebo effect associated with sham rTMS, but also the impact of various factors such as the close monitoring of the injury., (Copyright © 2025 Society for Biopsychosocial Science and Medicine.)