Back pain and sciatica: controlled trials of manipulation, traction, sclerosant and epidural injections

Invasive Treatments for Low Back Disorders

OBJECTIVE

This abbreviated version of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's Low Back Disorders guideline reviews the evidence and recommendations developed for invasive treatments used to manage low back disorders.

METHODS

Comprehensive systematic literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel and extensive peer-review to develop evidence-based guidance. Consensus recommendations were formulated when evidence was lacking and often relied on analogy to other disorders for which evidence exists. A total of 47 high-quality and 321 moderate-quality trials were identified for invasive management of low back disorders.

RESULTS

Guidance has been developed for the invasive management of acute, subacute, and chronic low back disorders and rehabilitation. This includes 49 specific recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Quality evidence should guide invasive treatment for all phases of managing low back disorders.

Evaluation of transforaminal epidural steroid injections for discogenic axial lumbosacral back pain utilizing PROMIS as an outcome measure

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Discogenic lumbosacral back pain continues to present a challenging clinical entity with limited, controversial therapeutic options. No study to date has evaluated the efficacy of fluoroscopically guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) in a homogenous patient population with axial lumbosacral back pain from discogenic pathology utilizing strict, explicitly clinical and radiographic criteria. Additionally, there is a paucity of published data utilizing Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores as an outcome measure for interventional spine procedures.

PURPOSE

Evaluate the therapeutic effect of TFESIs in a specific subset of patients with discogenic axial lumbosacral back pain. Investigate PROMIS as an outcome measure for interventional spine procedures targeting focal degenerative spinal pathology.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective review of patients presenting to a multidisciplinary, tertiary academic spine center.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Three thousand eight hundred eighty-one patients were screened for inclusion. A total of 26 patients with discogenic axial low back, based on strict clinical and radiographic criteria, underwent TFESIs. All patients had axial low back pain without radicular pain, ≥3 clinical features of discogenic pain, corroborative radiographic features of active discogenic pathology on lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging without confounding spinal pathology.

OUTCOME MEASURES

PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) v1.1, PROMIS Physical Function (PF) v1.2/v2.0, and PROMIS Depression (D) v1.0 outcome scores were collected at baseline and postprocedure follow-up.

METHODS

Query of an institutional, patient reported outcome database and subsequent retrospective review of electronic medical records was performed. Statistical analysis comparing baseline and postprocedural PROMIS outcome scores and correlation between these instruments was performed. Additionally, an exploratory investigation of minimal clinically important difference achievement rates was performed.

RESULTS

Analysis determined a statistically significant improvement in PROMIS PI (p=.017, 95% CI=-8.02 to -1.82) and PROMIS PF (p=.003, 95% CI=0.91-8.72) scores after treatment with TFESIs. At post treatment time points, TFESI had medium effect size on pain (d=0.55) and function (d=0.59). Change in PROMIS D scores (p=.488, 95% CI -1.74-3.54; d=.08) did not demonstrate statistical significance. Pearson correlation demonstrated a moderate negative correlation (r=-0.544, p=.004) between PROMIS PF with PROMIS PI. Correlation between PROMIS PF (r=-0.239, p=.24) and PROMIS PI (r=0.198, p=.33) with PROMIS D was not significant. Fourteen (53.8%) and 9 (34.6%) subjects achieved minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for PROMIS PI and PROMIS PF, respectively. Nine subjects (34.6%) achieved MCID for PROMIS D despite not otherwise reaching statistical significance otherwise.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilizing PROMIS as an outcome measure, discogenic axial lumbosacral back pain patients appear to benefit from TFESI in terms of pain and physical function. This study contributes to the growing body of literature utilizing PROMIS scores in patients with clinical sequelae of degenerative spinal pathology; however, prospective studies are needed.

STeroids Against Radiculopathy (STAR) trial: a statistical analysis plan

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal epidural injections with steroids (TESI) are used increasingly for patients with sciatica. However, their safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness are still a matter of debate. This a priori statistical analysis plan describes the methodology of the analysis for the STAR trial that assesses the (cost-)effectiveness of TESI during the acute stage of sciatica (< 8 weeks).

METHODS

The STAR trial is a multicentre, randomized controlled, prospective trial (RCT) investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of TESI by making a three-group comparison among patients with acute sciatica due to a herniated lumbar disc (< 8 weeks): (1) TESI combined with levobupivacaine added to oral pain medication (intervention group 1) versus oral pain medication alone (control group), (2) intervention group 1 versus transforaminal epidural injection with levobupivacaine and saline solution added to oral pain medication (intervention group 2), and (3) intervention group 2 versus control group. Co-primary outcomes were physical functioning (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), pain intensity (10-point numerical rating scale), and global perceived recovery (7-point Likert scale, dichotomized into 'recovered' and 'not recovered'). For all three comparisons, we defined the following minimal clinically relevant between-group differences: two points for pain intensity (range 0-10), four points for physical functioning (range 0-24) and a 20% difference in recovery rate. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) and patient satisfaction (7-point Likert scale) and surgery rate. We also collected resource use data to perform an economic evaluation. Analyses will be conducted by intention-to-treat with p < 0.05 (two-tailed) for all three comparisons. Effects will be estimated using mixed models by maximum likelihood. For each comparison, mean differences, or difference in proportions, between groups will be tested per time point and an overall mean difference, or difference in proportions, between groups during the complete duration of follow-up (6 months) will be estimated. In the economic evaluation, Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations will be used to handle missing data. Cost and effect differences will be estimated using seemingly unrelated regression, and uncertainty will be estimated using bootstrapping techniques.

DISCUSSION

This statistical analysis plan provides detailed information on the intended analysis of the STAR trial, which aims to deliver evidence about the (cost-)effectiveness of TESI during the acute phase of sciatica (< 8 weeks).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch National trial register NTR4457 (6 March 2014).

Epidural Corticosteroid Injections for Sciatica: An Abridged Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic with meta-analysis OBJECTIVES.: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection in reducing leg pain and disability in patients with sciatica.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Conservative treatments, including pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, are typically the first treatment options for sciatica but the evidence to support their use is limited. The overall quality of evidence found by previous systematic reviews varies between moderate and high, which suggests that future trials may change the conclusions. New placebo-controlled randomized trials have been published recently which highlights the importance of an updated systematic review.

METHODS

The searches were performed without language restrictions in the following databases from 2012 to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and trial registers. We included placebo-controlled randomized trials investigating epidural corticosteroid injections in patients with sciatica. The primary outcomes were leg pain intensity and disability. The secondary outcomes were adverse events, overall pain, and back pain intensity. We grouped similar trials according to outcome measures and their respective follow-up time points. Short-term follow-up (>2 weeks but ≤3 months) was considered the primary follow-up time point due to the expected mechanism of action of epidural corticosteroid injection. Weighted mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and conducted the analyses using random effects.

RESULTS

We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) providing data for a total of 2470 participants with sciatica, an increase of six trials when compared to the previous review. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably more effective than placebo in reducing short-term leg pain (MD -4.93, 95% CI -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0-100 scale), short-term disability (MD -4.18, 95% CI: -6.04 to -2.17 on a 0-100 scale) and may be slightly more effective in reducing short-term overall pain (MD -9.35, 95% CI -14.05 to -4.65 on a 0-100 scale). There were mostly minor adverse events (i.e., without hospitalization) after epidural corticosteroid injections and placebo injections without difference between groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.91-1.42). The quality of evidence was at best moderate mostly due to problems with trial design and inconsistency.

CONCLUSION

A review of 25 placebo-controlled trials provides moderate-quality evidence that epidural corticosteroid injections are effective, although the effects are small and short-term. There is uncertainty on safety due to very low-quality evidence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbosacral radicular pain

BACKGROUND

Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a corticosteroid dose into the epidural space, with the aim of reducing the local inflammatory process and, consequently, relieving the symptoms of lumbosacral radicular pain. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012. Some placebo-controlled trials have been published recently, which highlights the importance of updating the previous review.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection on pain and disability in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language limitations up to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Back and Neck group trial register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and two trial registers. We also performed citation tracking of included studies and relevant systematic reviews in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared epidural corticosteroid injections of any corticosteroid drug to placebo injections in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. We accepted all three anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) to delivering corticosteroids into the epidural space. We considered trials that included a placebo treatment as delivery of an inert substance (i.e. one with no pharmacologic activity), an innocuous substance (e.g. normal saline solution), or a pharmacologically active substance but not one considered to provide sustained benefit (e.g. local anaesthetic), either into the epidural space (i.e. to mimic epidural corticosteroid injection) or adjacent spinal tissue (i.e. subcutaneous, intramuscular, or interspinous tissue). We also included trials in which a local anaesthetic with a short duration of action was used as a placebo and injected together with corticosteroid in the intervention group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed the screening, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessments. In case of insufficient information, we contacted the authors of the original studies or estimated the data. We grouped the outcome data into four time points of assessment: immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short term (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate term (> 3 months but < 12 months), and long term (≥ 12 months). We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and time point using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) investigating the effects of epidural corticosteroid injections compared to placebo in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. The included studies provided data for a total of 2470 participants with a mean age ranging from 37.3 to 52.8 years. Seventeen studies included participants with lumbosacral radicular pain with a diagnosis based on clinical assessment and 15 studies included participants with mixed duration of symptoms. The included studies were conducted mainly in North America and Europe. Fifteen studies did not report funding sources, five studies reported not receiving funding, and five reported receiving funding from a non-profit or government source. Eight trials reported data on pain intensity, 12 reported data on disability, and eight studies reported data on adverse events. The duration of the follow-up assessments ranged from 12 hours to 1 year. We considered eight trials to be of high quality because we judged them as having low risk of bias in four out of the five bias domains. We identified one ongoing trial in a trial registry. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing leg pain at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -4.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0 to 100 scale; 8 trials, n = 949; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). For disability, epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing disability at short-term follow-up (MD -4.18, 95% CI -6.04 to -2.17, on a 0 to 100 scale; 12 trials, n = 1367; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). The treatment effects are small, however, and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. MD lower than 10%). Most trials provided insufficient information on how or when adverse events were assessed (immediate or short-term follow-up) and only reported adverse drug reactions - that is, adverse events that the trialists attributed to the study treatment. We are very uncertain that epidural corticosteroid injections make no difference compared to placebo injection in the frequency of minor adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 8 trials, n = 877; very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision)). Minor adverse events included increased pain during or after the injection, non-specific headache, post-dural puncture headache, irregular periods, accidental dural puncture, thoracic pain, non-local rash, sinusitis, vasovagal response, hypotension, nausea, and tinnitus. One study reported a major drug reaction for one patient on anticoagulant therapy who had a retroperitoneal haematoma as a complication of the corticosteroid injection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This study found that epidural corticosteroid injections probably slightly reduced leg pain and disability at short-term follow-up in people with lumbosacral radicular pain. In addition, no minor or major adverse events were reported at short-term follow-up after epidural corticosteroid injections or placebo injection. Although the current review identified additional clinical trials, the available evidence still provides only limited support for the use of epidural corticosteroid injections in people with lumbosacral radicular pain as the treatment effects are small, mainly evident at short-term follow-up and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. mean difference lower than 10%). According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, suggesting that further studies are likely to play an important role in clarifying the efficacy and tolerability of this treatment. We recommend that further trials should attend to methodological features such as appropriate allocation concealment and blinding of care providers to minimise the potential for biased estimates of treatment and harmful effects.

Nonsurgical medical treatment in the management of pain due to lumbar disc prolapse: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment strategies for patients with pain due to lumbar disc prolapse (LDP).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database were searched through September 2017. Randomized controlled trials on LDP reporting on pain intensity and/or global pain effects which compared included treatments head-to-head, against placebo, and/or against conventional care were included. Study data were independently double-extracted and data on patient traits and outcomes were collected. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Separate Bayesian network meta-analyses were undertaken to synthesize direct and indirect, short-term and long-term outcomes, summarized as odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% credible intervals (CI) as well as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

58 studies in global effects and 74 studies in pain intensity analysis were included. Thirty-eight (65.5%) of these studies reported a possible elevated risk of bias. Autonomic drugs and transforminal epidural steroid injections (TESIs) had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (86.7 and 83.5 respectively), while Cytokines/Immunomodulators and TESI had the highest SUCRA values at long-term-follow-up in the global effect's analysis (86.6 and 80.9 respectively). Caudal steroid injections and TESIs had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (79.4 and 75.9 respectively), while at long-term follow-up biological agents and manipulation had the highest SUCRA scores (86.4 and 68.5 respectively) for pain intensity. Some treatments had few studies and/or no associated placebo-controlled trials. Studies often did not report on co-interventions, systematically differed, and reported an overall elevated risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

No treatment stands out as superior when compared on multiple outcomes and time periods but TESIs show promise as an effective short-term treatment. High quality studies are needed to confirm many nodes of this network meta-analysis.

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.

An observation of massive lumbar disc prolapse

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate whether massive lumbar disc herniations (LDH) can be managed safely with non-operative treatment. Whilst most LDH are treated successfully with analgesia and physiotherapy, there is little literature regarding the treatment of massive LDH. Their impressive size raises the suspicion that they may cause cauda equina syndrome and are therefore often treated surgically.

Methods

Patients were referred to our tertiary unit by either their general practitioner or the musculoskeletal service. To be included in the study, patients had to have a diagnosis of massive LDH on their initial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and opt for non-operative treatment. Seventeen patients with a diagnosis of massive LDH with an average follow-up of 209 days (0 to 1,005 days) were reviewed.

Results

One patient was listed for surgery due to persisting radicular pain only. However, they were deemed unfit for surgery and this was therefore cancelled. One patient developed impending cauda equina syndrome and underwent urgent discectomy with no complications. All remaining patients were managed safely non-operatively with no complications.

Conclusions

We conclude that the massive LDH can be safely managed non-operatively, providing patients are examined for cauda equina syndrome and are fully educated on the need to represent urgently should red-flag symptoms develop.

Treatment of acute sciatica with transforaminal epidural corticosteroids and local anesthetic: design of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Transforaminal epidural injections with steroids (TESI) are used increasingly for patients with sciatica. However there is much debate about their safety and effectiveness. It is important to identify patients that benefit most from TESI and only few trials have yet evaluated the effects in patients with acute sciatica.

Methods

We describe a prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT), with the aim to evaluate the hypothesis that TESI plus Levobupivacaine (TESI-plus) added to oral pain medication is more effective compared to pain medication alone or compared to transforaminal injection with a local anesthetic of short duration among patients with acute sciatica. We will recruit a total of 264 patients with sciatica (<8 weeks) caused by a herniated disc, from two clinical sites. Participants are randomly assigned one of three study groups: 1) oral pain medication (control group), 2) oral pain medication and TESI-plus (intervention group one), 3) oral pain medication and transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) with Levobupivaine and saline solution (intervention group two). Primary outcomes are functional status (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), pain intensity for both leg and back, (100 mm visual analogous scale (VAS)), and global perceived recovery (GPR, reported on a 7-point Likert scale, dichotomized into ‘recovered’ and ‘not recovered’). The secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life (EQ5D-5 L) and patient satisfaction (7-point Likert scale). We will also collect information on healthcare utilization and costs, to perform an economic evaluation. All outcomes are measured at three and six weeks, three and six months after randomization. We defined a minimal clinically relevant difference between groups as a difference between both intervention groups and the control group of 20 points for pain (100-point VAS), four points for functional status (24-point RDQ) and a 20% difference on dichotomized GPR (recovered versus not recovered).

Discussion

A clinically relevant outcome in favor of TESI-plus implies that future patients with acute sciatica should be recommended TESI-plus within the first few weeks rather than being treated with pain medication alone in order to relieve pain and improve their functioning. In case of a negative result (no relevant differences in outcome between the three study arms), pain medication will remain the mainstay of treatment in the acute stages of sciatica.

Trial registration

Dutch National trial register: NTR4457 (March, 6th, 2014)

Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Acute low back pain is common and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a treatment option. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have reported different conclusions about the effectiveness of SMT.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review studies of the effectiveness and harms of SMT for acute (≤6 weeks) low back pain.

DATA SOURCES

Search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and Current Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 1, 2011, through February 6, 2017, as well as identified systematic reviews and RCTs, for RCTs of adults with low back pain treated in ambulatory settings with SMT compared with sham or alternative treatments, and that measured pain or function outcomes for up to 6 weeks. Observational studies were included to assess harms.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was done in duplicate. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Risk of Bias tool. This tool has 11 items in the following domains: randomization, concealment, baseline differences, blinding (patient), blinding (care provider [care provider is a specific quality metric used by the CBN Risk of Bias tool]), blinding (outcome), co-interventions, compliance, dropouts, timing, and intention to treat. Prior research has shown the CBN Risk of Bias tool identifies studies at an increased risk of bias using a threshold of 5 or 6 as a summary score. The evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Pain (measured by either the 100-mm visual analog scale, 11-point numeric rating scale, or other numeric pain scale), function (measured by the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire or Oswestry Disability Index [range, 0-100]), or any harms measured within 6 weeks.

FINDINGS

Of 26 eligible RCTs identified, 15 RCTs (1711 patients) provided moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements in pain (pooled mean improvement in the 100-mm visual analog pain scale, -9.95 [95% CI, -15.6 to -4.3]). Twelve RCTs (1381 patients) produced moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements in function (pooled mean effect size, -0.39 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.07]). Heterogeneity was not explained by type of clinician performing SMT, type of manipulation, study quality, or whether SMT was given alone or as part of a package of therapies. No RCT reported any serious adverse event. Minor transient adverse events such as increased pain, muscle stiffness, and headache were reported 50% to 67% of the time in large case series of patients treated with SMT.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with acute low back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was associated with modest improvements in pain and function at up to 6 weeks, with transient minor musculoskeletal harms. However, heterogeneity in study results was large.

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.

Epidural Corticosteroid Injections for Radiculopathy and Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of epidural corticosteroid injections is increasing.

PURPOSE

To review evidence on the benefits and harms of epidural corticosteroid injections in adults with radicular low back pain or spinal stenosis of any duration.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE (through May 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, prior systematic reviews, and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of epidural corticosteroid injections versus placebo interventions, or that compared epidural injection techniques, corticosteroids, or doses.

DATA EXTRACTION

Dual extraction and quality assessment of individual studies, which were used to determine the overall strength of evidence (SOE).

DATA SYNTHESIS

30 placebo-controlled trials evaluated epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy, and 8 trials were done for spinal stenosis. For radiculopathy, epidural corticosteroids were associated with greater immediate-term reduction in pain (weighted mean difference on a scale of 0 to 100, -7.55 [95% CI, -11.4 to -3.74]; SOE, moderate), function (standardized mean difference after exclusion of an outlier trial, -0.33 [CI, -0.56 to -0.09]; SOE, low), and short-term surgery risk (relative risk, 0.62 [CI, 0.41 to 0.92]; SOE, low). Effects were below predefined minimum clinically important difference thresholds, and there were no longer-term benefits. Limited evidence showed no clear effects of technical factors, patient characteristics, or comparator interventions on estimates. There were no clear effects of epidural corticosteroid injections for spinal stenosis (SOE, low to moderate). Serious harms were rare, but harms reporting was suboptimal (SOE, low).

LIMITATIONS

The review was restricted to English-language studies. Some meta-analyses were based on small numbers of trials (particularly for spinal stenosis), and most trials had methodological shortcomings.

CONCLUSION

Epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy were associated with immediate reductions in pain and function. However, benefits were small and not sustained, and there was no effect on long-term surgery risk. Limited evidence suggested no effectiveness for spinal stenosis.

Lumbar Traction for Managing Low Back Pain: A Survey of Physical Therapists in the United States

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES

To examine how many physical therapists use traction, the patients for whom traction is used, the preferred delivery modes/parameters of traction, the supplemental interventions used with traction, and whether professional characteristics influence traction usage.

BACKGROUND

Several systematic reviews and clinical guidelines have questioned the effectiveness of traction for managing low back pain, yet some patients may benefit from lumbar traction. While traction usage among physical therapists in other countries has been described, usage among physical therapists in the United States has not been examined.

METHODS

We surveyed a random sample of 4000 Orthopaedic Section members of the American Physical Therapy Association. Associations among respondents' professional characteristics and survey responses were explored with chi-square analyses (α = .05).

RESULTS

The response rate was 25.5% (n = 1001), and 76.6% (n = 767) of respondents reported using traction. Most (58.4%) of the respondents used traction for patients with signs of nerve root compression, though many (31.4%) did not. Common delivery modes included manual methods (68.3%) and mechanical tables (44.9%), most often supplemental to other interventions (eg, stabilization exercises, postural education). Levels of professional preparation (doctoral/masters level versus bachelors/certificate level) were associated with many variables, as was attainment of an orthopaedic specialist certification.

CONCLUSION

Most of the orthopaedic physical therapists in the United States who responded to our survey reported that they used lumbar traction, though not necessarily consistent with proposed criteria that identify patients most likely to benefit from traction. They used various traction delivery modes/parameters and used traction within comprehensive plans of care incorporating multiple interventions. Professional characteristics (education levels and clinical specialist credentialing) were associated with traction usage.

The Incidence of Lumbar Discectomy after Epidural Steroid Injections or Selective Nerve Root Blocks

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine the use of Central Epidural Steroid Injections (ESI) and Selective Nerve Root Blocks (SNRB) along with the crossover rate to lumbar discectomy in patients with a lumbar disc herniation using retrospective records database search. Butterman et al found a crossover rate for patients with symptomatic disc herniations treated with ESI of 54% (27/50), while Riew similarly found a 53% (29/55) crossover patients receiving SNRB.

METHODS

The database was searched in a sequential Boolean style for patients with the diagnosis of a lumbar disc herniation (Displaced Lumbar Disc - 722.1) and a SNRB (64483) or ESI (62311) who subsequently underwent a Lumbar Discectomy (63030) over a three year time period from January 2004 through December 2006. Statistical analysis was preformed examining the impact of injection type, age, location, gender, and year.

RESULTS

Of 482,893 patients with the diagnosis of a disc herniation, 27,799(5.76%) underwent a lumbar discectomy. The 29,941 patients who received at least one SNRB for a disc herniation, 10.80% later underwent a lumbar discectomy. The 41,420 patients who received at least one ESI for a disc herniation 9.34% later underwent a lumbar discectomy. There was a noted increase in injection procedures, particularly SNRB during the study with a greater than 50% increase.

CONCLUSIONS

Our examination found a much smaller, but similar crossover rate to surgery between both injection methods, which argues against one method being more effective than another in avoiding surgery. It is likely that patients are receiving these procedures more frequently during the course of conservative treatment for a disc herniation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

This was a Level III study.

Comparative clinical effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

There are numerous treatment approaches for sciatica. Previous systematic reviews have not compared all these strategies together.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of different treatment strategies for sciatica simultaneously.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched 28 electronic databases and online trial registries, along with bibliographies of previous reviews for comparative studies evaluating any intervention to treat sciatica in adults, with outcome data on global effect or pain intensity. Network meta-analysis methods were used to simultaneously compare all treatment strategies and allow indirect comparisons of treatments between studies. The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; there are no potential conflict of interests.

RESULTS

We identified 122 relevant studies; 90 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs. Interventions were grouped into 21 treatment strategies. Internal and external validity of included studies was very low. For overall recovery as the outcome, compared with inactive control or conventional care, there was a statistically significant improvement following disc surgery, epidural injections, nonopioid analgesia, manipulation, and acupuncture. Traction, percutaneous discectomy, and exercise therapy were significantly inferior to epidural injections or surgery. For pain as the outcome, epidural injections and biological agents were significantly better than inactive control, but similar findings for disc surgery were not statistically significant. Biological agents were significantly better for pain reduction than bed rest, nonopioids, and opioids. Opioids, education/advice alone, bed rest, and percutaneous discectomy were inferior to most other treatment strategies; although these findings represented large effects, they were statistically equivocal.

CONCLUSIONS

For the first time, many different treatment strategies for sciatica have been compared in the same systematic review and meta-analysis. This approach has provided new data to assist shared decision-making. The findings support the effectiveness of nonopioid medication, epidural injections, and disc surgery. They also suggest that spinal manipulation, acupuncture, and experimental treatments, such as anti-inflammatory biological agents, may be considered. The findings do not provide support for the effectiveness of opioid analgesia, bed rest, exercise therapy, education/advice (when used alone), percutaneous discectomy, or traction. The issue of how best to estimate the effectiveness of treatment approaches according to their order within a sequential treatment pathway remains an important challenge.

Do Epidural Injections Provide Short- and Long-term Relief for Lumbar Disc Herniation? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

As part of a comprehensive nonsurgical approach, epidural injections often are used in the management of lumbar disc herniation. Recent guidelines and systematic reviews have reached different conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in managing lumbar disc herniation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this systematic review, we determined the efficacy (pain relief and functional improvement) of the three anatomic approaches (caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal) for epidural injections in the treatment of disc herniation.

METHODS

We performed a literature search from 1966 to June 2013 in PubMed, Cochrane library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, previous systematic reviews, and cross-references for trials studying all types of epidural injections in managing chronic or chronic and subacute lumbar disc herniation. We wanted only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (either placebo or active controlled) to be included in our analysis, and 66 studies found in our search fulfilled these criteria. We then assessed the methodologic quality of these 66 studies using the Cochrane review criteria for RCTs. Thirty-nine studies were excluded, leaving 23 RCTs of high and moderate methodologic quality for analysis. Evidence for the efficacy of all three approaches for epidural injection under fluoroscopy was strong for short-term (< 6 months) and moderate for long-term (≥ 6 months) based on the Cochrane rating system with five levels of evidence (best evidence synthesis), with strong evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple high-quality RCTs and moderate evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple low-quality RCTs or one high-quality RCT. The primary outcome measure was pain relief, defined as at least 50% improvement in pain or 3-point improvement in pain scores in at least 50% of the patients. The secondary outcome measure was functional improvement, defined as 50% reduction in disability or 30% reduction in the disability scores.

RESULTS

Based on strong evidence for short-term efficacy from multiple high-quality trials and moderate evidence for long-term efficacy from at least one high quality trial, we found that fluoroscopic caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections were efficacious at managing lumbar disc herniation in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that epidural injections performed under fluoroscopy by trained physicians offer improvement in pain and function in well-selected patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Epidural injections in prevention of surgery for spinal pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Low back pain is debilitating and costly, especially for patients not responding to conservative therapy and requiring surgery.

PURPOSE

Our objective was to determine whether epidural steroid injections (ESI) have a surgery-sparing effect in patients with spinal pain.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

The study design was based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Databases searched included Cochrane, PubMed, and EMBASE. The primary analysis evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which treatment groups received ESI and control groups underwent control injections. Secondary analyses involved RCTs comparing surgery with ESI, and subgroup analyses of trials comparing surgery with conservative treatment in which the operative disposition of subjects who received ESI were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 26 total studies included, only those evaluating the effect of ESI on the need for surgery as a primary outcome examined the same patient cohort, providing moderate evidence that patients who received ESI were less likely to undergo surgery than those who received control treatment. For studies examining surgery as a secondary outcome, ESI demonstrated a trend to reduce the need for surgery for short-term (<1 year) outcomes (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.13; p=.14) but not long-term (≥1 year) outcomes (0.95, 0.77-1.19, p=.68). Secondary analyses provided low-level evidence suggesting that between one-third and half of patients considering surgery who undergo ESI can avoid surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural steroid injections may provide a small surgery-sparing effect in the short term compared with control injections and reduce the need for surgery in some patients who would otherwise proceed to surgery.

Lumbar facet injection for the treatment of chronic piriformis myofascial pain syndrome: 52 case studies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the effectiveness of lumbar facet joint injection for piriformis myofascial pain syndrome.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients with chronic myofascial pain in the piriformis muscle each received a lumbar facet injection into the ipsilateral L5-S1 facet joint region, using the multiple insertion technique. Subjective pain intensity, trunk extension range, and lumbar facet signs were measured before, immediately after, and 2 weeks after injection. Thirty-six patients received follow-up for 6 months.

RESULTS

Immediately after the injection, 27 patients (51.9%) had complete pain subsidence, 19 patients (36.5%) had pain reduction to a tolerable level, and only 6 patients (11.5%) had no pain relief to a tolerable level. Mean pain intensity was reduced from 7.4±0.9 to 1.6±2.1 after injection (P<0.01). This effectiveness lasted for 2 weeks in 49 patients (94.2%), and lasted for approximately 6 months in 35 (97.2%) of 36 patients. The mean range of motion increased from 13.4±6.8 degrees to 22.1±6.0 degrees immediately after injection, and further increased 2 weeks and 6 months later. Immediately after injection, 45 patients (86.5%) had no facet sign. In addition, 90.4% and 94.4% of patients had no facet sign after 2 weeks and after 6 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to identify the possible cause of piriformis myofascial pain syndrome. If this pain is related to lumbar facet lesions, lumbar facet joint injection can immediately suppress piriformis myofascial pain symptoms. This effectiveness may last for at least 6 months in most patients. This study further supports the importance of eliminating the underlying etiological lesion for complete and effective relief of myofascial pain syndrome.

Access routes and reported decision criteria for lumbar epidural drug injections: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

To review lumbar epidural drug injection routes in relation to current practice and the reported criteria used for selecting a given approach.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a HIPPA-compliant study. Employing a systematic search strategy, the MEDLINE and EMBASE databank as well as the Cochrane Library were searched for studies on epidural drug injections. The following data were noted: access route, level of injection, use of image guidance, and types and doses of injected drugs. Justifications for the use of a particular route were also noted. Data were presented using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 1,211 scientific studies were identified, of which 91 were finally included (7.5%). The interlaminar access route was used in 44 of 91 studies (48.4%), the transforaminal in 37 of 91 studies (40.7%), and the caudal pathway in 26 of 91 studies (28.6%). The caudal pathway was favored in the older studies whereas the transforaminal route was favored in recent studies. Decision criteria related to correct needle placement, concentration of injected drug at lesion site, technical complexity, costs, and potential complications. Injection was usually performed on the level of the lesion using local anesthetics (71 of 91 studies, 78.0%), steroids (all studies) and image guidance (71 of 91 studies, 78%).

CONCLUSIONS

The most commonly used access routes for epidural drug injection are the interlaminar and transforaminal pathways at the level of the pathology. Transforaminal routes are being performed with increasing frequency in recent years.

Epidural steroids: a comprehensive, evidence-based review

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are the most widely utilized pain management procedure in the world, their use supported by more than 45 placebo-controlled studies and dozens of systematic reviews. Despite the extensive literature on the subject, there continues to be considerable controversy surrounding their safety and efficacy. The results of clinical trials and review articles are heavily influenced by specialty, with those done by interventional pain physicians more likely to yield positive findings. Overall, more than half of controlled studies have demonstrated positive findings, suggesting a modest effect size lasting less than 3 months in well-selected individuals. Transforaminal injections are more likely to yield positive results than interlaminar or caudal injections, and subgroup analyses indicate a slightly greater likelihood for a positive response for lumbar herniated disk, compared with spinal stenosis or axial spinal pain. Other factors that may increase the likelihood of a positive outcome in clinical trials include the use of a nonepidural (eg, intramuscular) control group, higher volumes in the treatment group, and the use of depo-steroid. Serious complications are rare following ESIs, provided proper precautions are taken. Although there are no clinical trials comparing different numbers of injections, guidelines suggest that the number of injections should be tailored to individual response, rather than a set series. Most subgroup analyses of controlled studies show no difference in surgical rates between ESI and control patients; however, randomized studies conducted by spine surgeons, in surgically amenable patients with standardized operative criteria, indicate that in some patients the strategic use of ESI may prevent surgery.

Epidural Injections for Spinal Pain

Background:

Epidural steroid injection is the most frequently performed pain procedure. This study of epidural steroid “control” injections aimed to determine whether epidural nonsteroid injections constitute a treatment or true placebo in comparison with nonepidural injections for back and neck pain treatment.

Methods:

This systematic review with direct and indirect meta-analyses used PubMed and EMBASE searches from inception through October 2012 without language restrictions. Study selection included randomized controlled trials with a treatment group receiving epidural injections of corticosteroids or another analgesic and study control groups receiving either an epidural injection devoid of treatment drug or a nonepidural injection. Two reviewers independently extracted data including short-term (up to 12 weeks) pain scores and pain outcomes. All reviewers evaluated studies for eligibility and quality.

Results:

A total of 3,641 patients from 43 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Indirect comparisons suggested epidural nonsteroid were more likely than nonepidural injections to achieve positive outcomes (risk ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.87–2.53) and provide greater pain score reduction (mean difference, −0.15; 95% CI, −0.55 to 0.25). In the very limited direct comparisons, no significant differences were noted between epidural nonsteroid and nonepidural injections for either outcome (risk ratio [95% CI], 1.05 [0.88–1.25]; mean difference [95% CI], 0.22 [−0.50 to 0.94]).

Conclusion:

Epidural nonsteroid injections may provide improved benefit compared with nonepidural injections on some measures, though few, low-quality studies directly compared controlled treatments, and only short-term outcomes (≤12 weeks) were examined.

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.

Design and evaluation of a wearable self-applied therapeutic ultrasound device for chronic myofascial pain

Ultrasound therapy for pain and healing is a versatile treatment modality for musculoskeletal conditions that is used daily in rehabilitation clinics around the world. Our group designed and constructed a wearable, battery-operated, low-intensity therapeutic ultrasound (LITUS) device that patients could self-apply and operate during daily activity for up to 6 h. Thirty patients with chronic trapezius myofascial pain evaluated the LITUS system in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 10-d study under institutional review board approval. While continuing their prescribed medication regimen, patients with the active device reported on average 1.94× reduction in pain and 1.58× improvement in health relative to placebo devices after 1 h of treatment. Both of these results were statistically significant (p < 0.05) for the first 2 d of the study. Male patients reported the majority of benefit, and there is a sex-treatment confound in the sample. The study indicates that wearable, long-duration LITUS technology improves mobile access to drug-free pain relief.

Epidural steroid injection therapy for low back pain: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to systematically assess the long-term (≥ 6 months) benefits of epidural steroid injection therapies for patients with low back pain.

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled trials by database searches up to October 2011 and by additional hand searches without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials on the effects of epidurals for low back pain with follow-up for at least 6 months were included. Outcomes considered were pain relief, functional improvement in 6 to 12 months after epidural steroid injection treatment and the number of patients who underwent subsequent surgery. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles were selected. The meta-analysis suggested that a significant treatment effect on pain was noted at 6 months of follow-up (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.41; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], -0.66 to -0.16), but was no longer statistically significant after adjusting for the baseline pain score (WMD, -0.19; 95 percent CI, -0.61 to 0.24). Epidural steroid injection did not improve back-specific disability more than a placebo or other procedure. Epidural steroid injection did not significantly decrease the number of patients who underwent subsequent surgery compared with a placebo or other treatments (relative risk, 1.02; 95 percent CI, 0.83 to 1.24).

CONCLUSIONS

A long-term benefit of epidural steroid injections for low back pain was not suggested at 6 months or longer. Introduction of selection bias in the majority of injection studies seems apparent. Baseline adjustment is essential when we evaluate pain as a main outcome of injection therapy.

Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the cochrane review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for acute low back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

SMT is one of many therapies for the treatment of low back pain, which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention.

METHODS

An experienced librarian searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple databases up to March 13, 2011. RCTs that examined manipulation or mobilization in adults with acute low back pain (<6-week duration) were included. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. Two authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) was used to assess the quality of the evidence. The effects were examined for SMT versus (1) inert interventions, (2) sham SMT, (3) other interventions, and (4) SMT as adjunct therapy.

RESULTS

We identified 20 RCTs (total participants = 2674), 12 (60%) of which were not included in the previous review. In total, 6 trials (30% of all included studies) had a low risk of bias. In general, for the outcomes of pain and functional status, there is low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with inert interventions, sham SMT or as adjunct therapy. There was varying quality of evidence (from very low to moderate) suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with other interventions. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT.

CONCLUSION

SMT is no more effective for acute low back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT or as adjunct therapy. SMT also seems to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the few numbers of studies; therefore, future research is likely to have an important impact on these estimates. Future RCTs should examine specific subgroups and include an economic evaluation.

WITHDRAWN: Spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Low-back pain is a costly illness for which spinal manipulative therapy is commonly recommended. Previous systematic reviews and practice guidelines have reached discordant results on the effectiveness of this therapy for low-back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To resolve the discrepancies related to the use of spinal manipulative therapy and to update previous estimates of effectiveness, by comparing spinal manipulative therapy with other therapies and then incorporating data from recent high-quality randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) into the analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were electronically searched from their respective beginning to January 2000, using the Back Group search strategy; references from previous systematic reviews were also screened.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated spinal manipulative therapy for patients with low-back pain, with at least one day of follow-up, and at least one clinically-relevant outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors, who served as the authors for all stages of the meta-analysis, independently extracted data from unmasked articles. Comparison treatments were classified into the following seven categories: sham, conventional general practitioner care, analgesics, physical therapy, exercises, back school, or a collection of therapies judged to be ineffective or even harmful (traction, corset, bed rest, home care, topical gel, no treatment, diathermy, and minimal massage).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine RCTs were identified. Meta-regression models were developed for acute or chronic pain and short-term and long-term pain and function. For patients with acute low-back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was superior only to sham therapy (10-mm difference [95% CI, 2 to 17 mm] on a 100-mm visual analogue scale) or therapies judged to be ineffective or even harmful. Spinal manipulative therapy had no statistically or clinically significant advantage over general practitioner care, analgesics, physical therapy, exercises, or back school. Results for patients with chronic low-back pain were similar. Radiation of pain, study quality, profession of manipulator, and use of manipulation alone or in combination with other therapies did not affect these results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that spinal manipulative therapy is superior to other standard treatments for patients with acute or chronic low-back pain.

A prospective randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial comparing epidural butorphanol plus corticosteroid with corticosteroid alone for sciatica due to herniated nucleus pulposus

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of up to 3 epidural butorphanol plus corticosteroid with corticosteroid alone for sciatica due to herniated nucleus pulposus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial, we administered up to 3 epidural injections of either 80 mg (2 mL) of methylprednisolone acetate and 1 mg (1 mL) of butorphanol diluted with 7 mL of isotonic saline or 80 mg (2 mL) of methylprednisolone acetate diluted with 8 mL of isotonic saline by a lumbar interlaminar approach under fluoroscopic guidance to 120 patients (60 patients in each group) with sciatica due to a herniated nucleus pulposus lasting for 4 weeks to 1 year. All patients had scores higher than 30 mm on visual analog scale (VAS). Information on the use of paracetamol, intensity of pain on a VAS ranging from 0 (no pain) to 100 mm (worst pain possible), Schober's test (cm), Straight Leg Raising test, neurologic examination assessing sensory deficits, motor deficits and reflex changes, and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire were evaluated at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months after the first injection.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with regard to baseline characteristics, withdrawals, and complication rate. Three weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months after the first injection, all the outcome measures in the butorphanol plus corticosteroid group were significantly different from that of the corticosteroid group.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural butorphanol plus corticosteroid injections, as compared with corticosteroid alone injections, offered marked improvement in pain, reflex, motor and sensory deficits, and functional status and reduced the need for analgesics.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I.

Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Many therapies exist for the treatment of low-back pain including spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which is a worldwide, extensively practised intervention. This report is an update of the earlier Cochrane review, first published in January 2004 with the last search for studies up to January 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of SMT for acute low-back pain, which is defined as pain of less than six weeks duration.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted on 31 March 2011 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature. Other search strategies were employed for completeness. No limitations were placed on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization in adults with acute low-back pain were included. In addition, studies were included if the pain was predominantly in the lower back but the study allowed mixed populations, including participants with radiation of pain into the buttocks and legs. Studies which exclusively evaluated sciatica were excluded. No other restrictions were placed on the setting nor the type of pain. The primary outcomes were back pain, back-pain specific functional status, and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. SMT was defined as any hands-on therapy directed towards the spine, which includes both manipulation and mobilization, and includes studies from chiropractors, manual therapists, and osteopaths.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted the study selection and risk of bias (RoB) assessment. Data extraction was checked by the second review author. The effects were examined in the following comparisons: SMT versus 1) inert interventions, 2) sham SMT, 3) other interventions, and 4) SMT as an additional therapy. In addition, we examined the effects of different SMT techniques compared to one another. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Authors were contacted, where possible, for missing or unclear data. Outcomes were evaluated at the following time intervals: short-term (one week and one month), intermediate (three to six months), and long-term (12 months or longer). Clinical relevance was defined as: 1) small, mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale or standardized mean difference (SMD) < 0.4; 2) medium, MD = 10% to 20% of the scale or SMD = 0.41 to 0.7; and 3) large, MD > 20% of the scale or SMD > 0.7.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 20 RCTs (total number of participants = 2674), 12 (60%) of which were not included in the previous review. Sample sizes ranged from 36 to 323 (median (IQR) = 108 (61 to 189)). In total, six trials (30% of all included studies) had a low RoB. At most, three RCTs could be identified per comparison, outcome, and time interval; therefore, the amount of data should not be considered robust. In general, for the primary outcomes, there is low to very low quality evidence suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared to inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. There was varying quality of evidence (from very low to moderate) suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with other interventions, with the exception of low quality evidence from one trial demonstrating a significant and moderately clinically relevant short-term effect of SMT on pain relief when compared to inert interventions, as well as low quality evidence demonstrating a significant short-term and moderately clinically relevant effect of SMT on functional status when added to another intervention. In general, side-lying and supine thrust SMT techniques demonstrate a short-term significant difference when compared to non-thrust SMT techniques for the outcomes of pain, functional status, and recovery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

SMT is no more effective in participants with acute low-back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. SMT also appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of studies per comparison, outcome, and time interval. Therefore, future research is likely to have an important impact on these estimates. The decision to refer patients for SMT should be based upon costs, preferences of the patients and providers, and relative safety of SMT compared to other treatment options. Future RCTs should examine specific subgroups and include an economic evaluation.

Complementary and alternative medicine treatments for low back pain

Complementary and alternative medicine, often referred to as integrated medicine, is often used for the treatment of low back pain. This article presents 6 therapies (ie, behavioral treatment, acupuncture, manipulation, prolotherapy, neuroreflexotherapy, and herbal treatments), which are discussed in terms of the specifics of the modality, as well as the empirical evidence related to their effectiveness.

Clinical examination procedures to determine the effect of axial decompression on low back pain symptoms in people with chronic low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Observational.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of spinal decompression procedures performed during a clinical exam on low back pain (LBP) symptoms.

BACKGROUND

Not all patients report an immediate or complete improvement in symptoms when the direction of lumbar motion or alignment is corrected according to principles of the movement system impairment (MSI) model. Axial compression of the spine may be responsible for the remaining symptoms.

METHODS

Seventy subjects (mean ± SD age, 41.9 ± 11.5 years; 38 females, 32 males) with chronic LBP were evaluated using a standardized MSI exam. Seven tests assessing the effects of spinal decompression on LBP were added to the exam if the subjects' symptoms were not alleviated with typical standardized corrections of movement and alignment. For each test of decompression, subjects reported their symptoms compared to a reference movement or position.

RESULTS

When decompression was performed during lateral bending to the right and left, 21 of 21 (100%) and 16 of 20 (80%) subjects, respectively, reported an improvement. When traction was applied to subjects in right and left sidelying, 6 of 11 (55%) and 7 of 9 (78%), respectively, reported an improvement. When patients performed a push-up in sitting, 36 of 51 (71%) reported an improvement. In subjects who had symptoms in unsupported sitting, 41 of 57 (72%) reported an improvement in supported sitting. In subjects who reported symptoms in standing, 33 of 47 (70%) reported an improvement in hook-lying.

CONCLUSION

Patients with chronic LBP consistently reported an improvement in symptoms with tests proposed to decrease the axial load on the spine. These tests are a quick and effective way to assess the contribution of axial decompression to LBP symptoms and potentially could be used as part of the plan of care.

Epidural steroid injections in the management of low-back pain with radiculopathy: an update of their efficacy and safety

INTRODUCTION

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) have been widely used for over 50 years in the treatment of low-back pain with radiculopathy. Most interventional pain physicians strongly believe in their efficacy and safety. Recent Cochrane systematic reviews have disclosed controversial results and have questioned the effectiveness of ESIs. Moreover, a few neurological adverse events have been reported recently.

METHODS

A literature search of systematic reviews analysing the effectiveness and complications of ESIs was carried out. The scientific quality of the reviews was assessed using the validated index of Oxman and Guyatt. We relied on data abstraction and quality ratings of the placebo-controlled trials as reported by high-quality systematic reviews.

RESULTS

Two types of systematic reviews were found. The Cochrane high-quality systematic reviews combining the three approaches and different pathologies were predominantly non-conclusive. The second type of review, emanating from the US Evidence-based Practice Centers, distinguishing between the routes of administration and between the principal pathologies found a moderate short-term benefit of ESIs versus placebo in patients with disc herniation and radiculitis, in keeping with the clinical experience. ESIs are generally well tolerated and most complications are related to technical problems. Cases of paraplegia, complicating the foraminal route and related to the violation of a radiculomedullary artery, have been recently reported. They are predominantly observed in previously operated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural steroid injections have a moderate short-term effect in the management of low-back pain with radiculopathy. Severe neurological complications are exceptional, but call for research for alternative approaches to the foramen as well as for means to detect an eventual arterial injury.

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.

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.

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain: an update of a Cochrane review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for chronic low-back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

SMT is one of the many therapies for the treatment of low-back pain, which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention.

METHODS

Search methods. An experienced librarian searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple databases up to June 2009. Selection criteria. RCTs that examined manipulation or mobilization in adults with chronic low-back pain were included. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. Data collection and analysis. Two authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs (total participants = 6070), 9 of which had a low risk of bias. Approximately two-thirds of the included studies (N = 18) were not evaluated in the previous review. There is a high-quality evidence that SMT has a small, significant, but not clinically relevant, short-term effect on pain relief (mean difference -4.16, 95% confidence interval -6.97 to -1.36) and functional status (standardized mean difference -0.22, 95% confidence interval -0.36 to -0.07) in comparison with other interventions. There is varying quality of evidence that SMT has a significant short-term effect on pain relief and functional status when added to another intervention. There is a very low-quality evidence that SMT is not more effective than inert interventions or sham SMT for short-term pain relief or functional status. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. Determining cost-effectiveness of care has high priority.

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Many therapies exist for the treatment of low-back pain including spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SMT for chronic low-back pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

An updated search was conducted by an experienced librarian to June 2009 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature.  

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs which examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults with chronic low-back pain were included. No restrictions were placed on the setting or type of pain; studies which exclusively examined sciatica were excluded. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Sensitivity analyses and investigation of heterogeneity were performed, where possible, for the meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs (total participants = 6070), nine of which had a low risk of bias. Approximately two-thirds of the included studies (N = 18) were not evaluated in the previous review. In general, there is high quality evidence that SMT has a small, statistically significant but not clinically relevant, short-term effect on pain relief (MD: -4.16, 95% CI -6.97 to -1.36) and functional status (SMD: -0.22, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.07) compared to other interventions. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. There is varying quality of evidence (ranging from low to high) that SMT has a statistically significant short-term effect on pain relief and functional status when added to another intervention. There is very low quality evidence that SMT is not statistically significantly more effective than inert interventions or sham SMT for short-term pain relief or functional status. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. Determining cost-effectiveness of care has high priority. Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect in relation to inert interventions and sham SMT, and data related to recovery.

Spinal manipulation or mobilization for radiculopathy: a systematic review

In this systematic review, we present a comprehensive and up-to-date systematic review of the literature as it relates to the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization in the management of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar-related extremity pain. There is moderate quality evidence that spinal manipulation is effective for the treatment of acute lumbar radiculopathy. The quality of evidence for chronic lumbar spine-related extremity symptoms and cervical spine-related extremity symptoms of any duration is low or very low. At present, no evidence exists for the treatment of thoracic radiculopathy. Future high-quality studies should address these conditions.

NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Low back pain (LBP) continues to be a very prevalent, disabling, and costly spinal disorder. Numerous interventions are routinely used for symptoms of acute LBP. One of the most common approaches is spinal manipulation therapy (SMT).

PURPOSE

To assess the current scientific literature related to SMT for acute LBP.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Not applicable.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Not applicable.

DESIGN

Systematic review (SR).

METHODS

Literature was identified by searching MEDLINE using indexed and free text terms. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, and SMT was administered to a group of patients with LBP of less than 3 months. RCTs included in two previous SRs were also screened, as were reference lists of included studies. Combined search results were screened for relevance by two reviewers. Data related to methods, risk of bias, harms, and results were abstracted independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

The MEDLINE search returned 699 studies, of which six were included; an additional eight studies were identified from two previous SRs. There were 2,027 participants in the 14 included RCTs, which combined SMT with education (n=5), mobilization (MOB) (n=4), exercise (n=3), modalities (n=3), or medication (n=2). The groups that received SMT were most commonly compared with those receiving physical modalities (n=7), education (n=6), medication (n=5), exercise (n=5), MOB (n=3), or sham SMT (n=2). The most common providers of SMT were chiropractors (n=5) and physical therapists (n=5). Most studies (n=6) administered 5 to 10 sessions of SMT over 2 to 4 weeks for acute LBP. Outcomes measured included pain (n=10), function (n=10), health-care utilization (n=6), and global effect (n=5). Studies had a follow-up of less than 1 month (n=7), 3 months (n=1), 6 months (n=3), 1 year (n=2), or 2 years (n=1). When compared with various control groups, results for improvement in pain in the SMT groups were superior in three RCTs and equivalent in three RCTs in the short term, equivalent in four RCTs in the intermediate term, and equivalent in two RCTs in the long term. For improvement in function, results from the SMT groups were superior in one RCT and equivalent in four RCTs in the short term, superior in one RCT and equivalent in one RCT in the intermediate term, and equivalent in one RCT and inferior in one RCT in the long term. No harms related to SMT were reported in these RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Several RCTs have been conducted to assess the efficacy of SMT for acute LBP using various methods. Results from most studies suggest that 5 to 10 sessions of SMT administered over 2 to 4 weeks achieve equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions, such as physical modalities, medication, education, or exercise, for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. Spine care clinicians should discuss the role of SMT as a treatment option for patients with acute LBP who do not find adequate symptomatic relief with self-care and education alone.

Anatomical and surgical study of volume determination of the anterolateral epidural space nerve root L5/S1 under the aspect of epidural perineural injection in minimal invasive treatment of lumbar nerve root compression

Herniated intervertebral disc causes in a great number of cases of lumbar nerve root compression, especially in the segment L5/S1. Other reasons responsible for stress to the lumbar spinal root are the spinal canal stenosis and the postdiscotomy syndrome. For patients without neurological deficiencies, the conservative treatment includes different epidural injection techniques. Steroids are often applied. A specific injection technique needing only a small drug amount is the epidural perineural approach using a special two-needle technique. The anatomical spaces of the nerve roots have received little attention in therapy. We have determined the anterolateral epidural space nerve volume of the nerve root L5/S1, and compared the data collected in an anatomical study with operative measurements during discectomy. The volume determination in the human cadavers was performed with liquid silicone filling the anterolateral space after dissection. The in vivo measurements were performed during surgery at the site of the anterolateral space after discectomy. The anatomical studies showed us a mean value volume of 1.1 ml. The surgical volume determinations result in a mean volume of 0.9 ml. A better understanding of the anterolateral epidural space may allow a reduction of the injection volume in the conservative nerve root compression treatment, especially using the epidural perineural technique, avoiding the risk of side effects of high doses of steroids.