A controlled trial of continuous lumbar traction in the treatment of back pain and sciatica

Formulation of Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain- the revised 2019 edition

BACKGROUND

The latest clinical guidelines are mandatory for physicians to follow when practicing evidence-based medicine in the treatment of low back pain. Those guidelines should target not only Japanese board-certified orthopaedic surgeons, but also primary physicians, and they should be prepared based entirely on evidence-based medicine. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Low Back Pain guideline committee decided to update the guideline and launched the formulation committee. The purpose of this study was to describe the formulation we implemented for the revision of the guideline with the latest data of evidence-based medicine.

METHODS

The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Low Back Pain guideline formulation committee revised the previous guideline based on a method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan proposed by Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. Two key phrases, "body of evidence" and "benefit and harm balance" were focused on in the revised version. Background and clinical questions were determined, followed by literature search related to each question. Appropriate articles were selected from all the searched literature. Structured abstracts were prepared, and then meta-analyses were performed. The strength of both the body of evidence and the recommendation was decided by the committee members.

RESULTS

Nine background and nine clinical qvuestions were determined. For each clinical question, outcomes from the literature were collected and meta-analysis was performed. Answers and explanations were described for each clinical question, and the strength of the recommendation was decided. For background questions, the recommendations were described based on previous literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2019 clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain was completed according to the latest evidence-based medicine. We strongly hope that this guideline serves as a benchmark for all physicians, as well as patients, in the management of low back pain.

Vertical traction for lumbar radiculopathy: a systematic review

Background

Only low-quality evidence is currently available to support the effectiveness of different traction modalities in the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy (LR). Yet, traction is still very commonly used in clinical practice. Some authors have suggested that the subgroup of patients presenting signs and symptoms of nerve root compression and unresponsive to movements centralizing symptoms may benefit from lumbar traction. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of vertical traction (VT) on pain and activity limitation in patients affected by LR.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science and PEDro from their inception to March 31, 2019 to retrieve RCTs on adults with LR using VT to reduce pain and activity limitation. We considered only trials reporting complete data on outcomes. Two reviewers selected the studies, extracted the results, and performed the quality assessment using the Risk of Bias and GRADE tools.

Results

Three studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the included studies. We found very low quality evidence for a large effect of VT added to bed rest when compared to bed rest alone (g = − 1.01; 95% CI = -2.00 to − 0.02). Similarly, VT added to medication may have a large effect on pain relief when compared to medication alone (g = − 1.13; 95% CI = -1.72 to − 0.54, low quality evidence). Effects of VT added to physical therapy on pain relief were very small when compared to physical therapy without VT (g = − 0.14; 95% CI = -1.03 to 0.76, low quality evidence). All reported effects concerned short-term effect up to 3 months post-intervention.

Conclusions

With respect to short-term effects, VT may have a positive effect on pain relief if added to medication or bed rest. Long-term effects of VT are currently unknown. Future higher quality research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change these conclusions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40945-021-00102-5.

Effectiveness of Mechanical Traction for Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar radiculopathy (LR) is a pain syndrome caused by compression/irritation of the lumbar nerve root(s). Traction is a well-known and commonly used conservative treatment for LR, although its effectiveness is disputed. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was to evaluate the effects of different types of traction added to or compared with conservative treatments on pain and disability.

METHODS

Data were obtained from CENTRAL, PUBMED, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and PEDro from their inception to April 2020. All randomized controlled trials on adults with LR, using mechanical traction, and without any restriction regarding publication time or language were considered. Two reviewers selected the studies, evaluated the quality assessment, and extracted the results. Meta-analysis used a random-effects model. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, and 5 were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses of results from low-quality studies indicated that supine mechanical traction added to physical therapist treatments had significant effects on pain (g = -0.58 [95% confidence interval = -0.87 to -0.29]) and disability (g = -0.78 [95% confidence interval = -1.45 to -0.11]). Analyses of results from high-quality studies of prone mechanical traction added to physical therapist intervention for pain and disability were not significant. These results were also evident at short-term follow-up (up to 3 months after intervention).

CONCLUSION

The literature suggests that, for pain and disability in LR, there is short-term effectiveness of supine mechanical traction when added to physical therapist intervention.

IMPACT

This systematic review may be relevant for clinical practice due to its external validity because the treatments and the outcome measures are very similar to those commonly used in a clinical context.

Assessment of variability in traction interventions for patients with low back pain: a systematic review

Background

Previous systematic reviews have concluded that lumbar traction is not effective for patients with low back pain (LBP), yet many clinicians continue to assert its clinical effectiveness.

Objective

To systematically identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traction and explore the variability of traction interventions used in each RCT.

Method

A literature search started in September 2016 to retrieve systematic reviews and individual RCTs of lumbar traction. The term “lumbar traction” and other key words were used in the following databases: Cochrane Registry, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. The retrieved systematic reviews were used to extract individual RCTs. The most current systematic review included RCTs from inception until August 2012. We performed an additional literature search to update this systematic review with newer RCTs published between September 2012 and December 2016. All of the identified RCTs were combined and summarized into a single evidence table.

Results

We identified a total of 37 traction RCTs that varied greatly in their method of traction intervention. The RCTs included several types of traction: mechanical (57%), auto-traction (16%), manual (10.8%), gravitational (8.1%) and aquatic (5.4%). There was also great variability in the types of traction force, rhythm, session duration and treatment frequency used in the RCTs. Patient characteristics were a mixture of acute, subacute and chronic LBP; with or without sciatica.

Conclusion

There is wide variability in the type of traction, traction parameters and patient characteristics found among the RCTs of lumbar traction. The variability may call into question the conclusion that lumbar traction has little no or value on clinical outcomes. Also, this variability emphasizes the need for targeted delivery methods of traction that match appropriate dosages with specific subgroups of patients with LBP.

High-Force Versus Low-Force Lumbar Traction in Acute Lumbar Sciatica Due to Disc Herniation: A Preliminary Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the effects of high-force versus low-force lumbar traction in the treatment of acute lumbar sciatica secondary to disc herniation.

METHODS

A randomized double blind trial was performed, and 17 subjects with acute lumbar sciatica secondary to disc herniation were assigned to high-force traction at 50% body weight (BW; LT50, n = 8) or low force traction at 10% BW (LT10, n = 9) for 10 sessions in 2 weeks. Radicular pain (visual analogue scale [VAS]), lumbo-pelvic-hip complex motion (finger-to-toe test), lumbar-spine mobility (Schöber-Macrae test), nerve root compression (straight-leg-raising test), disability (EIFEL score), drug consumption, and overall evaluation of each patient were measured at days 0, 7, 1, 4, and 28.

RESULTS

Significant (P < .05) improvements were observed in the LT50 and LT10 groups, respectively, between day 0 and day 14 (end of treatment) for VAS (-44% and -36%), EIFEL score (-43% and -28%) and overall patient evaluation (+3.1 and +2.0 points). At that time, LT50 specifically improved in the finger-to-toe test (-42%), the straight-leg-raising test (+58), and drug consumption (-50%). No significant interaction effect (group-by-time) was revealed, and the effect of traction treatment was independent of the level of medication. During the 2-week follow-up at day 28, only the LT10 group improved (P < .05) in VAS (-52%) and EIFEL scores (-46%). During this period, no interaction effect (group-by-time) was identified, and the observed responses were independent of the level of medication.

CONCLUSIONS

For this preliminary study, patients with acute lumbar sciatica secondary to disc herniation who received 2 weeks of lumbar traction reported reduced radicular pain and functional impairment and improved well-being regardless of the traction force group to which they were assigned. The effects of the traction treatment were independent of the initial level of medication and appeared to be maintained at the 2-week follow-up.

Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica

BACKGROUND

Traction has been used to treat low-back pain (LBP), often in combination with other treatments. We included both manual and machine-delivered traction in this review. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1995, and previously updated in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of traction compared to placebo, sham traction, reference treatments and no treatment in people with LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Back Review Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2012, Issue 8), MEDLINE (January 2006 to August 2012), EMBASE (January 2006 to August 2012), CINAHL (January 2006 to August 2012), and reference lists of articles and personal files. The review authors are not aware of any important new randomized controlled trial (RCTs) on this topic since the date of the last search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs involving traction to treat acute (less than four weeks' duration), subacute (four to 12 weeks' duration) or chronic (more than 12 weeks' duration) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. As there were insufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a descriptive analysis. We did not find any case series that identified adverse effects, therefore we evaluated adverse effects that were reported in the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs involving 2762 participants in this review. We considered 16 trials, representing 57% of all participants, to have a low risk of bias based on the Cochrane Back Review Group's 'Risk of bias' tool.For people with mixed symptom patterns (acute, subacute and chronic LBP with and without sciatica), there was low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction may make little or no difference in pain intensity, functional status, global improvement or return to work when compared to placebo, sham traction or no treatment. Similarly, when comparing the combination of physiotherapy plus traction with physiotherapy alone or when comparing traction with other treatments, there was very-low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction may make little or no difference in pain intensity, functional status or global improvement.For people with LBP with sciatica and acute, subacute or chronic pain, there was low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction probably has no impact on pain intensity, functional status or global improvement. This was true when traction was compared with controls and other treatments, as well as when the combination of traction plus physiotherapy was compared with physiotherapy alone. No studies reported the effect of traction on return to work.For chronic LBP without sciatica, there was moderate-quality evidence that traction probably makes little or no difference in pain intensity when compared with sham treatment. No studies reported on the effect of traction on functional status, global improvement or return to work.Adverse effects were reported in seven of the 32 studies. These included increased pain, aggravation of neurological signs and subsequent surgery. Four studies reported that there were no adverse effects. The remaining studies did not mention adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that traction, either alone or in combination with other treatments, has little or no impact on pain intensity, functional status, global improvement and return to work among people with LBP. There is only limited-quality evidence from studies with small sample sizes and moderate to high risk of bias. The effects shown by these studies are small and are not clinically relevant. Implications for practice To date, the use of traction as treatment for non-specific LBP cannot be motivated by the best available evidence. These conclusions are applicable to both manual and mechanical traction. Implications for research Only new, large, high-quality studies may change the point estimate and its accuracy, but it should be noted that such change may not necessarily favour traction. Therefore, little priority should be given to new studies on the effect of traction treatment alone or as part of a package.

The efficacy of transforaminal injection of steroids for the treatment of lumbar radicular pain

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal injection of steroids is used to treat lumbar radicular pain. Not known is whether the route of injection or the agent injected is significant.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized study compared the outcomes of transforaminal injection of steroid and local anesthetic, local anesthetic alone, or normal saline, and intramuscular injection of steroid or normal saline. Patients and outcome evaluators were blinded as to agent administered.

METHODS

The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients who achieved complete relief of pain, or at least 50% relief, at 1 month after treatment. Secondary outcome measures were function, disability, patient-specified functional outcomes, use of other health care, and duration of relief beyond 1 month.

RESULTS

A significantly greater proportion of patients treated with transforaminal injection of steroid (54%) achieved relief of pain than did patients treated with transforaminal injection of local anesthetic (7%) or transforaminal injection of saline (19%), intramuscular steroids (21%), or intramuscular saline (13%). Relief of pain was corroborated by significant improvements in function and disability, and reductions in use of other health care. Outcomes were equivalent for patients with acute or chronic radicular pain. Over time, the number of patients who maintained relief diminished. Only some maintained relief beyond 12 months. The proportions of patients doing so were not significantly different statistically between groups.

DISCUSSION

Transforaminal injection of steroids is effective only in a proportion of patients. Its superiority over other injections is obscured when group data are compared but emerges when categorical outcomes are calculated. Over time, the proportion of patients with maintained responses diminishes.

Advice to rest in bed versus advice to stay active for acute low-back pain and sciatica

BACKGROUND

Acute low-back pain (LBP) is a common reason to consult a general practitioner. Debate continues on the comparative effectiveness of advice on bed rest and staying active as part of the primary care management.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of advice to rest in bed or stay active for patients with acute low-back pain or sciatica.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sport, and SCISEARCH to May 2009, reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of the effectiveness of advice to stay active or rest in bed for patients with acute LBP or sciatica. The main outcomes were pain, functional status, recovery and return to work.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The trials were combined qualitatively or statistically, depending on data availability and presentation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included ten RCTs with varying risk of bias. For patients with acute LBP, results from two trials (N = 401) suggest small improvements in pain relief (SMD 0.22 (95% CI: 0.02 to 0.41) and functional status (SMD 0.29 (95% CI: 0.09 to 0.49) in favour of advice to stay active. For patients with sciatica, there is moderate quality evidence of little or no difference in pain relief (SMD -0.03 (95% CI: -0.24 to 0.18)) or functional status (SMD 0.19 (95% CI: -0.02 to 0.41)), between advice to rest in bed or stay active.Low quality evidence (3 RCTs, N = 931) suggests little or no difference between exercises, advice to rest in bed or stay active for patients with acute LBP. Low quality evidence (1 RCT, N = 250) suggests little or no difference between physiotherapy, advice to rest in bed or stay active for patients with sciatica. No trials that compared different ways of delivering advice.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality evidence shows that patients with acute LBP may experience small benefits in pain relief and functional improvement from advice to stay active compared to advice to rest in bed; patients with sciatica experience little or no difference between the two approaches. Low quality evidence suggests little or no difference between those who received advice to stay active, exercises or physiotherapy. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and is likely to change our confidence in it.

WITHDRAWN: Bed rest for acute low-back pain and sciatica

BACKGROUND

Low-back pain (LBP) is a common reason for consulting a general practitioner, and advice on daily activities is an important part of the primary care management of low-back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of advice to rest in bed for patients with acute LBP or sciatica.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Back Group Specialized Registry, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sport, and SCISEARCH to March 2003, reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or controlled clinical trials with quasi-randomisation (alternate allocation, case record numbers, dates of birth, etc.), in any language, where the effectiveness of advice to rest in bed was evaluated. The main outcomes of interest were pain, functional status, recovery and return to work.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the internal validity of included trials and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials (1963 patients) were included in this updated version. There is high quality evidence that people with acute LBP who are advised to rest in bed have a little more pain [Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) 0.22 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.02, 0.41)] and a little less functional recovery [SMD 0.29 (95% CI: 0.05, 0.45)] than those advised to stay active. For patients with sciatica, there is high quality evidence of little or no difference in pain [SMD -0.03 (95% CI: -0.24, 0.18)] or functional status [SMD 0.19 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.41)], between bed rest and staying active.For patients with acute LBP, there is moderate quality evidence of little or no difference in pain intensity or functional status between bed rest and exercises. For patients with sciatica, there is moderate quality evidence of little or no difference in pain intensity between bed rest and physiotherapy, but small improvements in functional status [Weighted Mean Difference 6.9 (on a 0-100 scale) (95% CI: 1.09, 12.74)] with physiotherapy. There is moderate quality evidence of little or no difference in pain intensity or functional status between two to three days and seven days of bed rest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For people with acute LBP, advice to rest in bed is less effective than advice to stay active. For patients with sciatica, there is little or no difference between advice to rest in bed and advice to stay active. There is little or no difference in the effect of bed rest compared to exercises or physiotherapy, or seven days of bed rest compared with two to three.

Modified straight leg raising test: a hypothetical clinical adjunct to distinguish two types of lumbar disc herniation preoperatively

There are two anatomically different types of lumbar disc herniation, contained and noncontained. The status of disc herniation not only has a place of in planning therapeutic procedure, but also appears prognostically important. However, it is difficult to distinguish these two types completely without surgery, even by imaging studies. As a hypothetical clinical adjunct, a modified straight leg raising test is described. This novel diagnostic aid is based on the pathogenesis of sciatica, and enlightened by the mechanisms of both traditional straight leg raising test and traction. We surmise that the mechanical compression caused by herniated disc is predominant in contained type; whereas the chemical inflammatory effect is more pronounced in the pathogenesis of sciatica in noncontained type. Thus, it is hypothesized that in patients with contained type, the symptoms of sciatica, and the angles of straight leg raising test would be different before and after traction. On the other hand, in patients with noncontained type, these clinical appearances could not improve significantly. According to the different symptoms, two types of disc herniation are expected to be distinguished by the straight leg raising test preoperatively. Combined with imaging studies, this hypothetical clinical adjunct is hoped to ameliorate the accuracy of diagnosis.

The effectiveness of motorised lumbar traction in the management of LBP with lumbo sacral nerve root involvement: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Traction is commonly used for the treatment of low back pain (LBP), predominately with nerve root involvement; however its benefits remain to be established. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to compare the difference between two treatment protocols (manual therapy, exercise and advice, with or without traction) in the management of acute/sub acute LBP with 'nerve root' involvement.

METHODS

30 LBP patients with nerve root pain were recruited and randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups. Primary outcome measures were the: McGill pain questionnaire, Roland Morris disability questionnaire, and the SF36 Questionnaire; recorded at baseline, discharge, 3 and 6 months post-discharge.

RESULTS

27 patients completed treatment with a loss of another four patients at follow up. Intention to treat analysis demonstrated an improvement in all outcomes at follow up points but there appeared to be little difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown that a trial recruiting patients with 'nerve root' problems is feasible. Further research based upon a fully powered trial is required to ascertain if the addition of traction has any benefit in the management of these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN78417198.

Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica

BACKGROUND

Traction is used to treat low-back pain (LBP), often with other treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To determine traction's effectiveness, compared to reference treatments, placebo, sham traction or no treatment for LBP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to October 2006, references in relevant reviews and personal files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving traction to treat acute (less than four weeks duration), sub-acute (four to 12 weeks) or chronic (more than 12 weeks) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection, methodological quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by two authors. As there were insufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a qualitative analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs (2206 patients; 1045 receiving traction). Five trials were considered high quality. For patients with mixed symptom patterns (acute, sub-acute and chronic LBP with and without sciatica) there is: strong evidence of no statistically significant difference in outcomes between traction as a single treatment and placebo, sham or no treatment; moderate evidence that traction as a single treatment is no more effective than other treatments; limited evidence of no significant difference in outcomes between a standard physical therapy program with or without continuous traction. For LBP patients with sciatica (with acute, sub-acute or chronic pain), there is conflicting evidence in several comparisons: autotraction compared to placebo, sham or no treatment; other forms of traction compared to other treatments; different forms of traction. In other comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences; the evidence is moderate for continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham or no treatment, and limited for light versus normal force traction.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results of the available studies involving mixed groups of acute, sub-acute and chronic patients with LBP with and without sciatica were quite consistent, indicating that continuous or intermittent traction as a single treatment for LBP is not likely effective for this group. Traction for patients with sciatica cannot be judged effective at present either, due to inconsistent results and methodological problems in most studies. We conclude that traction as a single treatment for LBP is probably not effective.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Any future research on traction for patients with LBP should distinguish between symptom pattern and duration, and should be carried out according to the highest methodological standards.

Traction for low back pain with or without sciatica: an updated systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if traction is more effective than reference treatments, placebo/sham traction, or no treatment for low back pain (LBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Various types of traction are used in the treatment of LBP, often in conjunction with other treatments.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to November 2004, and screened the latest issue of the Cochrane Library (2004, issue 4) and references in relevant reviews and our personal files. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving any type of traction for the treatment of acute (less than 4 weeks duration), subacute (4-12 weeks), or chronic (more than 12 weeks) nonspecific LBP with or without sciatica. Sets of 2 reviewers independently performed study selection, methodological quality assessment, and data extraction. Because available studies did not provide sufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a qualitative "levels of evidence" analysis, systematically estimating the strength of the cumulative evidence on the difference/lack of difference observed in trial outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 24 RCTs (2177 patients) were included. There were 5 trials considered high quality. For mixed groups of patients with LBP with and without sciatica, we found: (1) strong evidence that there is no statistically significant difference in short or long-term outcomes between traction as a single treatment, (continuous or intermittent) and placebo, sham, or no treatment; (2) moderate evidence that traction as a single treatment is no more effective than other treatments; and (3) limited evidence that adding traction to a standard physiotherapy program does not result in significantly different outcomes. For LBP with sciatica, we found conflicting evidence in several of the comparisons: autotraction compared to placebo, sham, or no treatment; other forms of traction compared to other treatments; and different forms of traction. In the remaining comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences; level of evidence is moderate regarding continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham, or no treatment, and is limited regarding different forms of traction.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current evidence, intermittent or continuous traction as a single treatment for LBP cannot be recommended for mixed groups of patients with LBP with and without sciatica. Neither can traction be recommended for patients with sciatica because of inconsistent results and methodological problems in most of the studies involved. However, because high-quality studies within the field are scarce, because many are underpowered, and because traction often is supplied in combination with other treatment modalities, the literature allows no firm negative conclusion that traction, in a generalized sense, is not an effective treatment for patients with LBP.

Lumbar disc herniations: surgical versus nonsurgical treatment

Lumbar disc herniation is among the most common causes of lower-back pain and sciatica. The cause(s) of lumbar disc herniation and the relation of lumbar disc herniation to back pain and sciatica have not been fully elucidated, but most likely comprise a complex combination of mechanical and biologic processes. Furthermore, the natural history of lumbar disc herniation seems generally to be favorable, leaving the optimum treatment for lumbar disc herniation a debate in the literature. Various nonoperative and operative treatment strategies have been tried with varying degrees of success. Treatment often involves patient education, physical therapy, alternative medicine options, and pharmaco-therapy. If these fail, surgical intervention is usually recommended. A literature search was conducted to evaluate the currently known effectiveness of traditional and novel non-operative and surgical techniques for the treatment lumbar disc herniation and to determine if there are substantive new advantages in these newer contemporary treatments or combinations thereof. A structured approach to treatment of a patient who may have a symptomatic lumbar disc herniation is presented, based on analysis of the current literature. No one method of nonoperative or operative treatment would seem definitively to be superior to another. Appropriate multidisciplinary treatment including behavioral analysis and support may offer the hope of improved outcomes for patients with lumbar disc herniation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V (expert opinion). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of the levels of evidence.

Outcome of non-invasive treatment modalities on back pain: an evidence-based review

At present, there is an increasing international trend towards evidence-based health care. The field of low back pain (LBP) research in primary care is an excellent example of evidence-based health care because there is a huge body of evidence from randomized trials. These trials have been summarized in a large number of systematic reviews. This paper summarizes the best available evidence from systematic reviews conducted within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group on non-invasive treatments for non-specific LBP. Data were gathered from the latest Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. The Cochrane reviews were updated with additional trials, if available. Traditional NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, and advice to stay active are effective for short-term pain relief in acute LBP. Advice to stay active is also effective for long-term improvement of function in acute LBP. In chronic LBP, various interventions are effective for short-term pain relief, i.e. antidepressants, COX2 inhibitors, back schools, progressive relaxation, cognitive-respondent treatment, exercise therapy, and intensive multidisciplinary treatment. Several treatments are also effective for short-term improvement of function in chronic LBP, namely COX2 inhibitors, back schools, progressive relaxation, exercise therapy, and multidisciplinary treatment. There is no evidence that any of these interventions provides long-term effects on pain and function. Also, many trials showed methodological weaknesses, effects are compared to placebo, no treatment or waiting list controls, and effect sizes are small. Future trials should meet current quality standards and have adequate sample size.

Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica

BACKGROUND

Various types of traction are used in the treatment of low-back pain (LBP), often in conjunction with other treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of traction in the management of LBP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library 2004, Issue 4, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to November 2004, references in relevant reviews, and our personal files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining any type of traction for the treatment of acute (less than four weeks duration), sub-acute (four to 12 weeks) or chronic (more than 12 weeks) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection, methodological quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by sets of two reviewers. As available studies did not provide sufficient data for statistical pooling, a qualitative analysis was performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs, involving 2177 patients (1016 receiving traction) were included in the review. Five trials were considered high quality. There is strong evidence that there is no significant difference in short or long-term outcomes between either continuous or intermittent traction and placebo, sham, or other treatments for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica. There is moderate evidence that: autotraction is more effective other forms of traction are no more effective than placebo, sham or no treatment for patients with a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica. There is limited evidence that: there is no significant difference in outcomes between a standard physical therapy program with continuous traction and the same program without traction, for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica autotraction on its own is more effective than a physical therapy program that includes Tru-Trac traction for patients with a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica. There is conflicting evidence regarding the short-term effectiveness of either continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham or other treatments, in the management of patients who have either chronic LBP or a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that traction is probably not effective. Neither continuous nor intermittent traction by itself was more effective in improving pain, disability or work absence than placebo, sham or other treatments for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica. Although trials studying patients with sciatica had methodological limitations and inconsistent results, there was moderate evidence that autotraction was more effective than mechanical traction for global improvement in this population.

Bed rest for acute low-back pain and sciatica

BACKGROUND

Low-back pain (LBP) is a common reason for consulting a general practitioner, and advice on daily activities is an important part of the primary care management of low-back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of advice to rest in bed for patients with acute LBP or sciatica.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Back Group Specialized Registry, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sport, and SCISEARCH to March 2003, reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or controlled clinical trials with quasi-randomisation (alternate allocation, case record numbers, dates of birth, etc.), in any language, where the effectiveness of advice to rest in bed was evaluated. The main outcomes of interest were pain, functional status, recovery and return to work.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the internal validity of included trials and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials (1963 patients) were included in this updated version. There is high quality evidence that people with acute LBP who are advised to rest in bed have a little more pain [Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) 0.22 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.02, 0.41)] and a little less functional recovery [SMD 0.29 (95% CI: 0.05, 0.45)] than those advised to stay active. For patients with sciatica, there is moderate quality evidence of little or no difference in pain [SMD -0.03 (95% CI: -0.24, 0.18)] or functional status [SMD 0.19 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.41)] between bed rest and staying active. For patients with acute LBP, there is moderate quality evidence of little or no difference in pain intensity or functional status between bed rest and exercises. For patients with sciatica, there is moderate quality evidence of little or no difference in pain intensity between bed rest and physiotherapy, but small improvements in functional status [Weighted Mean Difference 6.9 (on a 0-100 scale) (95% CI: 1.09, 12.74)] with physiotherapy. There is moderate quality evidence of little or no difference in pain intensity or functional status between two to three days and seven days of bed rest.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

For people with acute LBP, advice to rest in bed is less effective than advice to stay active. For patients with sciatica, there is little or no difference between advice to rest in bed and advice to stay active. There is little or no difference in the effect of bed rest compared to exercises or physiotherapy, or seven days of bed rest compared with two to three.

The efficacy of traction for back pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of traction for patients with low back pain (LBP) with or without radiating pain, taking into account the clinical technique or parameters used.

DATA SOURCES

A computer-aided search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, and the Cochrane Collaboration was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the English language, from 1966 to December 2001.

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs were included if: participants were over the age of 18 years, with LBP with or without radiating pain; the intervention group received traction as the main or sole treatment; the comparison group received sham traction or another conservative treatment; and the study used 1 of 4 primary outcome measures.

DATA EXTRACTION

The study was conducted in 2 strands. Strand 1 assessed methodologic quality using a specific criteria list recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. The strength of the evidence was then rated using the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research system. Strand 2 applied further inclusion criteria based on recommended clinical parameters. One reviewer conducted the selection and data extraction.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Strand 1: 1 study scored 9 points (maximum score, 10 points); the other 12 scored between 0 and 3 points, indicating that most were of poor quality. Nine studies reported negative findings, but only 1 study was of a high quality. Three studies reported positive findings and 1 study was inconclusive. Strand 2: only 4 trials having low methodologic quality were included, 2 of which reported negative findings, and 2 positive findings.

CONCLUSION

The evidence for the use of traction in LBP remains inconclusive because of the continued lack of methodologic rigor and the limited application of clinical parameters as used in clinical practice. Further trials, which give attention to these areas, are needed before any firm conclusions and recommendations may be made.

Non-specific back pain in children and adolescents: a prospective study until maturity

Fifty-eight children with non-specific back pain lasting for at least 3 months were included in this prospective study. Not included were children with radicular pain or with abnormal findings on clinical examination, radiography, bone scan, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. They were all re-examined after skeletal maturity, on average 7.6 years later. Thirty-one children had pain in the lumbar spine, 20 in the thoracic region and seven over the entire spine. Sixty-two percent of the children were still in pain at follow-up. Female sex and pain in the thoracic region were associated with an increased risk of the pain remaining chronic.

Lumbar spine traction: evaluation of effects and recommended application for treatment

Despite the widespread use of traction, little is known of the mode of effect, and application remains largely anecdotal. The efficacy of traction is also unclear because of generally poor design of the clinical trials to date, and because subgroups of patients most likely to benefit have not been specifically studied. These observations prompted this review, the purposes of which are to evaluate the mechanisms by which traction may provide benefit and to provide rational guidelines for the clinical application of traction. Traction has been shown to separate the vertebrae and it appears that large forces are not required. Vertebral separation could provide relief from radicular symptoms by removing direct pressure or contact forces from sensitised neural tissue. Other mechanisms proposed to explain the effects of traction (e.g. reduction of disc protrusion or altered intradiscal pressure) have been shown not to occur. We conclude that traction is most likely to benefit patients with acute (less than 6 weeks' duration) radicular pain with concomitant neurological deficit. The apparent lack of a dose-response relationship suggests that low doses are probably sufficient to achieve benefit.

Bed rest for acute low back pain and sciatica

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is a common reason for consulting a general practitioner, and advice on daily activities constitutes an important part in the primary care management of low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of bed rest for patients with acute low back pain or sciatica.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trial register, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Sport, Scisearch, and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted authors of relevant articles. Date of the most recent searches: December 1998.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised studies or quasi randomised studies where at least one comparison group of adult patients with acute low back pain with or without radiation of pain below the knee was advised to rest in bed for at least two days and one group was not, or where comparison groups were advised to stay in bed for different lengths of time. The main outcomes of interest were pain, functional status, recovery and return to work.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the validity of included trials and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials with a total of 1435 patients were included. Five trials met all four validity criteria and were assessed to have low risk of bias, while four trials were assessed to have moderate to high risk of bias. Four trials compared bed rest with advice to stay active, and overall the results were heterogeneous. Overall results from two high quality studies indicate no difference in pain intensity at three weeks follow-up [Standardized Mean Difference 0.0 (95%CI: -0.3, 0.2)], and a small difference in functional status in favour of staying active [Weighted Mean Difference 3.2 (on a 0-100 scale) (95%CI 0.6, 5.8)]. Two high quality trials reported no differences in pain intensity between two to three days of bed rest and seven days of bed rest. Another two high-quality trials found no differences between bed rest and exercises in pain intensity or functional status.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Bed rest compared to acvice to stay active will at best have small effects, and at worst might have small harmful effects on acute LBP. Differences in effects of advice to stay in bed compared with advice to stay active are small for patients with low back pain with or without sciatica. There is not an important difference in the effects of bed rest compared with exercises in the treatment of acute low back pain, or seven days compared with two to three days of bed rest in patients with low back pain of different duration with and without radiating pain.

Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain relating to return to work. Part 2. Discogenic low back pain

The purpose of this review was to determine the efficacy of treatments for discogenic low back pain (LBP) by examining all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of discogenic LBP published in the English language literature between 1975 and 1993 with "return to work" (RTW) as the end point. From more than 4,000 LBP citations, nearly 600 articles were initially reviewed; 35 studies met our selection criteria. Twenty-two studies were discussed in Part 1 (Acute Interventions) or will be discussed in Part 3 (Chronic Interventions). In this review, of 13 RCTs assessing interventions for LBP with sciatica, 9 were appropriate for their focus on, and radiologic confirmation of, discogenic LBP. The treatments assessed included chemonucleolysis, surgical discectomy, and epidural steroid injection. A 26-point system to assess the quality of methodologic rigor was used for each article. Our literature survey found a need for additional studies comparing surgery, conservative care, epidural steroids, traction, and other approaches to determine their individual effects for RTW after discogenic disease.

Lumbar traction: a review of the literature

Lumbar traction is commonly used to treat patients with back pain. Typically, clinicians rely on expert opinion in making decisions about when and how to implement lumbar traction. The purpose of this paper was to review current knowledge of lumbar traction and to identify what, if any, empirical evidence supports the expert opinions. This review found that whereas the mechanical effects of lumbar traction are well substantiated, the results of studies examining clinical effectiveness are conflicting. The failure to conclusively demonstrate the clinical benefit of lumbar traction may be related to the varied diagnostic categories and treatment techniques employed in the studies. Of the 10 types of lumbar traction described in the literature, static and intermittent mechanical traction are the two most commonly used. Indications, contraindications, and treatment techniques for these two types of traction are discussed. Based on the findings of this review, further study is needed to determine optimal treatment duration, frequency, and mode of administering lumbar traction. Also, classification systems to identify patients most likely to benefit from traction need to be developed and validated.

Effects of vertebral axial decompression on intradiscal pressure

The object of this study was to examine the effect of vertebral axial decompression on pressure in the nucleus pulposus of lumbar discs. Intradiscal pressure measurement was performed by connecting a cannula inserted into the patient's L4-5 disc space to a pressure transducer. The patient was placed in a prone position on a VAX-D therapeutic table and the tensionometer on the table was attached via a pelvic harness. Changes in intradiscal pressure were recorded at resting state and while controlled tension was applied by the equipment to the pelvic harness. Intradiscal pressure demonstrated an inverse relationship to the tension applied. Tension in the upper range was observed to decompress the nucleus pulposus significantly, to below -100 mm Hg.

Controlled trial of balneotherapy in treatment of low back pain

Three treatments for non-specific lumbar pain--balneotherapy, underwater traction bath, and underwater massage--were assessed in a randomised prospective controlled trial in 158 outpatients. Each group was treated for four weeks and patients were reviewed at the end of this period and at 12 months after entry to the trial. The prescription of analgesics and the pain score were significantly reduced in all three treated groups, but there was no difference between the three groups. No significant change occurred in spinal motion and the straight leg raising test. After one year only the analgesic consumption was significantly lower than in the control group.