The Role of Exercise in Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Symptoms

Spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a multi-center randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Nonoperative management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) includes activity modification, medication, injections, and physical therapy. Conventional physical therapy includes a multimodal approach of exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities. There is a paucity of evidence supporting the use of spinal manipulation and dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the effects of adding thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Randomized, single-blinded, multi-center, parallel-group clinical trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred twenty-eight (n=128) patients with LSS from 12 outpatient clinics in 8 states were recruited over a 34-month period.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included the Roland Morris Disability Index (RMDI), Global Rating of Change (GROC), and medication intake. Follow-up assessments were taken at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive either spinal manipulation, electrical dry needling, and conventional physical therapy (MEDNCPT group, n=65) or conventional physical therapy alone (CPT group, n=63).

RESULTS

At 3 months, the MEDNCPT group experienced greater reductions in overall low back, buttock, and leg pain (NPRS: F=5.658; p=.002) and related-disability (ODI: F=9.921; p<.001; RMDI: F=7.263; p<.001) compared to the CPT group. Effect sizes were small at 2 and 6 weeks, and medium at 3 months for the NPRS, ODI, and RMDI. At 3 months, significantly (p=.003) more patients in the MEDNCPT group reported a successful outcome (GROC≥+5) than the CPT group.

CONCLUSION

Patients with LSS who received electrical dry needling and spinal manipulation in addition to impairment-based exercise, manual therapy and electro-thermal modalities experienced greater improvements in low back, buttock and leg pain and related-disability than those receiving exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities alone at 3 months, but not at the 2 or 6 week follow-up.

Understanding the mechanisms of a combined physical and psychological intervention for people with neurogenic claudication: protocol for a causal mediation analysis of the BOOST trial

INTRODUCTION

Conservative treatments such as exercise are recommended for the management of people with neurogenic claudication from spinal stenosis. However, the effectiveness and mechanisms of effect are unknown. This protocol outlines an a priori plan for a secondary analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of a physiotherapist-delivered, combined physical and psychological intervention (Better Outcomes for Older people with Spinal Trouble (BOOST) programme).

METHODS AND ANALYSES

We will use causal mediation analysis to estimate the mechanistic effects of the BOOST programme on the primary outcome of disability (measured by the Oswestry Disability Index). The primary mechanism of interest is walking capacity, and secondary mediators include fear-avoidance behaviour, walking self-efficacy, physical function, physical activity and/or symptom severity. All mediators will be measured at 6 months and the outcome will be measured at 12 months from randomisation. Patient characteristics and possible confounders of the mediator-outcome effect will be measured at baseline. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to evaluate the robustness of the estimated effects to varying levels of residual confounding.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was given on 3 March 2016 (National Research Ethics Committee number: 16/LO/0349). The results of this analysis will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at relevant scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN12698674.

The profile of chiropractors managing patients with low back-related leg pain: analyses of 1907 chiropractors from the ACORN practice-based research network

Background

Approximately 60% of people with low back pain also have associated leg pain symptoms. Guidelines for low back pain recommend non-pharmacological approaches, including spinal manipulation - a therapy provided by chiropractors. However, limited empirical data has examined the characteristics of chiropractors managing patients with low back-related leg pain (LBRLP). Our objective is to describe the prevalence, profile and practice characteristics of Australian chiropractors who often treat LBRLP, compared to those who do not often treat LBRLP.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional analysis of a nationally representative sample from the Australian Chiropractic Research Network (ACORN). This study investigated the demographic and practice characteristics as well as clinical management of chiropractors who ‘often’ treated patients with LBRLP compared to those who treated LBRLP ‘never/rarely/sometimes’. Multiple logistic regression models identified independent factors associated with chiropractors who ‘often’ treated patients with LBRLP.

Results

A total of 1907 chiropractors reported treating patients experiencing LBRLP, with 80.9% of them ‘often’ treating LBRLP. Chiropractors who ‘often’ treated LBRLP were more likely to manage patients with multi-site pain including axial low back pain (OR = 21.1), referred/radicular neck pain (OR = 10.8) and referred/radicular thoracic pain (OR = 3.1). While no specific management strategies were identified, chiropractors who ‘often’ treated LBRLP were more likely to discuss medication (OR = 1.8), manage migraine (OR = 1.7) and degenerative spine conditions (OR = 1.5), and treat women during pregnancy (OR = 1.6) and people with work-related injuries (OR = 1.5), compared to those not treating LBRLP frequently.

Conclusions

Australian chiropractors frequently manage LBRLP, although the nature of specific management approaches for this condition remains unclear. Further research on the management of LBRLP can better inform policy makers and educators interested in upskilling chiropractors to deliver safe and effective treatment of LBRLP.