Nonsurgical interventions for low back pain

A variety of nonoperative interventions are available to treat back pain. Careful assessment, discussion, and planning need to be performed to individualize care to each patient. This article discusses good to fair evidence from randomized controlled trials that injection therapy, percutaneous intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, and prolotherapy are not effective. Evidence is poor from randomized controlled trials regarding local injections, Botox, and coblation nucleoplasty; however, with a focused approach, the right treatment can be provided for the right patient. To be more effective in management of back pain, further high-grade randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety are needed.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Acupuncture Treatment and Local Anaesthetic Injection for Low Back Pain: A Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of repeated acupuncture stimulation and local anaesthetic injection at the most painful points in patients with low back pain.

Method

This randomised controlled clinical trial involved 26 patients with low back pain randomly allocated to either an acupuncture group (n = 13) or a local anaesthetic injection group (n = 13). Both acupuncture and anaesthetic injection were performed at two to five of the most painful points on the lower back once weekly for 4 weeks. In the acupuncture group, a 0.18 mm diameter stainless steel needle was inserted to a depth of 10–20 mm and manual stimulation was applied. In the local anaesthetic injection group, a 0.5 mm diameter needle was inserted to a depth of 10–20 mm and a local anaesthetic was injected. Participants evaluated pain using a Visual Analogue Scale immediately before and after the first treatment, before each subsequent treatment, and at 2 weeks and 4 weeks after completion of treatment.

Results

There was a significant difference between the two groups in the change in Visual Analogue Scale pain scores (p<0.01), with acupuncture providing more favourable results than local anaesthetic injection. The reduction in pain score from baseline calculated at each time period was significantly different between the two groups after the first (p<0.05) and final (p<0.01) treatments, and during the follow-up period (after 2 weeks (p<0.01) and 4 weeks (p<0.05)).

Conclusion

Both injection and acupuncture relieved pain, but acupuncture was superior for the immediate and sustained effects, suggesting that it is a useful treatment for low back pain. The difference in the effects may be attributable to differences in the mechanism of pain suppression.

Injection therapy for subacute and chronic low back pain: an updated Cochrane review

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVE

To determine if injection therapy is more effective than placebo or other treatments for patients with subacute or chronic low back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The effectiveness of injection therapy for low back pain is still debatable. Heterogeneity of target tissue, pharmacological agent, and dosage, generally found in RCTs, point to the need for clinically valid comparisons in a literature synthesis.

METHODS

We updated the search of the earlier systematic review and searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases up to March 2007 for relevant trials reported in English, French, German, Dutch, and Nordic languages. We also screened references from trials identified. RCTs on the effects of injection therapy involving epidural, facet, or local sites for subacute or chronic low back pain were included. Studies that compared the effects of intradiscal injections, prolotherapy, or ozone therapy with other treatments were excluded unless injection therapy with another pharmaceutical agent (no placebo treatment) was part of one of the treatment arms. Studies about injections in sacroiliac joints and studies evaluating the effects of epidural steroids for radicular pain were also excluded.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials (1179 participants) were included in this review. The injection sites varied from epidural sites and facet joints (i.e. intra-articular injections, peri-articular injections and nerve blocks) to local sites (i.e. tender-and trigger points). The drugs that were studied consisted of corticosteroids, local anesthetics, and a variety of other drugs. The methodologic quality of the trials was limited with 10 of 18 trials rated as having a high methodologic quality. Statistical pooling was not possible because of clinical heterogeneity in the trials. Overall, the results indicated that there is no strong evidence for or against the use of any type of injection therapy.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of injection therapy in subacute and chronic low-back pain. However, it cannot be ruled out that specific subgroups of patients may respond to a specific type of injection therapy.

Injection therapy for subacute and chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of injection therapy for low-back pain is still debatable. Heterogeneity of target tissue, pharmacological agent and dosage generally found in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) points to the need for clinically valid comparisons in a literature synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if injection therapy is more effective than placebo or other treatments for patients with subacute or chronic low-back pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated the search of the earlier systematic review and searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 1999 to March 2007 for relevant trials reported in English, French, German, Dutch and Nordic languages. We also screened references from trials identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs on the effects of injection therapy involving epidural, facet or local sites for subacute or chronic low-back pain were included. Studies which compared the effects of intradiscal injections, prolotherapy or Ozone therapy with other treatments, were excluded unless injection therapy with another pharmaceutical agent (no placebo treatment) was part of one of the treatment arms. Studies about injections in sacroiliac joints and studies evaluating the effects of epidural steroids for radicular pain were also excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the quality of the trials. If study data were clinically and statistically too heterogeneous to perform a meta-analysis, we used a best evidence synthesis to summarize the results. The evidence was classified into five levels (strong, moderate, limited, conflicting or no evidence), taking into account the methodological quality of the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

18 trials (1179 participants) were included in this updated review. The injection sites varied from epidural sites and facet joints (i.e. intra-articular injections, peri-articular injections and nerve blocks) to local sites (i.e. tender- and trigger points). The drugs that were studied consisted of corticosteroids, local anesthetics and a variety of other drugs. The methodological quality of the trials was limited with 10 out of 18 trials rated as having a high methodological quality. Statistical pooling was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity in the trials. Overall, the results indicated that there is no strong evidence for or against the use of any type of injection therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of injection therapy in subacute and chronic low-back pain. However, it cannot be ruled out that specific subgroups of patients may respond to a specific type of injection therapy.