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

Results from a randomized controlled study between total disc replacement and fusion compared with results from a spine register

Background

Difficulties in performing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate new treatment options are increasing. Higher costs and patient unwillingness are the main obstacles. A spinal surgery register has been in use in Sweden for 11 years. Our aim was to determine whether this register can provide the same information as an RCT and whether register data compare favorably with RCT data, making RCTs unnecessary. If not the case, was patient selection or follow-up frequency the cause of any differences?

Materials and methods

We compared baseline data and outcome, retrieved from our register, between 2 surgical groups, total disc replacement (TDR) and fusion at 1 or 2 levels, performed for degenerative disc disease. One hundred fifty-two patients were part of an RCT, whereas four hundred fifty-five patients had been treated according to an active decision. These 2 subgroups were the subjects for comparison.

Results

The 2 subgroups were not similar at baseline. Patients who were fused in the non-RCT subgroup were older, had a higher Oswestry Disability Index, and were more frequently smokers than the other patients. The outcome for the non-RCT group showed larger differences in favor of TDR than the RCT did. The nonresponders in the non-RCT group showed worse life quality and disability at baseline, and patients who answered the 1-year follow-up questionnaire but not the 2-year follow-up questionnaire had an inferior clinical result compared with the other patients at 1 year.

Conclusion

Data from our register showed results similar to the RCT, but a register cannot fully replace an RCT study when evaluating a new treatment option if the RCT has narrower selection than just the diagnosis. In this RCT comparing TDR with posterior fusion, the normal exclusion criteria for TDR were used. These were not registered, so the register could not prevent a possible selection bias, which might also be caused by the nonresponders.

Steroids in regional analgesia

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Local injections of steroids have been widely practiced to provide regional analgesia for the treatment of a wide variety of musculoskeletal pain syndromes. However, evidence regarding the effectiveness of steroid injections is not substantial. Also, there have been reports of catastrophic complications associated with their use.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

The evidence currently available in the literature (Database: Ovid MEDLINE 1950 to 2010) is reviewed. The areas covered include the analgesic mechanisms of steroids, indications for steroid injections and their effectiveness, as well as the risks and precautions for steroid injections.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

This is an up-to-date review on the clinical application of steroid injections for regional analgesia, which will give the reader an insight on how to maximize the benefits of steroids while minimizing their side effects and complications.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Although steroid injections are generally considered effective and safe in the treatment of painful condition of limbs, their use in the treatment of chronic back pain is still controversial and serious complications have been reported. More studies on outcome and safety are warranted.

Analysis of appropriateness of outpatient CT and MRI referred from primary care clinics at an academic medical center: how critical is the need for improved decision support?

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze a large group of CT and MRI examinations for appropriateness using evidence-based guidelines.

METHODS

The authors reviewed medical records from 459 elective outpatient CT and MR examinations from primary care physicians. Evidence-based appropriateness criteria from a radiology benefit management company were used to determine if the examination would have met criteria for approval. Submitted clinical history at the time of interpretation and clinic notes and laboratory results preceding the date of the imaging study were examined to simulate a real-time consultation with the referring provider. The radiology reports and subsequent clinic visits were analyzed for outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 459 examinations reviewed, 284 (62%) were CT and 175 (38%) were MRI. Three hundred forty-one (74%) were considered appropriate, and 118 (26%) were not considered appropriate. Examples of inappropriate examinations included brain CT for chronic headache, lumbar spine MR for acute back pain, knee or shoulder MRI in patients with osteoarthritis, and CT for hematuria during a urinary tract infection. Fifty-eight percent of the appropriate studies had positive results and affected subsequent management, whereas only thirteen percent [corrected] of inappropriate studies had positive results and affected management.

CONCLUSION

A high percentage of examinations not meeting appropriateness criteria and subsequently yielding negative results suggests a need for tools to help primary care physicians improve the quality of their imaging decision requests. In the current environment, which stresses cost containment and comparative effectiveness, traditional radiology benefit management tools are being challenged by clinical decision support, with an emphasis on provider education coupled with electronic order entry systems.

Contemporary low back pain research - and implications for practice

Each month, several journals contain reports on new ways of looking at low back pain-related risk and prognostic factors, new clinical interventions and suggestions for improved care. This is because back pain continues to be a vexing condition to manage. It often defies evaluation, diagnosis and treatment, and is associated with considerable individual suffering and negative societal impact. Although reviewing new and promising strategies is always interesting and gratifying for the reader, it is sobering to reconsider similar efforts over the past decades. Most new ideas for low back pain care have not proven to be effective when subjected to repeated rigorous and independent evaluation. New developments in epidemiologic and clinical understanding, and innovative approaches to non-medical management now appear to provide the best opportunities for improving outcomes. In this article, we review new perspectives and research studies that show promise, and suggest alternatives to current clinical and research paradigms.

The predictive value of the baseline Oswestry Disability Index in lumbar disc arthroplasty

Object

The goal of the study was to determine patient factors predictive of good outcome after lumbar disc arthroplasty. Specifically, the paper examines the relationship of the preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to patient outcome at 1 year.

Methods

The study is a retrospective review of 20 patients undergoing a 1-level lumbar disc arthroplasty at the author's institution between 2004 and 2008. All data were collected prospectively. Data included the ODI, visual analog scale scores, and patient demographics.

Results

All patients underwent a 1-level disc arthroplasty at L4–5 or L5–S1. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on their baseline ODI. Patients with an ODI between 38 and 59 demonstrated better outcomes with lumbar disc arthroplasty. Only 1 (20%) of 5 patients with a baseline ODI higher than 60 reported a good outcome. In contrast, 13 (87%) of 15 patients with an ODI between 38 and 59 showed a good outcome (p = 0.03). The negative predictive value of using ODI > 60 is 60% in patients who are determined to be candidates for lumbar arthroplasty.

Conclusions

Lumbar arthroplasty is very effective in some patients. Other patients do not improve after surgery. The baseline ODI results are predictive of outcome in patients selected for lumbar disc arthroplasty. A baseline ODI > 60 is predictive of poor outcome. A high ODI may be indicative of psychosocial overlay.

Synthesis of recommendations for the assessment and management of low back pain from recent clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent, costly, and challenging condition to manage. Clinicians must choose among numerous assessment and management options. Several recent clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on LBP have attempted to inform these decisions by evaluating and summarizing the best available supporting evidence. The quality and consistency of recommendations from these CPGs are currently unknown.

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review of recent CPGs and synthesize their recommendations on assessing and managing LBP for clinicians.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review.

METHODS

Literature search using MEDLINE, National Guidelines Clearinghouse, National Institute for Clinical Excellence, Internet search engines, and references of known articles. Only CPGs related to both assessment and management of LBP written in English were eligible; CPGs that summarized evidence from before the year 2000 were excluded. Data related to methods and recommendations for assessment and management of LBP were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument by two reviewers.

RESULTS

The search uncovered 669 citations, of which 95 were potentially relevant and 10 were included in the review; 6 discussed acute LBP, 6 chronic LBP, and 6 LBP with neurologic involvement. Methods used to develop CPGs varied, but the overall methodological quality was high as defined by AGREE scores. Recommendations for assessment of LBP emphasized the importance of ruling out potentially serious spinal pathology, specific causes of LBP, and neurologic involvement, as well as identifying risk factors for chronicity and measuring the severity of symptoms and functional limitations, through the history, physical, and neurologic examination. Recommendations for management of acute LBP emphasized patient education, with short-term use of acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or spinal manipulation therapy. For chronic LBP, the addition of back exercises, behavioral therapy, and short-term opioid analgesics was suggested. Management of LBP with neurologic involvement was similar, with additional consideration given to magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography to identify appropriate candidates willing to undergo epidural steroid injections or decompression surgery if more conservative approaches are not successful.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations from several recent CPGs regarding the assessment and management of LBP were similar. Clinicians who care for patients with LBP should endeavor to adopt these recommendations to improve patient care. Future CPGs may wish to invite coauthors from targeted clinician user groups, increase patient participation, update their literature searches before publication, conduct their own quality assessment of studies, and consider cost-effectiveness and other aspects in their recommendations more explicitly.

Daily functioning and self-management in patients with chronic low back pain after an intensive cognitive behavioral programme for pain management

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is associated with persistent or recurrent disability which results in high costs for society. Cognitive behavioral treatments produce clinically relevant benefits for patients with CLBP. Nevertheless, no clear evidence for the most appropriate intervention is yet available. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the mid-term effects of treatment in a cohort of patients with CLBP participating in an intensive pain management programme. The programme provided by RealHealth-Netherlands is based on cognitive behavioral principles and executed in collaboration with orthopedic surgeons. Main outcome parameters were daily functioning (Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Questionnaire), self-efficacy (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire) and quality of life (Short Form 36 Physical Component Score). All parameters were measured at baseline, last day of residential programme and at 1 and 12 months follow-up. Repeated measures analysis was applied to examine changes over time. Clinical relevance was examined using minimal clinical important differences (MCID) estimates for main outcomes. To compare results with literature effect sizes (Cohen’s d) and Standardized Morbidity Ratios (SMR) were determined. 107 patients with CLBP participated in this programme. Mean scores on outcome measures showed a similar pattern: improvement after residential programme and maintenance of results over time. Effect sizes were 0.9 for functioning, 0.8 for self-efficacy and 1.3 for physical functioning related quality of life. Clinical relevancy: 79% reached MCID on functioning, 53% on self-efficacy and 80% on quality of life. Study results on functioning were found to be 36% better and 2% worse when related to previous research on, respectively, rehabilitation programmes and spinal surgery for similar conditions (SMR 136 and 98%, respectively). The participants of this evidence-based programme learned to manage CLBP, improved in daily functioning and quality of life. The study results are meaningful and comparable with results of spinal surgery and even better than results from less intensive rehabilitation programmes.

Lumbar spinal stenosis

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is most commonly due to degenerative changes in older individuals. LSS is being more commonly diagnosed and may relate to better access to advanced imaging and to an ageing population. This review focusses on radicular symptoms related to degenerative central and lateral stenosis and updates knowledge of LSS pathophysiology, diagnosis and management. Since patients with anatomic LSS can range from asymptomatic to severely disabled, the clinical diagnosis focusses on symptoms and examination findings associated with LSS. Imaging findings are helpful for patients with persistent, bothersome symptoms in whom invasive treatments are being considered. There is limited information from high-quality studies about the relative merits and demerits of commonly used treatments. Interpreting and comparing results of available research are limited by a lack of consensus about the definition of LSS. Nevertheless, evidence supports decompressive laminectomy for patients with persistent and bothersome symptoms. Recommendations favour a shared decision-making approach due to important trade-offs between alternative therapies and differences among patients in their preferences and values.

The impact of workers' compensation on outcomes of surgical and nonoperative therapy for patients with a lumbar disc herniation: SPORT

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective randomized and observational cohorts.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of patients with and without workers' compensation who had surgical and nonoperative treatment for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation (IDH).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Few studies have examined the association between worker's compensation and outcomes of surgical and nonoperative treatment.

METHODS

Patients with at least 6 weeks of sciatica and a lumbar IDH were enrolled in either a randomized trial or observational cohort at 13 US spine centers. Patients were categorized as workers' compensation or nonworkers' compensation based on baseline disability compensation and work status. Treatment was usual nonoperative care or surgical discectomy. Outcomes included pain, functional impairment, satisfaction and work/disability status at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

Combining randomized and observational cohorts, 113 patients with workers' compensation and 811 patients without were followed for 2 years. There were significant improvements in pain, function, and satisfaction with both surgical and nonoperative treatment in both groups. In the nonworkers' compensation group, there was a clinically and statistically significant advantage for surgery at 3 months that remained significant at 2 years. However, in the workers' compensation group, the benefit of surgery diminished with time; at 2 years no significant advantage was seen for surgery in any outcome (treatment difference for SF-36 bodily pain [-5.9; 95% CI: -16.7-4.9] and physical function [5.0; 95% CI: -4.9-15]). Surgical treatment was not associated with better work or disability outcomes in either group.

CONCLUSION

Patients with a lumbar IDH improved substantially with both surgical and nonoperative treatment. However, there was no added benefit associated with surgical treatment for patients with workers' compensation at 2 years while those in the nonworkers' compensation group had significantly greater improvement with surgical treatment.