Symptomatic magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed lumbar disk herniation patients: a comparative effectiveness prospective observational study of 2 age- and sex-matched cohorts treated with either high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy or imaging-guided lumbar nerve root injections

Effects of spinal manipulation or mobilization as an adjunct to neurodynamic mobilization for lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine the long-term clinical effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) or mobilization (MOB) as an adjunct to neurodynamic mobilization (NM) in the management of individuals with Lumbar Disc Herniation with Radiculopathy (DHR).

DESIGN

Parallel group, single-blind randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

The study was conducted in a governmental tertiary hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty (40) participants diagnosed as having a chronic DHR (≥3 months) were randomly allocated into two groups with 20 participants each in the SMT and MOB groups.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants in the SMT group received high-velocity, low-amplitude manipulation, while those in the MOB group received Mulligans' spinal mobilization with leg movement. Each treatment group also received NM as a co-intervention, administered immediately after the SMT and MOB treatment sessions. Each group received treatment twice a week for 12 weeks.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The following outcomes were measured at baseline, 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization; back pain, leg pain, activity limitation, sciatica bothersomeness, sciatica frequency, functional mobility, quality of life, and global effect. The primary outcomes were pain and activity limitation at 12 weeks post-randomization.

RESULTS

The results indicate that the MOB group improved significantly better than the SMT group in all outcomes (p < 0.05), and at all timelines (6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization), except for sensory deficit at 52 weeks, and reflex and motor deficits at 12 and 52 weeks. These improvements were also clinically meaningful for neurodynamic testing and sensory deficits at 12 weeks, back pain intensity at 6 weeks, and for activity limitation, functional mobility, and quality of life outcomes at 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks of follow-ups. The risk of being improved at 12 weeks post-randomization was 40% lower (RR = 0.6, CI = 0.4 to 0.9, p = 0.007) in the SMT group compared to the MOB group.

CONCLUSION

This study found that individuals with DHR demonstrated better improvements when treated with MOB plus NM than when treated with SMT plus NM. These improvements were also clinically meaningful for activity limitation, functional mobility, and quality of life outcomes at long-term follow-up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Pan-African Clinical Trial Registry: PACTR201812840142310.

Spine injections: the rationale for CT guidance

Back pain is one of the most common medical problems and is associated with high socioeconomic costs. Imaging-guided spinal injections are a minimally invasive method to evaluate where the back pain is originating from, and to treat patients with radicular pain or spinal stenosis with infiltration of corticosteroids. CT-guided spine injections are a safe procedure, characterized by precise needle placement, excellent visualization of the relevant anatomical structures, and low radiation exposure for the patient and the interventional radiologist. In this review article, the variety of applications of CT-guided injections (focused on nerve roots and epidural injections) and the optimal injection procedure as well as risks and side effects are discussed.

Bibliometric Analysis of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies on Manual Therapy Analgesia from 2002-2022

Background

Research on the brain mechanisms underlying manual therapy (MT)-induced analgesia has been conducted worldwide. However, no bibliometric analysis has been performed on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of MT analgesia. To provide a theoretical foundation for the practical application of MT analgesia, this study examined the current incarnation, hotspots, and frontiers of fMRI-based MT analgesia research over the previous 20 years.

Methods

All publications were obtained from the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) of Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC). We used CiteSpace 6.1.R3 to analyze publications, authors, cited authors, countries, institutions, cited journals, references, and keywords. We also evaluated keyword co-occurrences and timelines, and citation bursts. The search was conducted from 2002-2022 and was completed within one day on October 7, 2022.

Results

In total, 261 articles were retrieved. The total number of annual publications showed a fluctuating but overall increasing trend. Author B. Humphreys had the highest number of publications (eight articles) and J. E. Bialosky had the highest centrality (0.45). The United States of America (USA) was the country with the most publications (84 articles), accounting for 32.18% of all publications. Output institutions were mainly the University of Zurich, University of Switzerland, and the National University of Health Sciences of the USA. The Spine (118) and the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (80) were most frequently cited. The four hot topics in fMRI studies on MT analgesia were "low back pain", "magnetic resonance imaging", "spinal manipulation", and "manual therapy." The frontier topics were "clinical impacts of pain disorders" and "cutting-edge technical capabilities offered by magnetic resonance imaging".

Conclusion

fMRI studies of MT analgesia have potential applications. fMRI studies of MT analgesia have linked several brain areas, with the default mode network (DMN) garnering the most attention. Future research should include international collaboration and RCTs on this topic.

Epidural steroid injection versus conservative treatment for patients with lumbosacral radicular pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Previous systemic reviews have examined the efficacy of individual therapeutic agents, but which type of treatment is superior to another has not been pooled or analyzed. The objective of the current study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of epidural steroid injection (ESI) versus conservative treatment for patients with lumbosacral radicular pain.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted with MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases with a double-extraction technique for relevant studies published between 2000 and January 10, 2019. The randomized controlled trials which directly compared the efficacy of ESI with conservative treatment in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain were included. Outcomes included visual analog scale, numeric rating scale, Oswetry disability index, or successful events. Two reviewers extracted data and evaluated the methodological quality of papers using the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. A meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.2 software. The heterogeneity of the meta-analysis was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 1071 titles initially identified, 6 randomized controlled trials (249 patients with ESI and 241 patients with conservative treatment) were identified and included in this meta-analysis. The outcome of the pooled analysis showed that ESI was beneficial for pain relief at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up when compared with conservative treatment, but this effect was not maintained at long-term follow-up. Successful event rates were significantly higher in patients who received ESI than in patients who received conservative treatment. There were no statistically significant differences in functional improvement after ESI and conservative treatment at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up. The limitations of this meta-analysis resulted from the variation in types of interventions and small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results of this meta-analysis, the use of ESI is more effective for alleviating lumbosacral radicular pain than conservative treatments in terms of short-term and intermediate-term. Patients also reported more successful outcomes after receiving ESI when compared to conservative treatment. However, this effect was not maintained at long-term follow-up. This meta-analysis will help guide clinicians in making decisions for the treatment of patients with lumbosacral radicular pain, including the use of ESI, particularly in the management of pain at short-term.

Development of a Clinical Decision Aid for Chiropractic Management of Common Conditions Causing Low Back Pain in Veterans: Results of a Consensus Process

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop a clinical decision aid for chiropractic management of common conditions causing low back pain (LBP) in veterans receiving treatment in US Veterans Affairs (VA) health care facilities.

METHODS

A consensus study using an online, modified Delphi technique and Research Electronic Data Capture web application was conducted among VA doctors of chiropractic. Investigators reviewed the scientific literature pertaining to diagnosis and treatment of nonsurgical, neuromusculoskeletal LBP. Thirty seed statements summarizing evidence for chiropractic management, a graphical stepped management tool outlining diagnosis-informed treatment approaches, and support materials were then reviewed by an expert advisory committee. Email notifications invited 113 VA chiropractic clinicians to participate as Delphi panelists. Panelists rated the appropriateness of the seed statements and the stepped process on a 1-to-9 scale using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles methodology. Statements were accepted when both the median rating and 80% of all ratings occurred within the highly appropriate range.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine panelists (74% male) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 46 (11) years and clinical experience of 17 (11) years participated in the study. Accepted statements addressed included (1) essential components of chiropractic care, (2) treatments for conditions causing or contributing to LBP, (3) spinal manipulation mechanisms, (4) descriptions and mechanisms of commonly used chiropractic interventions, and (5) a graphical stepped clinical management tool.

CONCLUSION

This study group produced a chiropractic clinical decision aid for LBP management, which can be used to support evidence-based care decisions for veterans with LBP.

Outcomes indicators and a risk classification system for spinal manipulation under anesthesia: a narrative review and proposal

Over a period of decades chiropractors have utilized spinal manipulation under anesthesia (SMUA) to treat chronic back and neck pain. As an advanced form of manual therapy, SMUA is reserved for the patient whose condition has proven refractory to office-based manipulation and other modes of conservative care. Historically, the protocols and guidelines put forth by chiropractic MUA proponents have served as the clinical compass for directing MUA practice. With many authors and MUA advocates having focused primarily on anticipated benefit, the published literature contains no resource dedicated to treatment precautions and contraindications. Also absent from current relevant literature is acknowledgement or guidance on the preliminary evidence that may predict poor clinical outcomes with SMUA. This review considers risk and unfavorable outcomes indicators in therapeutic decision making for spinal manipulation under anesthesia. A new risk classification system is proposed that identifies patient safety and quality of care interests for a procedure that remains without higher-level research evidence. A scale which categorizes risk and outcome potential for SMUA is offered for the chiropractic clinician, which aims to elevate the standard of care and improve patient selection through the incorporation of specific indices from existing medical literature.

EFFECTIVENESS OF CHIROPRACTIC ADJUSTMENT IN LUMBAR PAIN IN CROSSFIT PRACTITIONERS

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of acute chiropractic adjustment in individuals who practice CrossFit with regard to complaints of low back pain and the joint range of motion in this region. Methods: A randomized clinical trial comprised of CrossFit practitioners from a box in Novo Hamburgo-RS, of both sexes and aged 18 to 40 years who had low back pain at the time of the study. The following tools were used: Semi-structured Anamnesis Questionnaire, Visual Analog Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire, and SF-36 Quality of Life Questionnaire. Individuals in the control group answered the questionnaires before and after CrossFit training. The chiropractic group performed the same procedure, plus pre-training chiropractic adjustment and joint range of motion (ROM) before and after lumbar adjustment. Results: There was a significant increase in pain in the control group, and a significant decrease in pain in the chiropractic group, including one day after the chiropractic adjustment. In the chiropractic group, the joint ranges of motion had a significant increase in flexion and extension of the lumbar spine after chiropractic adjustment. Conclusion: The chiropractic group achieved a significant improvement in pain level and joint range of motion, suggesting that acute chiropractic adjustment was effective in reducing low back pain.

Comparison of Outcomes in MRI Confirmed Lumbar Disc Herniation Patients With and Without Modic Changes Treated With High Velocity, Low Amplitude Spinal Manipulation

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in outcomes between Modic positive and negative lumbar disc herniation (LDH) patients treated with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT).

METHODS

This prospective outcomes study includes 72 MRI confirmed symptomatic LDH patients treated with SMT. Numerical rating scale (NRS) pain and Oswestry disability data were collected at baseline. NRS, patient global impression of change to assess overall improvement, and Oswestry data were collected at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6 months and 1 year. MRI scans were analyzed for Modic change present/absent and classified as Modic I or II when present. Chi-squared test compared the proportion of patients reporting relevant 'improvement' between patients with and without Modic changes and those with Modic I vs. II. NRS and Oswestry scores were compared at baseline and change scores at all follow-up time points using the unpaired Student t test.

RESULTS

76.5% of Modic positive patients reported 'improvement' compared to 53.3% of Modic negative patients (P = .09) at 2 weeks. Modic positive patients had larger decreases in leg pain (P = .02) and disability scores (P = .012) at 2 weeks. Modic positive patients had larger reductions in disability levels at 3 (P = .049) and 6 months (P = .001). A significant difference (P = .001) between patients with Modic I vs. Modic II was found at 1 year, where Modic II patients did significantly better.

CONCLUSION

Modic positive patients reported higher levels of clinically relevant improvement 2 weeks, 3 and 6 months compared to Modic negative patients. However, at 1 year Modic I patients were significantly less likely to report 'improvement', suggesting they may be prone to relapse.

Symptomatic, Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Confirmed Cervical Disk Herniation Patients: A Comparative-Effectiveness Prospective Observational Study of 2 Age- and Sex-Matched Cohorts Treated With Either Imaging-Guided Indirect Cervical Nerve Root Injections or Spinal Manipulative Therapy

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of overall improvement, pain reduction, and treatment costs in matched patients with symptomatic, magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed cervical disk herniations treated with either spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) or imaging-guided cervical nerve root injection blocks (CNRI).

METHODS

This prospective cohort comparative-effectiveness study included 104 patients with magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed symptomatic cervical disk herniation. Fifty-two patients treated with CNRI were age and sex matched with 52 patients treated with SMT. Baseline numerical rating scale (NRS) pain data were collected. Three months after treatment, NRS pain levels were recorded and overall "improvement" was assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. Only responses "much better" or "better" were considered "improved." The proportion of patients "improved" was calculated for each treatment method and compared using the χ(2) test. The NRS and NRS change scores for the 2 groups were compared at baseline and 3 months using the unpaired t test. Acute and subacute/chronic patients in the 2 groups were compared for "improvement" using the χ(2) test.

RESULTS

"Improvement" was reported in 86.5% of SMT patients and 49.0% of CNRI patients (P = .0001). Significantly more CNRI patients were in the subacute/chronic category (77%) compared with SMT patients (46%). A significant difference between the proportion of subacute/chronic CNRI patients (37.5%) and SMT patients (78.3%) reporting "improvement" was noted (P = .002).

CONCLUSION

Subacute/chronic patients treated with SMT were significantly more likely to report relevant "improvement" compared with CNRI patients. There was no difference in outcomes when comparing acute patients only.

The development and implementation of an outcomes database for imaging-guided therapeutic musculoskeletal injections

OBJECTIVES

To present the process of creating an imaging-guided injections outcomes database and to reflect on how this database has affected the scientific activities of the radiology department.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The literature was searched to identify studies on the effectiveness of musculoskeletal therapeutic injections, areas where research is lacking, and relevant outcome measures. Validated outcome measures were chosen and tested in a pilot study. Data collection time points of 1 day, 1 week and 1 month post-injection were determined and the post-pilot study postal questionnaires were created. The data collection process began and has been ongoing for over 4 years. Critical reflection on the process and outcomes from the database occurred.

RESULTS

The 9 steps to creating this outcomes database are presented. The numerical rating scale for pain (NRS) and the Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) were identified as the most valid, reliable, and time-effective outcome measures. At most, 50% of patients return their postal questionnaire. The database has facilitated the publication of numerous research projects.

CONCLUSIONS

Setting up an outcomes database is straightforward and productive. The NRS and PGIC were considered the most useful outcome measures. This database facilitated critical reflection on current practice and provides the foundation for several research studies.