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

The efficacy of neurostimulation techniques for the management of chronic pain associated with bone disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The management of chronic pain associated with bone problems has been accomplished by the use of neurostimulation methods, such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). It is still unknown, however, how successful they are in comparison. The effectiveness of SCS and PNS in reducing chronic pain and enhancing functional results in patients with chronic pain related to bone abnormalities was assessed in this comprehensive review and meta-analysis.

Methods

To find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SCS or PNS to standard medical management or placebo/sham treatment in adults with chronic pain related to bone disorders, a comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov was carried out from the start of the database until February 2024. The main result was the absence of discomfort. Opioid usage, functional status, and quality of life were secondary outcomes. The Cochrane technique was used to evaluate bias risk. The risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using random effects meta-analysis.

Results

We included 20 RCTs with a total of 2576 participants. In short-term (≤6 months) follow-up, SCS and PNS were both associated with substantially higher pain alleviation than conventional medical care or placebo/sham: SCS SMD -0.87 (95% CI -1.19--0.55), PNS SMD -0.56 (95% CI -0.91-0.21). SCS SMD -0.71 (95% CI -1.05--0.37) and PNS SMD -0.60 (95% CI -1.03--0.17) benefits were maintained at long-term (>6 months) follow-up. The physical and emotional functioning, as well as quality of life, were also markedly enhanced by SCS and PNS. It was shown that SCS (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.74) and PNS (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.77) reduced the risk of opioid usage.

Conclusion

When it comes to improving functionality and quality of life, SCS and PNS both reduce chronic pain linked to bone problems, both temporarily and permanently. In some individuals, SCS and PNS may assist in lowering opioid consumption. Neurostimulation treatments may be useful in the treatment of persistent pain associated with bone diseases.

A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy

Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p < 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p < 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundary of 6.154, and an upper boundary of 9.846 months. In patients with excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients versus control patients at seven months (p < 0.001). The most common new-onset symptom for censoring was dysesthesia ELD (9.4%; 20/206), axial back pain in TLIF (25.6%;20/78), and recurrent pain in laminectomy (65.6%; 40/61) patients (p < 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were tried in 11.7% (24/206) of ELD, 23.1% (18/78) of TLIF, and 36.1% (22/61) of the laminectomy patients. The secondary fusion rate among ELD patients was 8.8% (18/206). Among TLIF patients, the most common additional treatments were revision fusion (19.2%; 15/78) and multilevel rhizotomy (10.3%; 8/78). Common follow-up procedures in laminectomy patients included revision laminectomy (16.4%; 10/61), revision ELD (11.5%; 7/61), and multilevel rhizotomy (11.5%; 7/61). Control patients crossed over into ELD (13.4%), TLIF (13.4%), laminectomy (10.4%) and interventional treatment (40.3%) arms at high rates. Most control patients treated with spinal injections (55.5%) had excellent and good functional outcomes versus 40.7% with fair and poor (3.7%), respectively. The control patients (93.3%) who remained in medical management without surgery or interventional care (14/67) had the worst functional outcomes and were rated as fair and poor. Conclusions: clinical outcomes were more favorable with lumbar surgeries than with non-surgical control groups. Of the control patients, the crossover rate into interventional and surgical care was 40.3% and 37.2%, respectively. There are longer symptom-free intervals after targeted ELD than with TLIF or laminectomy. Additional intervention and surgical treatments are more often needed to manage new-onset postoperative symptoms in TLIF- and laminectomy compared to ELD patients. Few ELD patients will require fusion in the future. Considering the rising cost of surgical spine care, we offer SpineScreen as a simplified and less costly alternative to traditional image-based care models by focusing on primary pain generators rather than image-based criteria derived from the preoperative lumbar MRI scan.

Predicting Clinical Improvement for Patients With Low Back Pain: Keeping It Simple for Patients Seeking Physical Therapy Care

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to develop and validate an original prediction formula that estimated the probability of success for patients with low back pain (LBP) to achieve a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on the Modified Low Back Disability Questionnaire (MDQ).

METHODS

Patients were 10 to 90 years old in this retrospective cohort study. Data were extracted from Intermountain Healthcare's registry, Rehabilitation Outcomes Management System: 62,858 patients admitted to physical therapy from 2002 to 2013 formed the training dataset, and 15,128 patients admitted 2015 to 2016 formed the verification dataset. Predicted probability to achieve MCID was compared with the actual percentage who succeeded. Two models were developed: 6-point improvement and 30% improvement. MDQ assessed disability, and numeric pain score assessed pain intensity. Predictive models used restricted cubic splines on age, initial pain, and disability scores for non-linear effects. Sex, symptom duration, and payer type were included as indicator variables. Predicted chance of success was compared with the actual percentage of patients that succeeded. Relative change in R-squared was calculated to assess variable importance in predicting success. Odds ratios for duration of injury and payer were calculated.

RESULTS

A positive trend was observed in both models between predicted and actual success achieved. Both "verification" models appear accurate and closely approximate the "training dataset." Baseline MDQ score was the most important factor to predict a 6-point improvement. Payer type and injury duration were important factors to predict 30% improvement. Best odds to achieve an MCID was having a workers compensation insurance payer and seeking care within 14 days.

CONCLUSION

The 2 models demonstrated an accurate visualization of the chance of patients achieving significant improvement compared with the usual representation of the average rate of improvement for all patients.

IMPACT

Enhancing physical therapists' understanding of the probability of a patient achieving significant clinical improvement can enhance decision-making processes and help physical therapists manage a patient's care more effectively.

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.

Feasibility of Deep Learning Algorithms for Reporting in Routine Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence is gaining traction in automated medical imaging analysis. Development of more accurate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) predictors of successful clinical outcomes is necessary to better define indications for surgery, improve clinical outcomes with targeted minimally invasive and endoscopic procedures, and realize cost savings by avoiding more invasive spine care.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the ability for deep learning neural network models to identify features in MRI DICOM datasets that represent varying intensities or severities of common spinal pathologies and injuries and to demonstrate the feasibility of generating automated verbal MRI reports comparable to those produced by reading radiologists.

METHODS

A 3-dimensional (3D) anatomical model of the lumbar spine was fitted to each of the patient's MRIs by a team of technicians. MRI T1, T2, sagittal, axial, and transverse reconstruction image series were used to train segmentation models by the intersection of the 3D model through these image sequences. Class definitions were extracted from the radiologist report for the central canal: (0) no disc bulge/protrusion/canal stenosis, (1) disc bulge without canal stenosis, (2) disc bulge resulting in canal stenosis, and (3) disc herniation/protrusion/extrusion resulting in canal stenosis. Both the left and right neural foramina were assessed with either (0) neural foraminal stenosis absent, or (1) neural foramina stenosis present. Reporting criteria for the pathologies at each disc level and, when available, the grading of severity were extracted, and a natural language processing model was used to generate a verbal and written report. These data were then used to train a set of very deep convolutional neural network models, optimizing for minimal binary cross-entropy for each classification.

RESULTS

The initial prediction validation of the implemented deep learning algorithm was done on 20% of the dataset, which was not used for artificial intelligence training. Of the 17,800 total disc locations for which MRI images and radiology reports were available, 14,720 were used to train the model, and 3560 were used to validate against. The convergence of validation accuracy achieved with the deep learning algorithm for the foraminal stenosis detector was 81% (sensitivity = 72.4.4%, specificity = 83.1%) after 25 complete iterations through the entire training dataset (epoch). The accuracy was 86.2% (sensitivity = 91.1%, specificity = 82.5%) for the central stenosis detector and 85.2% (sensitivity = 81.8%, specificity = 87.4%) for the disc herniation detector.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep learning algorithms may be used for routine reporting in spine MRI. There was a minimal disparity among accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, indicating that the data were not overfitted to the training set. We concluded that variability in the training data tends to reduce overfitting and overtraining as the deep neural network models learn to focus on the common pathologies. Future studies should demonstrate the accuracy of deep neural network models and the predictive value of favorable clinical outcomes with intervention and surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Feasibility, clinical teaching, and evaluation study.

Reduction of Metal Artifacts and Improvement in Dose Efficiency Using Photon-Counting Detector Computed Tomography and Tin Filtration

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact on metal artifacts and dose efficiency of using a tin filter in combination with high-energy threshold (TH) images of a photon-counting detector (PCD) computed tomography (CT) system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 3D-printed spine with pedicle screws was scanned on a PCD-CT system with and without tin filtration. Image noise and severity of artifacts were measured for low-energy threshold (TL) and TH images. In a prospective, institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study, 20 patients having a clinical energy-integrating detector (EID) CT were scanned on a PCD-CT system using tin filtration. Images were reviewed by 3 radiologists to evaluate visualization of anatomic structures, diagnostic confidence, and image preference. Artifact severity and image noise were measured. Wilcoxon signed rank was used to test differences between PCD-CT TH and EID-CT images.

RESULTS

Phantom TH images with tin filtration reduced metal artifacts and had comparable noise (32 HU) to TL images (29 HU) acquired without tin filtration. Visualization scores for the cortex, trabeculae, and implant-trabecular interface from PCD-CT TH images (4.4 ± 0.9, 4.4 ± 1.0, and 4.4 ± 1.0) were significantly higher (P < 0.0001) than EID-CT images (3.3 ± 1.3, 3.3 ± 1.2, and 3.3 ± 1.6). A strong preference was shown for PCD-CT TH images due to improved diagnostic confidence and decreased artifact severity. Noise in PCD-CT TH images (93 ± 41 HU) was significantly lower than that in EID-CT images (133 ± 92 HU, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Threshold high images acquired with tin filtration on PCD-CT demonstrated a substantial decrease in metal artifacts and an increase in dose efficiency compared with EID-CT.

A prospective, randomized, multicenter study of intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Current literature suggests that degenerated or damaged vertebral endplates are a significant cause of chronic low back pain (LBP) that is not adequately addressed by standard care. Prior 2-year data from the treatment arm of a sham-controlled randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed maintenance of clinical improvements at 2 years following radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the basivertebral nerve (BVN).

PURPOSE

The purpose of this RCT was to compare the effectiveness of intraosseous RF ablation of the BVN to standard care for the treatment of chronic LBP in a specific subgroup of patients suspected to have vertebrogenic related symptomatology.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A prospective, parallel, open label RCT was conducted at 20 U.S. sites.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 140 patients with chronic LBP of at least 6 months duration, with Modic Type 1 or 2 vertebral endplate changes between L3 and S1, were randomized 1:1 to undergo either RF ablation of the BVN or continue standard care.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was collected at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12-months postprocedure. Secondary outcome measures included a 10-point Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for LBP, ODI and VAS responder rates, SF-36, and EQ-5D-5L. The primary endpoint was a between-arm comparison of the mean change in ODI from baseline to 3 months post-treatment.

METHODS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive RF ablation or to continue standard care. Self-reported patient outcomes were collected using validated questionnaires at each study visit. An interim analysis to assess for superiority was prespecified and overseen by an independent data management committee when a minimum of 60% of patients had completed their 3-month primary endpoint visit.

RESULTS

The interim analysis showed clear statistical superiority (p<.001) for all primary and secondary patient-reported outcome measures in the RF ablation arm compared with the standard care arm. This resulted in a data management committee recommendation to halt enrollment in the study and offer early cross-over to the control arm. These results are comprised of the outcomes of the 104 patients included in the intent-to-treat analysis of the 3-month primary endpoint, which included 51 patients in the RF ablation arm and 53 patients in the standard care arm. Baseline ODI was 46.1, VAS was 6.67, and mean age was 50 years. The percentage of patients with LBP symptoms ≥5 years was 67.3%. Comparing the RF ablation arm to the standard care arm, the mean changes in ODI at 3 months were -25.3 points versus -4.4 points, respectively, resulting in an adjusted difference of 20.9 points (p<.001). Mean changes in VAS were -3.46 versus -1.02, respectively, an adjusted difference of 2.44 cm (p<.001). In the RF ablation arm, 74.5% of patients achieved a ≥10-point improvement in ODI, compared with 32.7% in the standard care arm (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive RF ablation of the BVN led to significant improvement of pain and function at 3-months in patients with chronic vertebrogenic related LBP.

Chronic low back pain: Relevance of a new classification based on the injury pattern

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this study were to define the role for surgery in the treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) and to develop a new classification of cLBP based on the pattern of injury.

HYPOTHESIS

Surgery may benefit patients with cLBP, and a new classification based on the injury pattern may be of interest.

METHOD

A systematic literature review was performed by searching Medline, the Cochrane Library, the French public health database (Banque de Données en Santé Publique), Science Direct, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse. The main search terms were "back pain" OR "lumbar" OR "intervertebral disc replacement" OR "vertebrae" OR "spinal" AND "surgery" OR "surgical" OR "fusion" OR "laminectomy" OR "discectomy".

RESULTS

Surgical techniques available for treating cLBP consist of fusion, disc replacement, dynamic stabilisation, and inter-spinous posterior devices. Compared to non-operative management including intensive rehabilitation therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy, fusion is not better in terms of either function (evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) or pain (level 2). Fusion is better than non-operative management without intensive rehabilitation therapy (level 2). There is no evidence to date that one fusion technique is superior over the others regarding the clinical outcomes (assessed using the ODI). Compared to fusion or multidisciplinary rehabilitation therapy, disc replacement can produce better function and less pain, although the differences are not clinically significant (level 2). The available evidence does not support the use of dynamic stabilisation or interspinous posterior devices to treat cLBP due to degenerative disease (professional consensus within the French Society for Spinal Surgery). The following recommendations can be made: non-operative treatment must be provided for at least 1 year before considering surgery in patients with cLBP due to degenerative disease; patients must be fully informed about alternative treatment options and the risks associated with surgery; standing radiographs must be obtained to assess sagittal spinal alignment and a magnetic resonance imaging scan to determine the mechanism of injury; and, if fusion is performed, the lumbar lordotic curvature must be restored.

DISCUSSION

This work establishes the need for a new classification of cLBP based on the presumptive mechanism responsible for the pain. Three categories should be distinguished: non-degenerative cLBP (previously known as symptomatic cLBP), in which the cause of pain is a trauma, spondylolysis, a tumour, an infection, or an inflammatory process; degenerative cLBP (previously known as non-specific cLBP) characterised by variable combinations of degenerative alterations in one or more discs, facet joints, and/or ligaments, with or without regional and/or global alterations in spinal alignment (which must be assessed using specific parameters); and cLBP of unknown mechanism, in which the pain seems to bear no relation to the anatomical abnormalities (and the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale may be helpful in this situation). This classification should prove useful in the future for constituting well-defined patient groups, thereby improving the assessment of treatment options.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, systematic review of level II studies.

The effectiveness of a simplified core stabilization program (TRICCS-Trivandrum Community-based Core Stabilisation) for community-based intervention in chronic non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain is a common public health problem all over the world. Conservative therapy is prescribed as the initial treatment strategy in chronic low back pain. The cornerstone of conservatism in back care is core muscle strengthening. However, exercises prescribed for the purpose are manifold and some are not easily done by patients in Asian countries. We developed an easy to adhere exercise protocol for core stabilization and tested its effectiveness in south Indian population.

METHODS

Prospective study of 73 patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) who were subjected to Trivandrum Community-based Core Stabilisation protocol of treatment. The enrolled patients underwent initial Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) evaluation and Keele Start Back (KSB) questionnaire before starting the protocol. Back education was given, and the patient started on stratified exercise protocol. ODI assessment was done weekly. The trend in ODI changes and the factors determining them were assessed using ANOVA. The correlation of quantitative variables like age, initial ODI score, and KSB score with the rate of reduction of ODI was assessed using Pearson's correlation. Cross-tabulations were done using the chi-square test. Parametric tests were used throughout the analysis as the quantitative study variables found to be linear. Multiple linear regression (for the quantitative outcome) and binary logistic regression (for the dichotomous outcome) were performed.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) of ODI score has reduced significantly from 43.4 (16.6) to 24.6 (17.1) over the period of 6 weeks (p value < 0.001). The trend in reduction of ODI scores was significantly more in KSB score less than or equal to 3 compared to KSB more than 3 even after adjusting for the general trend of decreasing ODI score over time. The reduction in ODI scores appeared to be low for advancing age (p = 0.468) and higher KSB scores (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The TRICCS protocol is effective in a community-based approach in achieving satisfactory outcomes in CLBP in a period of 6 weeks. Patients with high KSB scores may require cognitive intervention also.

Discogenic Back Pain: Literature Review of Definition, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Discogenic back pain is multifactorial; hence, physicians often struggle to identify the underlying source of the pain. As a result, discogenic back pain is often hard to treat—even more so when clinical treatment strategies are of questionable efficacy. Based on a broad literature review, our aim was to define discogenic back pain into a series of more specific and interacting pathologies, and to highlight the need to develop novel approaches and treatment strategies for this challenging and unmet clinical need. Discogenic pain involves degenerative changes of the intervertebral disc, including structural defects that result in biomechanical instability and inflammation. These degenerative changes in intervertebral discs closely intersect with the peripheral and central nervous systems to cause nerve sensitization and ingrowth; eventually central sensitization results in a chronic pain condition. Existing imaging modalities are nonspecific to pain symptoms, whereas discography methods that are more specific have known comorbidities based on intervertebral disc puncture and injection. As a result, alternative noninvasive and specific diagnostic methods are needed to better diagnose and identify specific conditions and sources of pain that can be more directly treated. Currently, there are many treatments/interventions for discogenic back pain. Nevertheless, many surgical approaches for discogenic pain have limited efficacy, thus accentuating the need for the development of novel treatments. Regenerative therapies, such as biologics, cell‐based therapy, intervertebral disc repair, and gene‐based therapy, offer the most promise and have many advantages over current therapies. © 2019 The Authors. JBMR Plus Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research

Musculoskeletal Disorders a Universal Source of Pain and Disability Misunderstood and Mismanaged: A Critical Analysis Based on the U.S. Model of Care

Musculoskeletal disorders are the leading source of pain and disability globally but are especially prevalent in the industrialized nations including the U.S. In addition to the substantial individual suffering caused the rising monetary costs of these disorders are noteworthy. In the U.S. alone the annual costs have been estimated to be $874 billion 5.7% of the annual U.S. G.D.P. Despite these expenditures the care provided to patients with musculoskeletal disorders is highly variable and has regularly been shown to have suboptimal outcomes. The many reasons for this ineffective care include the mutable nature of the prevailing syndromes and their limited and variable understanding. The care rendered by a broad and incongruent group of providers who practice disparate methodologies and employ variable treatments. Disorderedly triage comprised of arbitrary selection of providers, care methodologies, and treatments, which is prone to a range of extraneous influences. Treatments that are unable to apprehend the causative pathological processes, which are therefore progressive, cause irreversible damage to the respective musculoskeletal structures, and result in enduring pain and disability. The overall lack of preventative care and the consequent prevalence of these disorders especially in specific work environments and with certain high-risk life styles. This article makes recommendations for better understanding, prevention, early recognition, timely employment of disease altering therapies, streamlining the existing care, and policy initiatives for waste confinement and improvement. These discernments may improve the overall quality of care provided to these patients, diminish the staggering pain and disability caused, and can reduce the immense costs incurred.

Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies.

PURPOSE

The present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events.

METHODS

We identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912.

RESULTS

Fifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=-0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.09, p=.004; I2=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=-0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03, p=.03; I2=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=-0.43, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I2=79%; SMD=-0.86, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.45; p<.0001, I2=46%). Mobilization interventions, compared with other active comparators including exercise regimens, significantly reduced pain (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; p=.01; I2=0%) but not disability (SMD=-0.10, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07; p=.25; I2=21%). Studies comparing manipulation or mobilization with sham or no treatment were too few or too heterogeneous to allow for pooling as were studies examining relationships between dose and outcomes. Few studies assessed health-related quality of life. Twenty-six of 51 trials were multimodal studies and narratively described.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate-quality evidence that manipulation and mobilization are likely to reduce pain and improve function for patients with chronic low back pain; manipulation appears to produce a larger effect than mobilization. Both therapies appear safe. Multimodal programs may be a promising option.

Effects of a Commercial Insurance Policy Restriction on Lumbar Fusion in North Carolina and the Implications for National Adoption

STUDY DESIGN

An analysis of the State Inpatient Database of North Carolina, 2005 to 2012, and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, including all inpatient lumbar fusion admissions from nonfederal hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to examine the influence of a major commercial policy change that restricted lumbar fusion for certain indications and to forecast the potential impact if the policy were adopted nationally.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Few studies have examined the effects of recent changes in commercial coverage policies that restrict the use of lumbar fusion.

METHODS

We included adults undergoing elective lumbar fusion or re-fusion operations in North Carolina. We aggregated data into a monthly time series to report changes in the rates and volume of lumbar fusion operations for disc herniation or degeneration, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, or revision fusions. Time series regression models were used to test for significant changes in the use of fusion operation following a major commercial coverage policy change initiated on January 1, 2011.

RESULTS

There was a substantial decline in the use of lumbar fusion for disc herniation or degeneration following the policy change on January 1, 2011. Overall rates of elective lumbar fusion operations in North Carolina (per 100,000 residents) increased from 103.2 in 2005 to 120.4 in 2009, before declining to 101.9 by 2012. The population rate (per 100,000 residents) of fusion among those under age 65 increased from 89.5 in 2005 to 101.2 in 2009, followed by a sharp decline to 76.8 by 2012. There was no acceleration in the already increasing rate of fusion for spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, or revision procedures, but there was a coincident increase in decompression without fusion.

CONCLUSION

This commercial insurance policy change had its intended effect of reducing fusion operations for indications with less evidence of effectiveness without changing rates for other indications or resulting in an overall reduction in spine surgery. Nevertheless, broader adoption of the policy could significantly reduce the national rates of fusion operations and associated costs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Treatment of discogenic back pain with autologous bone marrow concentrate injection with minimum two year follow-up

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to assess safety and feasibility of intradiscal bone marrow concentrate (BMC) injections to treat discogenic pain as an alternative to surgery.

METHODS

A total of 26 patients (11 male, 15 female, aged 18-61 years, 13 single level, 13 two level) that met inclusion criteria of chronic (> 6 months) discogenic low back pain, degenerative disc pathology assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with modified Pfirrmann grade of IV-VII at one or two levels, candidate for surgical intervention (failed conservative treatment and radiologic findings) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score of 40 mm or more at initial visit. Initial Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and VAS pain score average was 56.5 % and 80.1 mm (0-100), respectively. Adverse event reporting, ODI score, VAS pain score, MRI radiographic changes, progression to surgery and cellular analysis of BMC were noted. Retrospective cell analysis by flow cytometry and colony forming unit-fibroblast (CFU-F) assays were performed to characterise each patient's BMC and compare with clinical outcomes. The BMC was injected into the nucleus pulposus of the symptomatic disc(s) under fluoroscopic guidance. Patients were evaluated clinically prior to treatment and at three, six, 12 and 24 months and radiographically prior to treatment and at 12 months.

RESULTS

There were no complications from the percutaneous bone marrow aspiration or disc injection. Of 26 patients, 24 (92 %) avoided surgery through 12 months, while 21 (81 %) avoided surgery through two years. Of the 21 surviving patients, the average ODI and VAS scores were reduced to 19.9 and 27.0 at three months and sustained to 18.3 and 22.9 at 24 months, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Twenty patients had follow-up MRI at 12 months, of whom eight had improved by at least one Pfirrmann grade, while none of the discs worsened. Total and rate of pain reduction were linked to mesenchymal stem cell concentration through 12 months. Only five of the 26 patients elected to undergo surgical intervention (fusion or artificial disc replacement) by the two year milestone.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence of safety and feasibility in the non-surgical treatment of discogenic pain with autologous BMC, with durable pain relief (71 % VAS reduction) and ODI improvements (> 64 %) through two years.

Lumbar spinal stenosis: who should be fused? An updated review

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is mostly caused by osteoarthritis (spondylosis). Clinically, the symptoms of patients with LSS can be categorized into two groups; regional (low back pain, stiffness, and so on) or radicular (spinal stenosis mainly presenting as neurogenic claudication). Both of these symptoms usually improve with appropriate conservative treatment, but in refractory cases, surgical intervention is occasionally indicated. In the patients who primarily complain of radiculopathy with an underlying biomechanically stable spine, a decompression surgery alone using a less invasive technique may be sufficient. Preoperatively, with the presence of indicators such as failed back surgery syndrome (revision surgery), degenerative instability, considerable essential deformity, symptomatic spondylolysis, refractory degenerative disc disease, and adjacent segment disease, lumbar fusion is probably recommended. Intraoperatively, in cases with extensive decompression associated with a wide disc space or insufficient bone stock, fusion is preferred. Instrumentation improves the fusion rate, but it is not necessarily associated with improved recovery rate and better functional outcome.

Deep tissue massage and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain: a prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether chronic low back pain therapy with deep tissue massage (DTM) gives similar results to combined therapy consisting of DTM and non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID).

DESIGN

Prospective controlled randomized single blinded trial.

SETTINGS

Ambulatory care of rehabilitation.

PARTICIPANTS

59 patients, age 51.8 ± 9.0 years, with chronic low back pain. Interventions. 2 weeks of DTM in the treatment group (TG) versus 2 weeks of DTM combined with NSAID in the control group (CG).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Visual analogue scale, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Roland-Morris questionnaire (RM).

RESULTS

In both the TG and the CG, a significant pain reduction and function improvement were observed. VAS decreased from 58.3 ± 18.2 to 42.2 ± 21.1 (TG) and from 51.8 ± 18.8 to 30.6 ± 21.9 (CG). RM value decreased from 9.8 ± 5.1 to 6.4 ± 4.4 (TG), and from 9.3 ± 5.5 to 6.1 ± 4.6 (CG). ODI value decreased from 29.2 ± 17.3 to 21.4 ± 15.1 (TG) and from 21.4 ± 9.4 to 16.6 ± 9.4 (CG). All pre-post-treatment differences were significant; however, there was no significant difference between the TG and the CG.

CONCLUSION

DTM had a positive effect on reducing pain in patients with chronic low back pain. Concurrent use of DTM and NSAID contributed to low back pain reduction in a similar degree that the DTM did.

Metallic artefact reduction with monoenergetic dual-energy CT: systematic ex vivo evaluation of posterior spinal fusion implants from various vendors and different spine levels

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate optimal monoenergetic dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) settings for artefact reduction of posterior spinal fusion implants of various vendors and spine levels.

METHODS

Posterior spinal fusion implants of five vendors for cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine were examined ex vivo with single-energy (SE) CT (120 kVp) and DECT (140/100 kVp). Extrapolated monoenergetic DECT images at 64, 69, 88, 105 keV and individually adjusted monoenergy for optimised image quality (OPTkeV) were generated. Two independent radiologists assessed quantitative and qualitative image parameters for each device and spine level.

RESULTS

Inter-reader agreements of quantitative and qualitative parameters were high (ICC = 0.81-1.00, κ = 0.54-0.77). HU values of spinal fusion implants were significantly different among vendors (P < 0.001), spine levels (P < 0.01) and among SECT, monoenergetic DECT of 64, 69, 88, 105 keV and OPTkeV (P < 0.01). Image quality was significantly (P < 0.001) different between datasets and improved with higher monoenergies of DECT compared with SECT (V = 0.58, P < 0.001). Artefacts decreased significantly (V = 0.51, P < 0.001) at higher monoenergies. OPTkeV values ranged from 123-141 keV. OPTkeV according to vendor and spine level are presented herein.

CONCLUSIONS

Monoenergetic DECT provides significantly better image quality and less metallic artefacts from implants than SECT. Use of individual keV values for vendor and spine level is recommended.

KEY POINTS

• Artefacts pose problems for CT following posterior spinal fusion implants. • CT images are interpreted better with monoenergetic extrapolation using dual-energy (DE) CT. • DECT extrapolation improves image quality and reduces metallic artefacts over SECT. • There were considerable differences in monoenergy values among vendors and spine levels. • Use of individualised monoenergy values is indicated for different metallic hardware devices.

Chronic low back pain: a heterogeneous condition with challenges for an evidence-based approach

"Chronic" low back pain (LBP), defined as present for 3 or more months, has become a major socioeconomic problem insufficiently addressed by five major entities largely working in isolation from one another - procedural based specialties, strength based rehabilitation, cognitive behavioral therapy, pain management and manipulative care. As direct and indirect costs continue to rise, many authors have systematically evaluated the body of evidence in an effort to demonstrate the effectiveness (or lack thereof) for various diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. The objective of this Spine Focus issue is not to replicate previous work in this area. Rather, our expert panel has chosen a set of potentially controversial topics for more in-depth study and discussion. A recurring theme is that chronic LBP is a heterogeneous condition, and this affects the way it is diagnosed, classified, treated, and studied. The efficacy of some treatments may be appreciated only through a better understanding of heterogeneity of treatment effects (i.e., identification of clinically relevant subgroups with differing responses to the same treatment). Current clinical guidelines and payer policies for LBP are systematically compared for consistency and quality. Novel approaches for data gathering, such as national spine registries, may offer a preferable approach to gain meaningful data and direct us towards a "results-based medicine." This approach would require more high-quality studies, more consistent recording for various phenotypes and exploration of studies on genetic epidemiologic undertones to guide us in the emerging era of "results based medicine."

A systematic review of clinical pathways for lower back pain and introduction of the Saskatchewan Spine Pathway

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of spine care pathways and case study of the Saskatchewan Spine Pathway (SSP).

OBJECTIVE

(1) What are the differences between clinical pathways and clinical guidelines? (2) Are there examples of clinical pathways in the management of lower back pain (LBP)? Is there evidence that they are successful? (3) What is the SSP, and what are its key features?

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Adherence to evidence-based guidelines for LBP produces superior outcomes and may improve efficiency by reducing unnecessary imaging, ineffective treatments, and inappropriate surgical referrals. A clinical pathway is an attempt to bridge the "translation gap" between guidelines and clinical practice.

METHODS

A qualitative review was performed for question 1. For question 2, a systematic review of the English language literature was performed for articles published through March 31, 2011. A case study is provided for question 3.

RESULTS

(1) Evidence for clinical pathways is mainly derived from guidelines, but pathways are distinguished by several features including the coordination of multidisciplinary care, facilitation of communication among care providers, resources for ongoing quality improvements, and a central focus on the patient experience. (2) Five articles describing four clinical pathways met the a priori criteria, but none tested comparative effectiveness. (3) The SSP is unique in that it is (a) inclusive for all types of LBP, (b) based on a classification system, (c) patient-focused mostly at primary care rather than in specialized clinics, (d) implemented in the health care system of a geopolitically defined region, and (e) includes all of the defining features of modern care pathways.

CONCLUSION

Several clinical pathways for LBP have been described, but effectiveness has not been tested.

CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Clinical pathways for LBP need to be further developed and investigated as a means to facilitate guidelines-concordant practice and improve patient outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Insufficient.

RECOMMENDATION

Weak.