Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica

Low-value interventions to deimplement: A secondary analysis of a systematic review of low back pain clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To perform a secondary review of low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPG) identified in a recently conducted systematic review and to synthesize and summarize low-value recommendations as practices that may be candidates for deimplementation.

LITERATURE SURVEY

LBP (subacute or chronic) CPGs in English (symptom based, created by a governmental or professional society, published between January 1990 and May 2020) were previously identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ortho Guidelines, CPG Infobase, Emergency Care Research Institute, Guidelines International Network, National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, and Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network.

METHODOLOGY

Twenty-one CPGs were reviewed from a systematic review (previously published). Full-text review of all 21 CPGs was conducted, and three recommendation categories indicative of low value (recommend strongly against, recommend weakly against, inconclusive/insufficient evidence) were identified using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) language and approach.

SYNTHESIS

One hundred thirty-five low-value recommendations were identified and classified under eight intervention categories: orthotics/support, traction, physical modalities, pharmacological interventions, injections, surgery, bed rest, and miscellaneous. Traction, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), therapeutic ultrasound (TUS), and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) had the most CPGs recommend strongly against their usage. Opioids were recommended strongly against by four CPGs. No significant difference (p > .05) was found between CPG quality and a specific deimplementation recommendation or between CPG quality and the number of strongly against, weakly against, and inconclusive/insufficient evidence recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians managing patients with chronic LBP should consider deimplementing these low-value interventions (traction, TENS, TUS, and SSRI).

Prevalence and changes of low-value care at acute care hospitals: a multicentre observational study in Japan

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to examine the use and factors associated with the provision of low-value care in Japan.

DESIGN

A multicentre observational study.

SETTING

Routinely collected claims data that include all inpatient and outpatient visits in 242 large acute care hospitals (accounting for approximately 11% of all acute hospitalisations in Japan).

PARTICIPANTS

345 564 patients (median age (IQR): 62 (40-75) years; 182 938 (52.9%) women) seeking care at least once in the hospitals in the fiscal year 2019.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We identified 33 low-value services, as defined by clinical evidence, and developed two versions of claims-based measures of low-value services with different sensitivity and specificity (broader and narrower definitions). We examined the number of low-value services, the proportion of patients receiving these services and the proportion of total healthcare spending incurred by these services in 2019. We also evaluated the 2015-2019 trends in the number of low-value services.

RESULTS

Services identified by broader low-value care definition occurred in 7.5% of patients and accounted for 0.5% of overall annual healthcare spending. Services identified by narrower low-value care definition occurred in 4.9% of patients and constituted 0.2% of overall annual healthcare spending. Overall, there was no clear trend in the prevalence of low-value services between 2015 and 2019. When focusing on each of the 17 services accounting for more than 99% of all low-value services identified (narrower definition), 6 showed decreasing trends from 2015 to 2019, while 4 showed increasing trends. Hospital size and patients' age, sex and comorbidities were associated with the probability of receiving low-value service.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of patients received low-value care in Japan. Several low-value services with high frequency, especially with increasing trends, require further investigation and policy interventions for better resource allocation.

Effects of non-surgical decompression therapy in addition to routine physical therapy on pain, range of motion, endurance, functional disability and quality of life versus routine physical therapy alone in patients with lumbar radiculopathy; a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Lumbar radiculopathy is an extensively common complaint reported by patients of low back pain (LBP), resulting in several impairments. A comparatively novel technique, non-surgical spinal decompression (NSD), is introduced, which uses a sensitive computerized feedback mechanism and decompresses the spinal nerve roots through segmental distraction. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of NSD therapy in addition to routine physical therapy on pain, lumbar range of motion (ROM), functional disability, back muscle endurance (BME), and quality of life (QOL) in patients with lumbar radiculopathy.

METHODS

A total of sixty patients with lumbar radiculopathy were randomly allocated into two groups, an experimental (n = 30) and a control (n = 30) group, through a computer-generated random number table. Baseline values were recorded before providing any treatment by using a visual analogue scale (VAS), Urdu version of Oswestry disability index (ODI-U), modified-modified Schober's test (MMST), prone isometric chest raise test, and Short Form 36-Item Survey (SF-36) for measuring the pain at rest, functional disability, lumbar ROM, BME, and QOL, respectively. All patients received twelve treatment sessions over 4 weeks, and then all outcome measures were again recorded.

RESULTS

By using the ANCOVA test, a statistically significant (p < 0.05) between-group improvement was observed in VAS, ODI-U, BME, lumbar ROM, role physical (RP), and bodily pain (BP) domains of SF-36, which was in favour of NSD therapy group. The between-group difference was 1.07 ± 0.32 cm (p < .001) for VAS, 5.65 ± 1.48 points (p < .001) for ODI-U, 13.93 ± 5.85 s (p = 0.002) for BME, 2.62 ± 0.27 cm (p < .001) for lumbar flexion, 0.96 ± 0.28 (p < .001) for lumbar extension, 5.77 ± 2.39 (p = 0.019) for RP and 6.33 ± 2.52 (p = 0.016) for BP domain of SF-36. For these outcomes, a medium to large effect size (d = 0.61-2.47, 95% CI: 0.09-3.14) was observed.

CONCLUSION

It was concluded that a combination of non-surgical spinal decompression therapy with routine physical therapy is more effective, statistically and clinically, than routine physical therapy alone in terms of improving pain, lumbar range of motion, back muscle endurance, functional disability, and physical role domain of quality of life, in patients with lumbar radiculopathy, following 4 weeks of treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

WHO Iranian registry of clinical trials ( IRCT20190717044238N1 ) Dated: 23.12.2019.

Development of a clinical prediction model to inform clinical decision making for classification of patients with sciatica, based on their clinical characteristics, in the Greek health system: protocol for a prospective predictive exploratory study

INTRODUCTION

Sciatica is one of the most common reasons for seeking healthcare for musculoskeletal pain. Sciatica is primarily considered as neuropathic in nature when neural tissue in the low back is compromised, but sometimes other non-neural structures may be involved. Appropriate assessment and management are important for patients with sciatica. Therapists use several outcome measures to assess patients to inform selection of the most suitable treatment. There is limited evidence for the best treatment of sciatica, and this is likely contributed to by having no reliable algorithm to categorise patients based on their clinical characteristics to inform physiotherapy treatment. The purpose of this study is to develop a clinical prediction model to categorise patients with sciatica, in terms of early clinical outcome, based on their initial clinical characteristics.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A prospective observational multicentre design will recruit consecutive patients (n=467) with sciatica referred for physiotherapy. Each patient will be evaluated to determine whether or not they will be accepted into the study by answering some questions that will confirm the study's eligibility criteria. Patients' basic characteristics, patient-reported outcome measures and performance-based measures will be collected at baseline from multiple sites in the Greek territory using this same protocol, prior to commencement of treatment. The main researcher of this study will be responsible for data collection in all sites. On completion of the standard referred physiotherapy treatment after 3 weeks' time, participants will be asked by telephone to evaluate their outcome using the Global Perceived Effect Scale. For the descriptive statistical analysis, the continuous variables will be expressed in the form of 'mean' and 'SD'. In order to assess the prognostic value of each predictor, in terms of the level of improvement or worsening of the symptoms, multiple variable regression analysis will be used.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Τhis study is approved from the Ethics and Deontology Committee of the University of West Attica, Athens, Greece, protocol number: 38313-09/06/2020, 10226-10/02/2021. The study's findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated at national and international conferences and through social media.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020168467.

Impact of nonsurgical spinal decompression on paraspinal muscle morphology and mechanical properties in young adults with low back pain

Objective

The mechanism underlying the benefit of nonsurgical spinal decompression (NSSD) on low back pain is unclear. This study was performed to investigate the immediate impact of NSSD on the mechanical properties and morphology of the paraspinal muscles.

Methods

Participants with low back pain were recruited. NSSD therapy was provided on one occasion. A myotonometer was placed perpendicularly on the skin surface over the paraspinal muscle at the level of L₃/L₄ to measure the mechanical muscle properties. The multifidus thickness was measured using B-mode ultrasound and defined as the distance between the transverse process and subcutaneous tissue fascia. The difference between before and after NSSD was analyzed by a paired t-test.

Results

Thirty participants (mean age, 20.9 ± 0.8 years; 9 male, 21 female) were recruited. No significant difference was observed in the muscle mechanical properties or morphology between before and after the intervention.

Conclusions

NSSD intervention did not induce immediate changes in the paraspinal muscle mechanical properties or multifidus thickness in young adults with low back pain. NSSD might produce benefits by stimulating mechanical receptors rather than inducing morphological changes or mechanical property alterations of the muscle fibers. These parameters may not be suitable outcome measures for NSSD intervention.

The effect of mechanical traction on low back pain in patients with herniated intervertebral disks: a systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of traction in improving low back pain, functional outcome, and disk morphology in patients with herniated intervertebral disks.

DATA SOURCE

PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the earliest record to July 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

We included randomized control trials which (1) involved adult patients with low back pain associated with herniated disk confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography, (2) compared lumbar traction to sham or no traction, and (3) provided quantitative measurements of pain and function before and after intervention. Methodological quality was assessed using the physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro) scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessment.

RESULTS

Initial searches for literature yielded 3015 non-duplicated records. After exclusion based on the title, abstract, and full-text review, 7 articles involving 403 participants were included for quantitative analysis. Compared with the control group, the participants in the traction group showed significantly greater improvements in pain and function in the short term, with standard mean differences of 0.44 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.11-0.77) and 0.42 (95% CI: 0.08-0.76), respectively. The standard mean differences were not significant to support the long-term effects on pain and function, nor the effects on herniated disk size.

CONCLUSION

Compared with sham or no traction, lumbar traction exhibited significantly more pain reduction and functional improvements in the short term, but not in the long term. There is insufficient evidence to support the effect of lumbar traction on herniated disk size reduction.

Clinical practice in line with evidence? A survey among primary care physiotherapists in western Sweden

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Evidence-based practice is becoming increasingly important in primary care physiotherapy. Clinical practice needs to reflect current best evidence and be concordant with evidence-based clinical guidelines. There is limited knowledge about therapeutic interventions used in primary care physiotherapy in Sweden. The objectives were to examine preferred treatment interventions reported by publicly employed physiotherapists in primary care for three common musculoskeletal disorders (low back pain, neck pain and subacromial pain), the extent to which these interventions were supported by evidence, and associations with demographic variables.

METHODS

419 physiotherapists in primary care in western Sweden were surveyed using a validated web-based questionnaire.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 271 respondents (65%). Median number of interventions reported was 7 (range 1-16). The most common treatment interventions across the three conditions were advice on posture (reported by 82-94%), advice to stay active (86-92%), and different types of exercise (65-92%). Most of these interventions were supported by evidence. However, interventions with insufficient evidence, such as advice on posture, TENS and aquatic exercise, were also used by 29-96%. Modalities such as laser therapy and ultrasound were sparingly used (<5%), which is in line with evidence. For neck pain, use of evidence-based interventions was associated with gender and for subacromial pain, with work experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Advice and exercise therapy were the interventions most frequently reported across the three diagnoses, illustrating an active treatment strategy. While most reported interventions are supported by evidence, interventions with unclear or no evidence of effect were also used to a high extent.

Low Back Pain in Athletes

CONTEXT

Low Back Pain (LBP) in athletes is common and has a broad spectrum of differential diagnoses that must be taken in to account when a clinician approaches the patient with LBP. The physicians should take into account spinal and extra spinal causes of low back pain in athletes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISTION

A literature review was performed for the years 1951 through 2013. Keywords used were Low Back Pain and Athletes. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, PUBMED, the Cochrane Library, ELSEVIER, and the references of reviewed articles, for English-language of Low Back Pain in Athletes.

RESULTS

The two most common causes of LBP arising from spine in athletes are degenerative disc disease and spondylolysis with or without listhesis. Although most athletes, respond well to conservative treatment, surgical treatment is indicated when conservative treatment failes.

CONCLUSIONS

The major concern in athletes with LBP is return to play and previous level of their activity after treatment. There is insufficient evidence regarding this issue in literature to define the optimal time of return to play following treatment.

Leg discomfort: beyond the joints

Although simple characterization of discomfort as cramps, heaviness, shooting pains, and so forth can be misleading, history and examination are key to accurate diagnosis. Absence of both dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulses strongly suggests peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and the presence of either pulse makes PAD less likely. Hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) are a common cause of lower extremity myalgias. Restless legs syndrome causes nocturnal discomfort but must be distinguished from confounding“mimics." Neurologic causes of leg symptoms include lumbar spinal stenosis, radiculopathy, distal symmetric polyneuropathy, and entrapment neuropathy. Many common causes of leg discomfort can be managed conservatively.

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.

Predictors for half-year outcome of impairment in daily life for back pain patients referred for physiotherapy: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

From observational studies, there is only sparse information available on the predictors of development of impairment in daily life for patients receiving physiotherapy. Therefore, our aim was to identify factors which predict impairment in daily life for patients with back pain 6 months after receiving physiotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study with 6-month follow-up. Patients were enrolled for treatment in private physiotherapy practices. Patients with a first physiotherapy referral because of thoracic or low back pain, aged 18 to 65 years were included. Primary outcome impairment was measured utilising the 16-item version of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire. Therapy was documented on a standardized form. Baseline scores for impairment in daily life, symptom characteristics, sociodemographic and psychosocial factors, physical activity, nicotine consumption, intake of analgesics, comorbidity and delivered primary therapy approach were investigated as possible predictors. Univariate and multiple linear regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 792 patients participated in the study (59% female, mean age 44.4 (SD 11.4), with 6-month follow-up results available from 391 patients. In univariate analysis 17 variables reached significance. In multiple linear regression identified predictors were: impairment in daily life before therapy, mental disorders, duration of the complaints, self-prognosis on work ability, rheumatoid arthritis, age, form of stress at work and physical activity. The variables explain 34% of variance (adjusted R(2), p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

With minimal information available from observational studies on the predictors of development of back problems for physiotherapy patients, this study adds new knowledge for forming appropriate referral guidelines. Impairment in daily life before therapy, mental disorder as comorbidity and the duration of the complaints can be named as outstanding factors. The results of this study can be used to facilitate comparison of patient therapy goals with the prognosis in everyday practice.

Spine osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis of the spine develops as a consequence of the natural aging process and is associated with significant morbidity and health care expenditures. Effective diagnosis and treatment of the resultant pathologic conditions can be clinically challenging. Recent evidence has emerged to aid the investigating clinician in formulating an accurate diagnosis and in implementing a successful treatment algorithm. This article details the degenerative cascade that results in the osteoarthritic spine, reviews prevalence data for common painful spinal disorders, and discusses evidence-based treatment options for management of zygapophysial and sacroiliac joint arthrosis.

A treatment-based classification approach to examination and intervention of lumbar disorders

CONTEXT

Low back injuries are a common occurrence in athletes and often result in missed competition and practice time. The examination of athletes with low back pain commonly involves diagnostic imaging, which rarely guides the clinician in selecting the appropriate interventions.

DATA ACQUISITION

All years of PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus were searched in December 2010. Keywords included treatment based classification and lumbar with the following terms: rehabilitation, treatment, athlete, low back pain, sports, and outcomes.

RESULTS

A treatment-based classification approach is preferred for the management of the athlete with low back pain. The treatment-based classification approach involves 3 steps. First is to screen the patient for potentially serious conditions that are not appropriate for conservative management. Second is staging the athlete (based on current disability ratings and ability to perform functional activities). Finally, treatment interventions are selected on the basis of the athlete's signs and symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The treatment-based classification scheme provides the clinician with a reliable algorithm for matching an athlete's symptom presentation to the optimal intervention, potentially reducing participation loss. Managing individuals with low back pain using a treatment-based classification approach significantly reduces disability and pain compared with current clinical practice guideline standards.

Subgrouping patients with low back pain: a treatment-based approach to classification

Context:

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition imposing a large socioeconomic burden. Despite intensive research aimed at the efficacy of various therapies for patients with LBP, most evidence has failed to identify a superior treatment approach. One proposed solution to this dilemma is to identify subgroups of patients with LBP and match them with targeted therapies. Among the subgrouping approaches, the system of treatment-based classification (TBC) is promoted as a means of increasing the effectiveness of conservative interventions for patients with LBP.

Evidence acquisition:

MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched from 1985 through 2010, along with the references of selected articles.

Results:

TBC uses a standardized approach to categorize patients into 1 of 4 subgroups: spinal manipulation, stabilization exercise, end-range loading exercise, and traction. Although the TBC subgroups are in various stages of development, recent research lends support to the effectiveness of this approach.

Conclusions:

While additional research is required to better elucidate this method, the TBC approach enhances clinical decision making, as evidenced by the improved clinical outcomes experienced by patients with LBP.

Avoidable costs of physical treatments for chronic back, neck and shoulder pain within the Spanish National Health Service: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Back, neck and shoulder pain are the most common causes of occupational disability. They reduce health-related quality of life and have a significant economic impact. Many different forms of physical treatment are routinely used. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost of physical treatments which, despite the absence of evidence supporting their effectiveness, were used between 2004 and 2007 for chronic and non-specific neck pain (NP), back pain (BP) and shoulder pain (SP), within the Spanish National Health Service in the Canary Islands (SNHSCI).

METHODS

Chronic patients referred from the SNHSCI to private physical therapy centres for NP, BP or SP, between 2004 and 2007, were identified. The cost of providing physical therapies to these patients was estimated. Systematic reviews (SRs) and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for NP, BP and SP available in the same period were searched for and rated according to the Oxman and AGREE criteria, respectively. Those rated positively for ≥70% of the criteria, were used to categorise physical therapies as Effective; Ineffective; Inconclusive; and Insufficiently Assessed. The main outcome was the cost of physical therapies included in each of these categories.

RESULTS

8,308 chronic cases of NP, 4,693 of BP and 5,035 of SP, were included in this study. Among prescribed treatments, 39.88% were considered Effective (physical exercise and manual therapy with mobilization); 23.06% Ineffective; 13.38% Inconclusive, and 23.66% Insufficiently Assessed. The total cost of treatments was € 5,107,720. Effective therapies accounted for € 2,069,932.

CONCLUSIONS

Sixty percent of the resources allocated by the SNHSCI to fund physical treatment for NP, BP and SP in private practices are spent on forms of treatment proven to be ineffective, or for which there is no evidence of effectiveness.

Treatment options for low back pain in athletes

CONTEXT

Low back pain is one of the most common medical presentations in the general population. It is a common source of pain in athletes, leading to significant time missed and disability. The general categories of treatment for low back pain are medications and therapies.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Relevant studies were identified through a literature search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database from 1990 to 2010. A manual review of reference lists of identified sources was also performed.

RESULTS

It is not clear whether athletes experience low back pain more often than the general public. Because of a aucity of trials with athlete-specific populations, recommendations on treatments must be made from reviews of treatments for the general population. Several large systemic reviews and Cochrane reviews have compiled evidence on different modalities for low back pain. Superficial heat, spinal manipulation, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and skeletal muscle relaxants have the strongest evidence of benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the high prevalence of low back pain and the significant burden to the athletes, there are few clearly superior treatment modalities. Superficial heat and spinal manipulation therapy are the most strongly supported evidence-based therapies. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications and skeletal muscle relaxants have benefit in the initial management of low back pain; however, both have considerable side effects that must be considered. Athletes can return to play once they have recovered full range of motion and have the strength to prevent further injury.

The efficacy, safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound and shock wave therapies for low back pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Shock wave and especially ultrasound are commonly used to treat low back pain (LBP) in routine practice.

PURPOSE

To assess the evidence on the efficacy, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of ultrasound and shock wave to treat LBP.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases up to July 2009 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vibrotherapy with placebo or with other treatments for LBP. No language restrictions were applied. Additional data were requested from the authors of the original studies. The risk of bias of each study was assessed following the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were identified. The four RCTs complying with the inclusion criteria included 252 patients. Two of the three RCTs on ultrasound had a high risk of bias. For acute patients with LBP and leg pain attributed to disc herniation, ultrasound, traction, and low-power laser obtained similar results. For chronic LBP patients without leg pain, ultrasound was less effective than spinal manipulation, whereas a shock wave device and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation led to similar results. Results from the only study comparing ultrasound versus a sham procedure are unreliable because of the inappropriateness of the sham procedure, low sample size, and lack of adjustment for potential confounders. No study assessed cost-effectiveness. No adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

The available evidence does not support the effectiveness of ultrasound or shock wave for treating LBP. High-quality RCTs are needed to assess their efficacy versus appropriate sham procedures, and their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness versus other procedures shown to be effective for LBP. In the absence of such evidence, the clinical use of these forms of treatment is not justified and should be discouraged.

A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is a common and disabling disorder in western society. The management of LBP comprises a range of different intervention strategies including surgery, drug therapy, and non-medical interventions. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions (i.e. exercise therapy, back school, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), low level laser therapy, education, massage, behavioural treatment, traction, multidisciplinary treatment, lumbar supports, and heat/cold therapy) for chronic LBP. The primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to 22 December 2008. Existing Cochrane reviews for the individual interventions were screened for studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Groups (CBRG) was followed. The following were included for selection criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials, (2) adult (≥ 18 years) population with chronic (≥ 12 weeks) non-specific LBP, and (3) evaluation of at least one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures (pain, functional status, perceived recovery, or return to work). Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. The GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total 83 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria: exercise therapy (n = 37), back school (n = 5), TENS (n = 6), low level laser therapy (n = 3), behavioural treatment (n = 21), patient education (n = 1), traction (n = 1), and multidisciplinary treatment (n = 6). Compared to usual care, exercise therapy improved post-treatment pain intensity and disability, and long-term function. Behavioural treatment was found to be effective in reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Finally, multidisciplinary treatment was found to reduce pain intensity and disability at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Overall, the level of evidence was low. Evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of exercise therapy compared to usual care, there is low evidence for the effectiveness of behavioural therapy compared to no treatment and there is moderate evidence for the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary treatment compared to no treatment and other active treatments at reducing pain at short-term in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Based on the heterogeneity of the populations, interventions, and comparison groups, we conclude that there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusion on the clinical effect of back schools, low-level laser therapy, patient education, massage, traction, superficial heat/cold, and lumbar supports for chronic LBP.

Individual expectation: an overlooked, but pertinent, factor in the treatment of individuals experiencing musculoskeletal pain

Physical therapists consider many factors in the treatment of patients with musculoskeletal pain. The current literature suggests expectation is an influential component of clinical outcomes related to musculoskeletal pain for which physical therapists frequently do not account. The purpose of this clinical perspective is to highlight the potential role of expectation in the clinical outcomes associated with the rehabilitation of individuals experiencing musculoskeletal pain. The discussion focuses on the definition and measurement of expectation, the relationship between expectation and outcomes related to musculoskeletal pain conditions, the mechanisms through which expectation may alter musculoskeletal pain conditions, and suggested ways in which clinicians may integrate the current literature regarding expectation into clinical practice.

Restoration of disk height through non-surgical spinal decompression is associated with decreased discogenic low back pain: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Because previous studies have suggested that motorized non-surgical spinal decompression can reduce chronic low back pain (LBP) due to disc degeneration (discogenic low back pain) and disc herniation, it has accordingly been hypothesized that the reduction of pressure on affected discs will facilitate their regeneration. The goal of this study was to determine if changes in LBP, as measured on a verbal rating scale, before and after a 6-week treatment period with non-surgical spinal decompression, correlate with changes in lumbar disc height, as measured on computed tomography (CT) scans.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of adults with chronic LBP attributed to disc herniation and/or discogenic LBP who underwent a 6-week treatment protocol of motorized non-surgical spinal decompression via the DRX9000 with CT scans before and after treatment. The main outcomes were changes in pain as measured on a verbal rating scale from 0 to 10 during a flexion-extension range of motion evaluation and changes in disc height as measured on CT scans. Paired t-test or linear regression was used as appropriate with p < 0.05 considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

We identified 30 patients with lumbar disc herniation with an average age of 65 years, body mass index of 29 kg/m2, 21 females and 9 males, and an average duration of LBP of 12.5 weeks. During treatment, low back pain decreased from 6.2 (SD 2.2) to 1.6 (2.3, p < 0.001) and disc height increased from 7.5 (1.7) mm to 8.8 (1.7) mm (p < 0.001). Increase in disc height and reduction in pain were significantly correlated (r = 0.36, p = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-surgical spinal decompression was associated with a reduction in pain and an increase in disc height. The correlation of these variables suggests that pain reduction may be mediated, at least in part, through a restoration of disc height. A randomized controlled trial is needed to confirm these promising results.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00828880.

Sciatica

Sciatica is a symptom rather than a specific diagnosis. Available evidence from basic science and clinical research indicates that both inflammation and compression are important in order for the nerve root to be symptomatic. Tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) is a key mediator in animal models, but its exact contribution in human radiculopathy is still a matter of debate. Sciatica is mainly diagnosed by history taking and physical examination. In general, the clinical course of acute sciatica is considered to be favourable. In the first 6-8 weeks, there is consensus that treatment of sciatica should be conservative. We review and comment on the levels of evidence of the efficacy of patient information, advice to stay active, physical therapy analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), epidural corticosteroid injections and transforaminal peri-radicular injections of corticosteroid. There is good evidence that discectomy is effective in the short term. but, in the long term, it is not more effective than prolonged conservative care. Shared decision making with regard to surgery is necessary in the absence of severe progressive neurological symptoms. Although the term sciatica is simple and easy to use, it is, in fact, an archaic and confusing term. For most researchers and clinicians, it refers to a radiculopathy, involving one of the lower extremities, and related to disc herniation (DH). As such, the term 'sciatica' is too restrictive as nerve roots from L1 to L4 may also be involved in the same process. However, even more confusing is the fact that patients, and many clinicians alike, use sciatica to describe any pain arising from the lower back and radiating down to the leg. The majority of the time, this painful sensation is referred pain from the lower back and is neither related to DH nor does it result from nerve-root compression. Although differentiating the radicular pain from the referred pain may be challenging for the clinician, it is of primary importance. This is because the epidemiology, clinical course and, most importantly, therapeutic interventions are different for these two conditions. It should, however, be emphasised that the quality of the available evidence is rather limited due to a considerable heterogeneity in the study populations included in the trials. This makes generalisation of findings across studies, and to routine clinical practice, a challenge. Prevalence estimates of radicular pain related to DH also vary considerably between studies, which is, in part, due to differences in the definitions used. A recent review showed that the prevalence of sciatic symptoms is rather variable, with values ranging from 1.6% to 43%. If stricter definitions of sciatica were used, for example, in terms of pain distribution and/or pain duration, lower prevalence rates were reported. Studies in working populations with physically demanding jobs consistently report higher rates of sciatica compared with studies in the general population.