Interventional therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline from the American Pain Society

Prevalence and factors associated with low back pain and pelvic girdle pain during pregnancy: a multicenter study conducted in the Spanish National Health Service

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of low back pain (LBP), leg pain (LP), and pelvic girdle pain (PGP) in pregnant Spanish women and to identify the factors associated with a higher risk.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Previous studies on the prevalence and risk factors for LBP and PGP have shown inconsistent results.

METHODS

Sixty-one clinicians across 5 regions in Spain recruited 1158 women with a median (interquartile range) pregnancy of 35 (range, 31-38) weeks. Validated methods were used to gather data on the prevalence of LBP, LP, and PGP, anthropometric and sociodemographic characteristics, history of LBP, obstetrical history, physical activity before and during pregnancy, mattress and sleep characteristics, disability, anxiety, and depression. Separate multiple logistic regression models were developed to identify the variables associated with LBP, LP, and PGP.

RESULTS

The 4-week prevalence of LBP, LP, and PGP was 71.3%, 46.2%, and 64.7%, respectively. Main factors associated with a higher likelihood of reporting pain for LBP were history of LBP related and unrelated to previous pregnancy and postpartum, pain augmenting with time spent in bed, and anxiety. Previous lumbar surgery was associated with a lower risk. The factors associated with a higher likelihood of reporting LP were reporting LBP, lower academic level, younger age, depression, a lower number of hours of sleep per day, and a higher BMI, and for PGP were higher score for depression, a higher body mass index, and a more advanced stage of pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

Factors associated with a higher risk vary between LBP and PGP. History of LBP, related or not to previous pregnancy or postpartum, LBP surgery, and anxiety were the factors more strongly associated with pregnancy-related LBP. When these variables are taken into account, obstetrical data from current or previous pregnancies and other variables do not show a significant association with LBP. Stage of pregnancy and depression were associated with PGP.

Duloxetine use in chronic low back pain: treatment patterns and costs

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the real-world treatment patterns and costs of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) who are treated with duloxetine compared with those receiving other non-surgical treatments.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare the real-world treatment patterns and costs between patients with CLBP who initiated duloxetine and matched controls who initiated another non-surgical treatment.

METHODS

The study sample was selected from a US privately insured claims database (2004-8). Selected patients were aged 18-64 years, and had a low back pain (LBP) diagnosis (per Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set [HEDIS] specifications) with a subsequent CLBP-qualifying diagnosis recorded ≥90 days after the initial LBP diagnosis. Duloxetine-treated patients had ≥1 duloxetine prescription within 6 months after CLBP diagnosis, no prior duloxetine claim, and continuous eligibility ≥12 months before first LBP diagnosis and ≥6 months after index duloxetine prescription (study period). Because duloxetine patients had higher rates of co-morbidities, 553 duloxetine-treated patients were matched to 553 control patients who initiated another non-surgical LBP treatment based on propensity score and time from first LBP diagnosis to treatment initiation. A subset (n = 103 each) of matched employees with disability data was also analysed to assess work loss. Main outcomes measures included study period treatment rates and direct (medical and drug) costs from a third-party payer perspective and employee indirect (work-loss) costs. McNemar tests were used to compare LBP treatment rates. Bias-corrected bootstrapping t-tests were used to compare costs.

RESULTS

After matching, the two groups had balanced baseline characteristics including demographics, LBP diagnostic categories, co-morbidity profiles, resource use, treatment patterns and mean direct costs. During the 6-month study period, matched duloxetine-treated patients had significantly lower rates of other pharmacological therapy (e.g. 56.2% vs 64.9% narcotic opioids, p = 0.0024; 34.9% vs 49.5% NSAIDs, p < 0.0001) and non-invasive therapy (28.8% vs 38.5% chiropractic therapy, p = 0.0007; 25.5% vs 35.4% physical therapy, p = 0.0004; 17.5% vs 28.4% exercise therapy, p < 0.0001) than controls. Duloxetine-treated patients versus controls had similar back surgery rates (2.2% vs 3.8%; p = 0.1127) and similar direct costs ($US7658 vs $US7439; p = 0.8119). Among CLBP employees, duloxetine-treated employees versus controls had lower rates of other non-surgical therapy, similar back surgery rates (0.0% vs 3.9%; p = 0.1250), lower total direct and indirect costs ($US5227 vs $US7299; p = 0.0418), and similar indirect costs ($US1806 vs $US2664; p = 0.0528).

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine treatment in CLBP patients/employees versus other non-surgical treatment was associated with reduced rates of non-surgical therapies and similar back surgery rates, without increased costs.

A short, intensive cognitive behavioral pain management program reduces health-care use in patients with chronic low back pain: two-year follow-up results of a prospective cohort

PURPOSE

Cognitive behavioral interventions are recommended as non-invasive treatment options for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, most treatment effects are small and short-lived. Although a 2-week intensive pain management program for patients with CLBP seems to be effective, the long-term results are not known. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the stability of the 2-year follow-up results and whether this is reflected in the use of health-care services.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was performed. Pre-treatment characteristics of patients and data of outcomes obtained at 1-year follow-up were used. At 2-year follow-up a structured interview was conducted following the principles of a post-marketing survey. Outcomes included daily functioning, quality of life, current intensity of pain, disturbance of pain during daily activities, and indicators of the use of pain medication and health-care services.

RESULTS

Of the 90 eligible patients 85 (94%) participated in the post-marketing survey. The 1-year clinical relevant effects are maintained at 2-year follow-up. Effect sizes for functioning and quality of life were large. More than 65% reached preset minimal clinically important differences. At pre-treatment all patients consulted their general practitioner (GP) and medical specialist (MS). At 2-year follow-up 73% reported having consulted neither a GP nor an MS during the previous year. Most of the patients indicated not to use any pain medication (57%) and the percentage patients using opioids have decreased (14%). Moreover, 81% reported to be at work.

CONCLUSIONS

The gained results from selected and motivated patients with longstanding CLBP at 1-year follow-up are stable at 2-year follow-up. Above all, most of the participants are at work and results indicate that the use of both pain medication and health care have decreased substantially.

A policy-into-practice intervention to increase the uptake of evidence-based management of low back pain in primary care: a prospective cohort study

Background

Persistent non-specific low back pain (nsLBP) is poorly understood by the general community, by educators, researchers and health professionals, making effective care problematic. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a policy-into-practice intervention developed for primary care physicians (PCPs).

Methods

To encourage PCPs to adopt practical evidence-based approaches and facilitate time-efficient, integrated management of patients with nsLBP, we developed an interdisciplinary evidence-based, practical pain education program (gPEP) based on a contemporary biopsychosocial framework. One hundred and twenty six PCPs from primary care settings in Western Australia were recruited. PCPs participated in a 6.5-hour gPEP. Self-report measures recorded at baseline and at 2 months post-intervention included PCPs' attitudes, beliefs (modified Health Care Providers Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), evidence-based clinical practices (knowledge and skills regarding nsLBP management: 5-point Likert scale with 1 =  nil and 5 =  excellent) and practice behaviours (recommendations based on a patient vignette; 5-point Likert scale).

Results

Ninety one PCPs participated (attendance rate of 72%; post-intervention response rate 88%). PCP-responders adopted more positive, guideline-consistent beliefs, evidenced by clinically significant HC-PAIRS score differences (mean change  = −5.6±8.2, p<0.0001; 95% confidence interval: −7.6 to −3.6) and significant positive shifts on all measures of clinical knowledge and skills (p<0.0001 for all questions). Self management strategies were recommended more frequently post-intervention. The majority of responders who were guideline-inconsistent for work and bed rest recommendations (82% and 62% respectively) at pre-intervention, gave guideline-consistent responses at post-intervention.

Conclusion

An interprofessional pain education program set within a framework that aligns health policy and practice, encourages PCPs to adopt more self-reported evidence-based attitudes, beliefs and clinical behaviours in their management of patients with nsLBP. However, further research is required to determine cost effectiveness of this approach when compared with other modes of educational delivery and to examine PCP behaviours in actual clinical practice.

Nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Neurogenic claudication can significantly impact functional ability, quality of life, and independence in the elderly. METHODS.: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ICL databases up to January 2011 for randomized controlled trials published in English, in which at least 1 arm provided data on nonoperative treatments. Risk of bias in each study was independently assessed by 2 reviewers using 12 criteria. Quality of the evidence was evaluated using Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

From the 8635 citations screened, 56 were assessed and 21 trials with 1851 participants were selected. There is very low-quality evidence from 6 trials that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol, regardless of mode of administration or outcome. From single small trials, there is low-quality evidence that prostaglandins, and very low-quality evidence that gabapentin or methylcobalamin, improve walking distance. There is very low-quality evidence from a single trial that epidural steroid injections improve pain, function, and quality of life up to 2 weeks compared with home exercise or inpatient physical therapy. There is low-quality evidence from a single trial that exercise is of short-term benefit for leg pain and function compared with no treatment. There is low- and very low-quality evidence from 6 trials that multimodal nonoperative treatment is less effective than indirect or direct surgical decompression with or without fusion.

CONCLUSION

Moderate- and high-GRADE evidence for nonoperative treatment is lacking and thus prohibiting recommendations to guide clinical practice. Given the expected exponential rise in the prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, large high-quality trials are urgently needed.

Evidence-based guideline for neuropathic pain interventional treatments: spinal cord stimulation, intravenous infusions, epidural injections and nerve blocks

BACKGROUND

The Special Interest Group of the Canadian Pain Society has produced consensus-based guidelines for the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain. The society aimed to generate an additional guideline for other forms of neuropathic pain treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based recommendations for neuropathic pain interventional treatments.

METHODS

A task force was created and engaged the Institute of Health Economics in Edmonton, Alberta, to survey the literature pertaining to multiple treatments. Sufficient literature existed on four interventions only: spinal cord stimulation; epidural injections; intravenous infusions; and nerve blocks. A comprehensive search was conducted for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines; a critical review was generated on each topic. A modified United States Preventive Services Task Force tool was used for quality rating and grading of recommendations.

RESULTS

Investigators reviewed four studies of spinal cord stimulation, 19 studies of intravenous infusions, 14 studies of epidural injections and 16 studies of nerve blocks that met the inclusion criteria. The task force chairs rated the quality of evidence and graded the recommendations. Feedback was solicited from the members of the task force.

CONCLUSION

There is sufficient evidence to support recommendations for some of these interventions for selected neuropathic pain conditions. This evidence is, at best, moderate and is often limited or conflicting. Pain practitioners are encouraged to explore evidence-based treatment options before considering unproven treatments. Full disclosure of risks and benefits of the available options is necessary for shared decision making and informed consent.

Vertebral endplate changes are not associated with chronic low back pain among Southern European subjects: a case control study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Data on the association between vertebral endplate changes and low back pain are contradictory. This study was designed to assess whether this association exists among Southern European subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients in this study serving as cases were 35-50 years of age with low back pain lasting >90 days, for whom a lumbar MR imaging had been prescribed. Controls were subjects 35-50 years of age, having a cranial MR imaging for headache with normal findings, and no history of clinically relevant LBP. Two hundred forty cases and 64 controls were recruited consecutively in the radiology services across 6 cities in Spain. Imaging findings and subject characteristics were gathered through previously validated instruments. Radiologists who interpreted MRI were blinded to the subject characteristics. A multivariate logistic regression model was developed to assess the association of vertebral endplate changes with LBP, adjusting for sex, age, body mass index, lifetime exposure to smoking, physical activity, disk degeneration, and the interaction between disk degeneration and vertebral endplate changes.

RESULTS

Vertebral endplate changes were found in 80.4% of the cases and in 87.5% of the controls. In the regression model, disk degeneration was the only variable showing a confounding effect. Results showed that after adjusting for disk degeneration, the presence of vertebral endplate changes is associated with the absence of chronic LBP (OR for LBP: 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

In Southern European subjects, vertebral endplate changes are not associated with chronic LBP.

The impact of discography on the surgical decision in patients with chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

A reduced frequency of discographies might be the result of increasing concern with long-term effects of discography such as disc degeneration. More knowledge is needed in what patient discography is most likely to influence the surgical decision.

PURPOSE

This study was aimed at highlighting how discography affects surgical decisions when performed on one of four different indications in a complicated subgroup of patients with chronic low back pain assumed to be associated with degenerative disc disease (DDD).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective before-after study to analyze how frequently a prediscography preliminary decision was changed and in what direction by adding information from discography in a subgroup of patients with DDD.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred thirty-eight patients admitted to a spine clinic more than 4 years with the DDD diagnosis (15% of all) were referred for discography because it was considered that medical history, clinical findings, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were insufficient to make a final assessment on whether to propose surgery/recommend against surgery or what segments to operate on.

OUTCOME MEASURES

These were the recorded changes to prediscography preliminary decisions after information was added from discography.

METHODS

Before these patients were referred to provocative discography, the surgeon had to select one of four alternative questions/indications being the reason for the discography and choose what decision would have been made if discography would not have been available. The questions/indications were as follows: surgery decided discography to establish whether to treat adjacent segment as well (n=17); several segments degenerated on MRI, pain likely to be discogenic, discography to evaluate what segments to treat (n=56); uncertainty whether pain is discogenic but one suspected segment on MRI (n=38); uncertainty whether pain is discogenic and several segments degenerated in MRI (n=27); the decision after discography was then compared with the prediscography decision and the changes affected by the result of the discography were analyzed.

RESULTS

Changes were made to the prediscography decision in 71% of the patients in total. When the surgeon was assured that the pain was discogenic, one segment was added or subtracted in 58% of the patients compared with original prediscography decision. When the surgeon was uncertain if pain was discogenic, the final decision changed from surgery to no surgery in 8%, from no surgery to surgery in 42%, and in cases that were planned for surgery prediscography, one segment was added or subtracted in 17% of the patients. The more certain the surgeon was before discography that the patient's pain was indeed discogenic, the fewer changes between surgical treatment and no surgical treatment took place. The more uncertain the surgeon was before discography that the patient's pain was discogenic, the fewer changes in segments to treat took place in patients who went on to surgery. Changes of involved segments were made to all the 27 patients with a preliminary decision for surgical treatment of the L5-S1 segment solely. The corresponding figure for L4-L5 and L4-L5-S1 was 70% and 53%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A high frequency of decisions was altered in this group of surgeons when using discography as an additional examination in patients where uncertainty remains in how to treat after clinical examination, questioning, and MRI.

Interventional pain medicine: retreat from the biopsychosocial model of pain

The field of pain medicine has shifted from multidisciplinary rehabilitation to procedure-focused interventional pain medicine (IPM). Considerable controversy exists regarding the efficacy of IPM and its more narrow focus on nociception as an exclusive target of pain treatment. This topical review aims to examine pain research and treatment outcome studies that support a biopsychosocial model of pain, and to critique the clinical practice of IPM given its departure from the premises of a biopsychosocial model. A modern definition of pain and findings from clinical and basic science studies indicate that pain-related psychological factors are integral to pain perception. The clinical viability of IPM is challenged based upon its biomedical view of peripheral nociception as a primary source of pain and the potential of this viewpoint to foster maladaptive pain attributions and discourage the use of pain coping strategies among chronic pain patients. IPM should adopt a biopsychosocial perspective on pain and operate within a framework of multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation to improve its effectiveness.

[Chronic lower back pain]

Poor efficiency in terms of treatment of unspecific back pain and related chronic pain syndromes has led to the necessity of general care guidelines addressing evidence-based strategies for treatment of lower back pain (LBP). Systematically validated and reviewed algorithms have been established for all kinds of unspecific back pain, covering both acute and chronic syndromes. Concerning the impact of psychosocial risk factors in the development of chronic LBP, multimodal treatment is preferred to monomodal strategies. Self-responsible acting on the part of the patient should be supported while invasive methods in particular, i.e. operative treatment, should be avoided due to lacking evidence in outcome efficiency.

Drugs for relief of pain in patients with sciatica: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of analgesic and adjuvant pain drugs typically administered in primary care for the management of patients with sciatica.

DESIGN

Systematic review. Data source International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsycINFO, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, and LILACS.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy and tolerability of drugs versus placebo or other treatment for sciatica.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the PEDro scale. Pain and disability outcomes were converted to a common 0 to 100 scale. Data were pooled with a random effects model, and the GRADE approach was used in summary conclusions.

RESULTS

Twenty three published reports met the inclusion criteria. The evidence to judge the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, muscle relaxants, and opioid analgesics ranged from moderate to low quality. Most of the pooled estimates did not favour the active treatment over placebo. The pooled results of two trials of corticosteroids (mean difference in overall and leg pain -12.2, 95% confidence interval -20.9 to -3.4) and a single trial of the anticonvulsant gabapentin for chronic sciatica (mean difference in overall pain relief -26.6, -38.3 to -14.9) showed some benefits but only in the short term. The median rate of adverse events was 17% (interquartile range 10-30%) for the active drugs and 11% (3-23%) for placebo. Trial limitations included failure to use validated outcome measures, lack of long term follow-up, and small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

As the existing evidence from clinical trials is of low quality, the efficacy and tolerability of drugs commonly prescribed for the management of sciatica in primary care is unclear.

Disabling chronic low back pain with Modic type 1 MRI signal: acute reduction in pain with intradiscal corticotherapy

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the current study was to compare short- and long-term effect on chronic low back pain of intradiscal injection of methylprednisolone with or without presence of Modic type 1 MRI changes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Medical charts of patients receiving intradiscal injection of methylprednisolone from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1998 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical parameters were recorded at baseline, 24h after injection and at follow-up (12-14 months). Patients were studied in three groups: Modic I-a, if patients had Modic type 1 changes with no previous surgery or nucleolysis (n=30); Modic I-b, if patients had Modic type 1 changes at the level of previous surgery or nucleolysis (n=37); Control, if patients had no Modic type 1 changes (n=30).

RESULTS

Twenty-four hours after methylprednisolone injection, higher proportion of patients with self-assessed improvement was observed in Modic I-a (90%) and Modic I-b (71%) than in Control (30%). Low back pain decreased in both Modic groups. Low back pain did not vary from baseline in controls. No effect was detected in three groups, neither for radiating pain 24h after injection, nor for any outcome parameters at the latest follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that patients with disabling chronic low back pain and Modic type 1 MRI changes have specific acute response to intradiscal injection of methylprednisolone. Clinical studies are however necessary to further investigate the effectiveness and safety of such injections.

Multidisciplinary intensive functional restoration versus outpatient active physiotherapy in chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized parallel group comparative trial with a 1-year follow-up period.

OBJECTIVE

To compare in a population of patients with chronic low back pain, the effectiveness of a functional restoration program (FRP), including intensive physical training and a multidisciplinary approach, with an outpatient active physiotherapy program at 1-year follow-up.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Controlled studies conducted in the United States and in Northern Europe showed a benefit of FRPs, especially on return to work. Randomized studies have compared these programs with standard care. A previously reported study presented the effectiveness at 6 months of both functional restoration and active physiotherapy, with a significantly greater reduction of sick-leave days for functional restoration.

METHODS

A total of 132 patients with low back pain were randomized to either FRP (68 patients) or active individual therapy (64 patients). One patient did not complete the FRP; 19 patients were lost to follow-up (4 in the FRP group and 15 in the active individual treatment group). The number of sick-leave days in 2 years before the program was similar in both groups (180 ± 135.1 days in active individual treatment vs. 185 ± 149.8 days in FRP, P = 0.847).

RESULTS

In both groups, at 1-year follow-up, intensity of pain, flexibility, trunk muscle endurance, Dallas daily activities and work and leisure scores, and number of sick-leave days were significantly improved compared with baseline. The number of sick-leave days was significantly lower in the FRP group.

CONCLUSION

Both programs are efficient in reducing disability and sick-leave days. The FRP is significantly more effective in reducing sick-leave days. Further analysis is required to determine if this overweighs the difference in costs of both programs.

Preclinical and clinical experience with a viscoelastic total disc replacement

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to describe the mechanical durability and the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a viscoelastic total disc replacement (VTDR). The human intervertebral disc is a complex, viscoelastic structure, permitting and constraining motion in 3 axes, thus providing stability. The ideal disc replacement should be viscoelastic and deformable in all directions, and it should restore disc height and angle.

METHODS

Mechanical testing was conducted to validate the durability of the VTDR, and a clinical study was conducted to evaluate safety and performance. Fifty patients with single-level, symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease at L4-5 or L5-S1 were enrolled in a clinical trial at 3 European sites. Patients were assessed clinically and radiographically for 2 years by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), a visual analog scale (VAS), and independent radiographic analyses.

RESULTS

The VTDR showed a fatigue life in excess of 50 million cycles (50-year equivalent) and a physiologically appropriate level of stiffness, motion, geometry, and viscoelasticity. We enrolled 28 men and 22 women in the clinical study, with a mean age of 40 years. Independent quantitative radiographic assessment indicated that the VTDR restored and maintained disc height and lordosis while providing physiologic motion. Mean ODI scores decreased from 48% preoperatively to 23% at 2 years' follow-up. Mean VAS low-back pain scores decreased from 7.1 cm to 2.9 cm. Median scores indicated that half of the patient population had ODI scores below 10% and VAS low-back pain scores below 0.95 cm at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The VTDR has excellent durability and performs clinically and radiographically as intended for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The VTDR is intended to restore healthy anatomic properties and stability characteristics to the spinal segment. This study is the first to evaluate a VTDR in a 50-patient, multicenter European study.

[Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: diagnostic evaluation and therapeutic strategies]

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common problem in daily routine practice. In the vast majority of cases stenosis is caused by degenerative changes of the lumbar spine with neurogenic claudication being the typical symptom. This is defined as sciatic pain and discomfort which deteriorates during walking and standing, leading to progressive neurological deficits. The diagnostic evaluation is based on the typical history of the patient and the clinical examination followed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and flexion-extension X-ray films as the most sensitive diagnostic tool. When clinical symptoms are mild, conservative treatment might be an option but in severely disabled patients and/or in cases of relevant neurological deficits surgical decompression, in special cases combined with instrumentation should be favoured when clinical and radiological findings match. In these cases an improvement of the clinical symptoms can be achieved in up to 90% of the patients.

The McKenzie method compared with manipulation when used adjunctive to information and advice in low back pain patients presenting with centralization or peripheralization: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of the McKenzie method performed by certified therapists with spinal manipulation performed by chiropractors when used adjunctive to information and advice.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Recent guidelines recommend a structured exercise program tailored to the individual patient as well as manual therapy for the treatment of persistent low back pain. There is presently insufficient evidence to recommend the use of specific decision methods tailoring specific therapies to clinical subgroups of patients in primary care.

METHODS

A total of 350 patients suffering from low back pain with a duration of more than 6 weeks who presented with centralization or peripheralization of symptoms with or without signs of nerve root involvement, were enrolled in the trial. Main outcome was number of patients with treatment success defined as a reduction of at least 5 points or an absolute score below 5 points on the Roland Morris Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were reduction in disability and pain, global perceived effect, general health, mental health, lost work time, and medical care utilization.

RESULTS

Both treatment groups showed clinically meaningful improvements in this study. At 2 months follow-up, the McKenzie treatment was superior to manipulation with respect to the number of patients who reported success after treatment (71% and 59%, respectively) (odds ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36 to 0.91, P = 0.018). The number needed to treat with the McKenzie method was 7 (95% CI 4 to 47). The McKenzie group showed improvement in level of disability compared to the manipulation group reaching a statistical significance at 2 and 12 months follow-up (mean difference 1.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 2.8, P = 0.022 and 1.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 2.9, P = 0.030, respectively). There was also a significant difference of 13% in number of patients reporting global perceived effect at end of treatment (P = 0.016). None of the other secondary outcomes showed statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSION

In patients with low back pain for more than 6 weeks presenting with centralization or peripheralization of symptoms, we found the McKenzie method to be slightly more effective than manipulation when used adjunctive to information and advice.

Clinical guidelines and payer policies on fusion for the treatment of chronic low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review is to provide a critical appraisal of general and fusion-specific clinical practice guidelines on the treatment of chronic nonradicular low back pain and compare the quality and evidence base of fusion guidelines and select payer policies. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: The treatment of lumbar spondylosis associated with low back pain with lumbar arthrodesis, or fusion, has risen fourfold in the past two decades. Given the significant associated health care costs, there is an increase in clinical guidelines and payer policies influencing patient treatment options. Assessment of the medical necessity of a treatment, such as lumbar fusions, based on medical literature will frequently supersede the determination of the physician in the care of their patient. Concerns regarding the effectiveness and costs of the surgical treatment of spinal disorders presenting with low back pain has placed enormous scrutiny on the value of surgical treatments to our patients. As both clinical guidelines and payer policies have a major impact on the perceived effectiveness, or medical necessity, of lumbar fusions for the treatment of chronic nonradicular low back pain, a review of this topic was undertaken.

METHODS

An electronic literature search of PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment was performed to identify clinical practice guidelines on assessment and treatment of chronic nonradicular low back pain, including those on use of lumbar fusion, as well as relevant technology assessments. A Google search for publicly available private and public payer policies related to fusion was also performed. A hand search was used to identify specific studies cited for support of the recommendations made. A modified Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation instrument was used to provide a standardized assessment method for evaluating the quality of development of the evidence base and recommendations in guidelines and selected health policies. This was combined with appraisal of the evidence base supporting the recommendations.

RESULTS

Three systematic reviews of general guidelines from a PubMed search yielding 94 citations were included. A convenience sample of five guidelines with recommendations on fusion was taken from 182 citations identified by the National Guideline Clearinghouse and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment searches. Two guidelines were developed by US professional societies, (neurosurgery and pain management), and three were European-based guidelines (Belgium, United Kingdom, and the European Cooperation in Science and Technology). The general guidelines were consistent with their recommendations for diagnosis, but inconsistent regarding recommendations for treatment. All guidelines and payer policies with recommendations on fusion included some set of the primary randomized controlled trials comparing fusion to other treatment options with the exception of one policy. However, no clear pattern with regard to the quality of development was identified based on the modified Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation tool. There were differences in specialty society recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Three systematic reviews of evidence-based guidelines that provide general guidance for the assessment and treatment of chronic low back pain described consistent recommendations and guidance for the evaluation of chronic low back pain but inconsistent recommendations and guidance for treatment. Five evidence-based guidelines with recommendations on the use of fusion for the treatment of chronic low back pain were evaluated. There is some consistency across guidelines and policies that are government sponsored with regard to development process and critical evaluation of index studies as well as overall recommendations. There were differences in specialty society recommendations. There is heterogeneity in the medical payer policies reviewed possibly due to variations in the literature cited and transparency of the development process. A description of how recommendations are formulated and disclosure of any potential bias in policy development is important. Three-medical payer policies reviewed are of poor quality with one rated as good with respect to their development based on the modified Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation tool. Medical payer policies influence patient care by defining medical necessity for approving treatments, and should be held to the same standards for transparency and development as guidelines.

CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The spine care community needs to develop (or update) high-quality treatment guidelines. The process should be transparent, methodologically rigorous, and consistent with the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation and Institute of Medicine recommendations. This effort should be collaborative across specialty/society groups and would benefit from patient and public input. Payer policies and treatment guidelines need to be transparent and based on the highest quality evidence available. Clinicians from specialty/society groups, guideline developers and policy makers should collaborate on their development. This process would also benefit from public and patient input.

Management of degenerative disk disease and chronic low back pain

Degenerative disk disease is a strong etiologic risk factor of chronic low back pain (LBP). A multidisciplinary approach to treatment is often warranted. Patient education, medication, and cognitive behavioral therapies are essential in the treatment of chronic LBP sufferers. Surgical intervention with a rehabilitation regime is sometimes advocated. Prognostic factors related to the outcome of different treatments include maladaptive pain coping and genetics. The identification of pain genes may assist in determining individuals susceptible to pain and in patient selection for appropriate therapy. Biologic therapies show promise, but clinical trials are needed before advocating their use in humans.

Movement control exercise versus general exercise to reduce disability in patients with low back pain and movement control impairment. A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) in subacute and chronic stages can be treated effectively with exercise therapy. Research guidelines recommend evaluating different treatments in defined subgroups of patients with NSLBP. A subgroup of patients with movement control impairment (MCI) improved significantly on patient specific function and disability in a previous case series after movement control exercises.

METHODS/DESIGN

In a randomised controlled trial (RCT) we will compare the effectiveness of movement control and general exercise in patients with MCI. 106 participants aged 18 - 75 will be recruited in 5 outpatient hospital departments and 7 private practices.Patients randomly assigned to the movement control exercise group will be instructed to perform exercises according to their MCI. The general exercise group will follow an exercise protocol aimed at improving endurance and flexibility. Patients in both groups will receive 9 - 18 treatments and will be instructed to do additional exercises at home.The primary outcome is the level of disability assessed using the patient specific functional scale (PSFS) which links the perceived pain to functional situations and is measured before treatment and at 6 and 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes concern low back pain related disability (Roland Morris questionnaire, RMQ), graded chronic pain scale (GCPS), range of motion and tactile acuity.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge this study will be the first to compare two exercise programs for a specific subgroup of patients with NSLBP and MCI. Results of this study will provide insight into the effectiveness of movement control exercise and contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms behind MCI and its relation to NSLBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80064281.

Effect of caudal epidural steroid or saline injection in chronic lumbar radiculopathy: multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of caudal epidural steroid or saline injection in chronic lumbar radiculopathy in the short (6 weeks), intermediate (12 weeks), and long term (52 weeks).

DESIGN

Multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Outpatient multidisciplinary back clinics of five Norwegian hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Between October 2005 and February 2009, 461 patients assessed for inclusion (presenting with lumbar radiculopathy >12 weeks). 328 patients excluded for cauda equina syndrome, severe paresis, severe pain, previous spinal injection or surgery, deformity, pregnancy, ongoing breast feeding, warfarin therapy, ongoing treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, body mass index >30, poorly controlled psychiatric conditions with possible secondary gain, and severe comorbidity.

INTERVENTIONS

Subcutaneous sham injections of 2 mL 0.9% saline, caudal epidural injections of 30 mL 0.9% saline, and caudal epidural injections of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide in 29 mL 0.9% saline. Participants received two injections with a two week interval.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: Oswestry disability index scores. Secondary: European quality of life measure, visual analogue scale scores for low back pain and for leg pain.

RESULTS

Power calculations required the inclusion of 41 patients per group. We did not allocate 17 of 133 eligible patients because their symptoms improved before randomisation. All groups improved after the interventions, but we found no statistical or clinical differences between the groups over time. For the sham group (n = 40), estimated change in the Oswestry disability index from the adjusted baseline value was -4.7 (95% confidence intervals -0.6 to -8.8) at 6 weeks, -11.4 (-6.3 to -14.5) at 12 weeks, and -14.3 (-10.0 to -18.7) at 52 weeks. For the epidural saline intervention group (n = 39) compared with the sham group, differences in primary outcome were -0.5 (-6.3 to 5.4) at 6 weeks, 1.4 (-4.5 to 7.2) at 12 weeks, and -1.9 (-8.0 to 4.3) at 52 weeks; for the epidural steroid group (n=37), corresponding differences were -2.9 (-8.7 to 3.0), 4.0 (-1.9 to 9.9), and 1.9 (-4.2 to 8.0). Analysis adjusted for duration of leg pain, back pain, and sick leave did not change this trend.

CONCLUSIONS

Caudal epidural steroid or saline injections are not recommended for chronic lumbar radiculopathy. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN No 12574253.

Accountable disease management of spine pain

The health care landscape has changed with new legislation addressing the unsustainable rise in costs in the US system. Low-value service lines caring for expensive chronic conditions have been targeted for reform; for better or worse, the treatment of spine pain has been recognized as a representative example. Examining the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and existing pilot studies can offer a preview of how chronic care of spine pain will be sustained. Accountable care in an organization capable of collecting, analyzing, and reporting clinical data and operational compliance is forthcoming. Interdisciplinary spine pain centers integrating surgical and medical management, behavioral medicine, physical reconditioning, and societal reintegration represent the model of high-value care for patients with chronic spine pain.

The establishment of a primary spine care practitioner and its benefits to health care reform in the United States

It is widely recognized that the dramatic increase in health care costs in the United States has not led to a corresponding improvement in the health care experience of patients or the clinical outcomes of medical care. In no area of medicine is this more true than in the area of spine related disorders (SRDs). Costs of medical care for SRDs have skyrocketed in recent years. Despite this, there is no evidence of improvement in the quality of this care. In fact, disability related to SRDs is on the rise. We argue that one of the key solutions to this is for the health care system to have a group of practitioners who are trained to function as primary care practitioners for the spine. We explain the reasons we think a primary spine care practitioner would be beneficial to patients, the health care system and society, some of the obstacles that will need to be overcome in establishing a primary spine care specialty and the ways in which these obstacles can be overcome.

Guideline warfare over interventional therapies for low back pain: can we raise the level of discourse?

As guidelines proliferate and are used to inform efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of care, disputes over guideline recommendations are likely to become more common and contentious. It is appropriate for guidelines to come under close scrutiny, given their important clinical and policy implications, and critiques that point out missing evidence, improper methods, or errors in interpretation can be valuable. But for critiques to be valid, they should be based on accurate information and a sound scientific basis. A 2009 guideline sponsored by the American Pain Society (APS) on the use of invasive tests and interventional procedures found insufficient evidence to make recommendations for most interventional procedures. It was subsequently the subject of lengthy critiques by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) that sought to challenge the methods used to develop the APS guideline, point out alleged errors in the evidence review commissioned to inform the guideline, and question the integrity of the APS guideline process. We show that the ASIPP critiques contain numerous errors and fail to adhere to scientific standards for reviewing evidence, and provide suggestions on how future disputes regarding guidelines might be addressed in a more constructive manner.

PERSPECTIVE

In order to best serve patients and clinicians, debates over guidelines should be based on accurate information, adhere to current methodological standards, acknowledge important deficiencies in the evidence when they are present, and handle conflicts of interest in a vigorous and transparent manner.

Real-world practice patterns, health-care utilization, and costs in patients with low back pain: the long road to guideline-concordant care

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Treatment guidelines suggest that most acute low back pain (LBP) episodes substantially improve within a few weeks and that immediate use of imaging and aggressive therapies should be avoided.

PURPOSE

Assess the actual practice patterns of imaging, noninvasive therapy, medication use, and surgery in patients with LBP, and compare their costs to those of matched controls without LBP.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of claims data from 40 self-insured employers in the United States.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The study sample included 211,551 patients, aged 18 to 64 years, with one LBP diagnosis or more (per Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set specification) during 2004 to 2006, identified from a claims database. Patients had continuous eligibility for 12 months or more after their index LBP diagnosis (study period), for 6 months or more before their index diagnosis (baseline period), and no other LBP diagnosis during the baseline period. Patients with LBP were matched to a random cohort of patients without LBP by age, gender, employment status, and index year.

OUTCOMES MEASURES

Physiological measures (eg, imaging and diagnostic tests), functional measures (eg, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment for LBP, health-care resource use), and direct (medical and prescription drug) and indirect (disability and medically related absenteeism) costs were assessed within the year after the LBP diagnosis.

METHODS

Univariate analyses described treatment patterns and compared baseline characteristics and study period costs.

RESULTS

Patients with LBP had significantly higher rates of baseline comorbidities and resource use compared with controls. Of patients with LBP, 41.6% had imaging mean (median) [standard deviation] 34.3 (0) [78.6] days after the LBP diagnosis. Most patients with LBP (69.4%) used medications starting 51.9 (8) [86.2] days after the diagnosis. Opioids were commonly prescribed early (41.6% of patients; after 82.8 (25) [105.9] days). Of patients with LBP, 2.05% had surgery during the study period. Patients with LBP were likely to have chiropractic treatment first, followed by pharmacotherapy with muscle relaxants and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Except for less surgery, these findings also held for patients with only nonspecific LBP. Patients with LBP had higher mean direct costs compared with controls ($7,211 vs. $2,382, respectively; p<.0001), with surgery patients having mean direct costs of $33,931.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to clinical guidelines, many patients with LBP start incurring significant resource use and associated expenses soon after the index diagnosis. Achieving guideline-concordant care will require substantial changes in LBP practice patterns.

Treatment of chronic non-cancer pain

Chronic pain is a pervasive problem that affects the patient, their significant others, and society in many ways. The past decade has seen advances in our understanding of the mechanisms underlying pain and in the availability of technically advanced diagnostic procedures; however, the most notable therapeutic changes have not been the development of novel evidenced-based methods, but rather changing trends in applications and practices within the available clinical armamentarium. We provide a general overview of empirical evidence for the most commonly used interventions in the management of chronic non-cancer pain, including pharmacological, interventional, physical, psychological, rehabilitative, and alternative modalities. Overall, currently available treatments provide modest improvements in pain and minimum improvements in physical and emotional functioning. The quality of evidence is mediocre and has not improved substantially during the past decade. There is a crucial need for assessment of combination treatments, identification of indicators of treatment response, and assessment of the benefit of matching of treatments to patient characteristics.

"Unnecessary" spinal surgery: A prospective 1-year study of one surgeon's experience

Background

There are marked disparities in the frequency of spinal surgery performed within the United States over time, as well as across different geographic areas. One possible source of these disparities is the criteria for surgery.

Methods

During a one-year period [November 2009-October 2010], the senior author, a neurosurgeon, saw 274 patients for cervical and lumbar spinal, office consultations. A patient was assigned to the “unnecessary surgery” group if they were told they needed spinal surgery by another surgeon, but exhibited pain alone without neurological deficits and without significant abnormal radiographic findings [dynamic X-rays, MR scans, and/or CT scans].

Results

Of the 274 consults, 45 patients were told they needed surgery by outside surgeons, although their neurological and radiographic findings were not abnormal. An additional 2 patients were told they needed lumbar operations, when in fact the findings indicated a cervical operation was necessary. These 47 patients included 21 [23.1%] of 91 patients with cervical complaints, and 26 [14.2%] of 183 patients with lumbar complaints. The 21 planned cervical operations included 1-4 level anterior diskectomy/fusion [18 patients], laminectomies/fusions [2 patients], and a posterior cervical diskectomy [1 patient]. The 26 planned lumbar operations involved single/multilevel posterior lumbar interbody fusions: 1-level [13 patients], 2-levels [7 patients], 3-levels [3 patients], 4-levels [2 patients], and 5-levels [1 patient]. In 29 patients there were one or more overlapping comorbidities.

Conclusions

During a one-year period, 47 [17.2%] of 274 spinal consultations seen by a single neurosurgeon were scheduled for “unnecessary surgery”.

On total disc replacement

Low back pain consumes a large part of the community's resources dedicated to health care and sick leave. Back disorders also negatively affect the individual leading to pain suffering, decreased quality-of-life and disability. Chronic low back pain (CLBP) due to degenerative disc disease (DDD) is today often treated with fusion when conservative treatment has failed and symptoms are severe. This treatment is as successful as arthroplasty is for hip arthritis in restoring the patient's quality of life and reducing disability. Even so, there are some problems with this treatment, one of these being recurrent CLBP from an adjacent segment (ASD) after primarily successful surgery. This has led to the development of alternative surgical treatments and devices that maintain or restore mobility, in order to reduce the risk for ASD. Of these new devices, the most frequently used are the disc prostheses used in Total Disc Replacement (TDR). This thesis is based on four studies comparing total disc replacement with posterior fusion. The studies are all based on a material of 152 patients with DDD in one or two segments, aged 20-55 years that were randomly treated with either posterior fusion or TDR. The first study concerned clinical outcome and complications. Follow-up was 100% at both one and two years. It revealed that both treatment groups had a clear benefit from treatment and that patients with TDR were better in almost all outcome scores at one-year follow-up. Fusion patients continued to improve during the second year. At two-year follow-up there was a remaining difference in favour of TDR for back pain. 73% in the TDR group and 63% in the fusion group were much better or totally pain-free (n.s.), while twice as many patients in the TDR group were totally pain free (30%) compared to the fusion group (15%). Time of surgery and total time in hospital were shorter in the TDR group. There was no difference in complications and reoperations, except that seventeen of the patients in the fusion group were re-operated for removal of their implants. The second study concerned sex life and sexual function. TDR is performed via an anterior approach, an approach that has been used for a long time for various procedures on the lumbar spine. A frequent complication reported in males when this approach is used is persistent retrograde ejaculation. The TDR group in this material was operated via an extra-peritoneal approach to the retroperitoneal space, and there were no cases of persistent retrograde ejaculation. There was a surprisingly high frequency of men in the fusion group reporting deterioration in ability to have an orgasm postoperatively. Preoperative sex life was severely hampered in the majority of patients in the entire material, but sex life underwent a marked improvement in both treatment groups by the two-year follow-up that correlated with reduction in back pain. The third study was on mobility in the lumbar spinal segments, where X-rays were taken in full extension and flexion prior to surgery and at two-year follow-up. Analysis of the films showed that 78% of the patients in the fusion group reached the surgical goal (non-mobility) and that 89% of the TDR patients maintained mobility. Preoperative disc height was lower than in a normative database in both groups, and remained lower in the fusion group, while it became higher in the TDR group. Mobility in the operated segment increased in the TDR group postoperatively. Mobility at the rest of the lumbar spine increased in both treatment groups. Mobility in adjacent segments was within the norm postoperatively, but slightly larger in the fusion group. In the fourth study the health economics of TDR vs Fusion was analysed. The hospital costs for the procedure were higher for patients in the fusion group compared to the TDR group, and the TDR patients were on sick-leave two months less. In all, these studies showed that the results in the TDR group were as good as in the fusion group. Patients are more likely to be totally pain-free when treated with TDR compared to fusion. Treatment with this new procedure seems justified in selected patients at least in the short-term perspective. Long-term follow-up is underway and results will be published in due course.

Role of trait anxiety in persistent radicular pain after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a 1-year longitudinal study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate anxiety and depression as prognostic factors for radicular and back pain after surgery in patients with lumbar disc herniation in a 1-year follow-up study.

METHODS

A total of 108 patients with lumbar disc herniation were enrolled in the study. Anxiety was assessed by State and Trait Anxiety Inventory; current depression was assessed by Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale. Severity of pain was scored on the visual analog scale (VAS). The State and Trait Anxiety Inventory, Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale, and VAS were administered before surgery and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Before surgery, 72.2% of patients showed state anxiety, 54.6% of patients showed trait anxiety, and 11.1% of patients showed current depression. During the follow-up period, there was a significant decrease in the prevalence of state anxiety (P < .0001), no variation in the prevalence of trait anxiety (P = .115), and a significant increase in the prevalence of current depression (P = .002). Linear regression analysis showed that the presence of trait anxiety before surgery was the main determinant of the presence of pain after surgery (P < .0001). VAS scores were evaluated by dividing patients into 2 groups based on the presence or absence of trait anxiety before surgery. The subgroup affected by trait anxiety before surgery had significantly higher VAS scores at each follow-up assessment compared with patients without trait anxiety (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

The presence of trait anxiety before surgery is a prognostic factor for the persistence of pain after surgery.

Botulinum toxin injections for low-back pain and sciatica

BACKGROUND

Adequate relief from low-back pain (LBP) is not always possible. Emerging evidence suggests a role for botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injections in treating pain disorders. Proponents of BoNT suggest its properties can decrease muscle spasms, ischemia and inflammatory markers, thereby reducing pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of botulinum toxin injections in adults with LBP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to August 2009; screened references from included studies; consulted with content experts and Allergan. We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials without language restrictions

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that evaluated BoNT serotypes versus other treatments in patients with non-specific LBP of any duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria, and extracted the data using standardized forms. We performed a qualitative analysis due to lack of data.

MAIN RESULTS

We excluded evidence from nineteen studies due to non-randomisation, incomplete or unpublished data. We included three randomised trials (N =123 patients). Only one study included patients with chronic non-specific LBP; the other two examined unique subpopulations. Only one of the three trials had a low risk of bias and demonstrated that BoNT injections reduced pain at three and eight weeks and improved function at eight weeks better than saline injections. The second trial showed that BoNT injections were better than injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine or placebo in patients with sciatica attributed to piriformis syndrome. The third trial concluded that BoNT injections were better than traditional acupuncture in patients with third lumbar transverse process syndrome. Both studies with high risk of bias had several key limitations. Heterogeneity of the studies prevented meta-analysis. There is low quality evidence that BoNT injections improved pain, function, or both better than saline injections and very low quality evidence that they were better than acupuncture or steroid injections.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified three studies that investigated the merits of BoNT for LBP, but only one had a low risk of bias and evaluated patients with non-specific LBP (N = 31). Further research is very likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and our confidence in it. Future trials should standardize patient populations, treatment protocols and comparison groups, enlist more participants and include long-term outcomes, cost-benefit analysis and clinical relevance of findings.

System plasticity and integrated care: informed consumers guide clinical reorientation and system reorganization

SETTING

Two Australian public hospital multidisciplinary pain centers (MPCs) situated on opposite sides of the country.

OBJECTIVE

  Restructuring our services to become patient-centred and patient-driven by enabling entry to our MPCs through an education portal, inclusive of both knowledge and self-management skills, and to then be free to select particular treatment options on the basis of evidence of known efficacy (risk/benefit).

DESIGN

Group-based education to inform our patients of the current state of uncertainty that exists in Pain Medicine, both in regard to diagnostic and therapeutic practices. Using an interprofessional team approach, we aimed to present practical and evidence-based advice on techniques of pain self-management and existing traditional medical options.

RESULTS

Early, resource efficient, group intervention provides many patients with sufficient information to make informed decisions and enables them to partner us in engaging a whole person approach to their care. We have implemented routine comprehensive audits of clinical services to better inform the planning and provision of health care across health services.

CONCLUSIONS

System plasticity is as important to the process of integrated health care as it is to our understanding of the complexity of the lived experience of pain. Better-informed consumers partnered with responsive health professionals drive the proposed paradigm shift in service delivery. The changes better align the needs of consumers with the ability of health care providers to meet them, thus achieving the twin goals of patient empowerment and system efficiency.

A preliminary investigation into the magnitude of effect of lumbar extension exercises and a segmental rotatory manipulation on sympathetic nervous system activity

Two commonly utilised manual therapy techniques; McKenzie's lumbar extension exercises (EE); and segmental rotational grade V manipulation were investigated to determine their magnitude of neurophysiological effect. Proxy measures of sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activity (skin conductance) were utilised to ascertaining neurophysiological response. This study determined the neurological effects of these two treatment techniques in addition to establishing the Biopac System as a reliable measure of neurophysiological changes. A quasi-experimental, independent group's design was utilised, with random allocation of 50 normal, healthy participants into a manipulation or an EE group. Neurophysiological measurements of skin conductance were taken in the lower limbs before, during and after the administration of the techniques. Results were converted into percentage change calculations for the intervention and the post-intervention periods. Both treatments increased SNS activity during the intervention period, 63% for the manipulation group (p = 0.0005) and 42% for EE group (p = 0.0005) with the manipulative technique having significantly greater effect (p = 0.012). Further analysis of the manipulation group found no difference between the 'opening' and the 'closing' side of the technique (p = 0.76). Biopac System is a reliable method for measuring SNS activity with minimum measurement variability. Preliminary evidence now exists supporting the neurophysiological effects of two lumbar techniques.

Preclinic group education sessions reduce waiting times and costs at public pain medicine units

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of preclinic group education sessions and system redesign on tertiary pain medicine units and patient outcomes.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Two public hospital multidisciplinary pain medicine units.

PATIENTS

People with persistent pain.

INTERVENTIONS

A system redesign from a "traditional" model (initial individual medical appointments) to a model that delivers group education sessions prior to individual appointments. Based on Patient Triage Questionnaires patients were scheduled to attend Self-Training Educative Pain Sessions (STEPS), a two day eight hour group education program, followed by optional patient-initiated clinic appointments.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of patients completing STEPS who subsequently requested individual outpatient clinic appointment(s); wait-times; unit cost per new patient referred; recurrent health care utilization; patient satisfaction; Global Perceived Impression of Change (GPIC); and utilized pain management strategies.

RESULTS

Following STEPS 48% of attendees requested individual outpatient appointments. Wait times reduced from 105.6 to 16.1 weeks at one pain unit and 37.3 to 15.2 weeks at the second. Unit cost per new patient appointed reduced from $1,805 Australian Dollars (AUD) to AUD$541 (for STEPS). At 3 months, patients scored their satisfaction with "the treatment received for their pain" more positively than at baseline (change score=0.88; P=0.0003), GPIC improved (change score=0.46; P<0.0001) and mean number of active strategies utilized increased by 4.12 per patient (P=0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of STEPS was associated with reduced wait-times and costs at public pain medicine units and increased both the use of active pain management strategies and patient satisfaction.

An interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programme: description and evaluation of outcomes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this archival report is to describe the essential elements of an intensive 8-week interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programme (IPRP) with a cognitive-behavioural emphasis and the results that can be expected in treating patients with chronic pain conditions.

METHOD

This report describes a private outpatient program providing treatment services to patients with long-term disabling pain arising from work- or accident-related musculoskeletal injuries. The cohort consists of 338 consecutive patients who completed the program over a 3-year period (patients discharged between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2007).

RESULTS

Improvements in vocational status were noted in 75% of patients with chronic pain. Patients were also able to reduce their pain levels by approximately 16% and to reduce their levels of anxiety and depression by 13% and 17% respectively. At the same time, 61% of patients were able to reduce or eliminate their pain medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes are consistent with evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic pain conditions. The published literature supports the efficacy of this interdisciplinary approach in highly disabled patients for whom effective treatment has been delayed. Early intervention in the subacute phase is recommended for prevention of long-term disability in patients with chronic pain.