Short-term effect of muscle energy technique and mechanical diagnosis and therapy in sacroiliac joint dysfunction: A pilot randomized clinical trial

Efficacy of manual therapy for sacroiliac joint pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

This study examined the efficacy of manual therapy for pain and disability measures in adults with sacroiliac joint pain syndrome (SIJPS).

METHODS

We searched six databases, including gray literature, on 24 October 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining sacroiliac joint (SIJ) manual therapy outcomes via pain or disability in adults with SIJPS. We evaluated quality via the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale and certainty via Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) in post-treatment pain and disability scores were pooled using random-effects models in meta-regressions.

RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs (421 adults; mean age = 37.7 years), with 11 RCTs being meta-analyzed. Compared to non-manual physiotherapy (i.e. exercise ± passive modalities; 10 RCTs) or sham (1 RCT) interventions, SIJ manual therapy did not significantly reduce pain (SMD: -0.88; 95%-CI: -1.84; 0.08, p = 0.0686) yet had a statistically significant moderate effect in reducing disability (SMD: -0.67; 95% CI: -1.32; -0.03, p = 0.0418). The superiority of individual manual therapies was unclear due to low sample size, wide confidence intervals for effect estimates, and inability to meta-analyze five RCTs with a unique head-to-head design. RCTs were of 'good' (56%) or 'fair' (44%) quality, and heterogeneity was high. Certainty was very low for pain and low for disability outcomes.

CONCLUSION

SIJ manual therapy appears efficacious for improving disability in adults with SIJPS, while its efficacy for pain is uncertain. It is unclear which specific manual therapy techniques may be more efficacious. These findings should be interpreted cautiously until further high-quality RCTs are available examining manual therapy against control groups such as exercise.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42023394326).

Effect of sacroiliac fusion on gait, standing balance, and pelvic mobility for unilateral sacroiliac joint dysfunction

Background

Sacroiliac joint fusion (SIF) has been shown to effectively alleviate pain and improve functional deficits associated with sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SIJD). Previous studies have demonstrated significant improvements in gait function, however, none have reported both over-ground walking and quiescent standing, and additionally, none have included analysis of pelvic kinematics which may contain important information regarding pain avoidant compensatory behaviors. The purpose of this study was to identify objective functional differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic sides of unilateral sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SIJD) patients and to demonstrate the effectiveness of unilateral sacroiliac fusion (SIF) to improve gait and balance function compared to matched controls.

Methods

Thirteen unilateral SIJD patients were evaluated before and 6 months after SIF and were compared to matched asymptomatic controls. Pain and disability were assessed using visual analog scales and the Oswestry disability index respectively. Over ground walking and standing balance were assessed using 3D joint kinematics and kinetic ground reaction force analyses.

Results

Preoperatively, SIJD patients reported high levels of pain and disability and exhibited significant deficits in gait including elevated step width, reduced hip flexion/extension, and elevated pelvic motion as well as elevated center of pressure sway characteristics during standing. After unilateral SIF, patients reported significant reductions in pain and demonstrated significant improvements in gait including normalization of step width between sides and improved hip motion however elevated pelvic obliquity and rotation motion remained. Improvements in standing balance included reduced coronal sway characteristics and normalization of loading symmetry between sides.

Conclusion

Unilateral SIF resulted in significant improvements in both gait and balance function among SIJD patients to levels comparable to matched controls, however elevated pelvic motion remained. These findings help inform surgeons on the effectiveness of SIF for unilateral SIJD and provide important information regarding interpretation of functional outcomes.

The McKenzie method for (sub)acute non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

There is widespread agreement amongst clinicians that people with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) comprise a heterogeneous group and that their management should be individually tailored. One treatment known by its tailored design is the McKenzie method (e.g. an individualized program of exercises based on clinical clues observed during assessment).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in people with (sub)acute non-specific low back pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to 15 August 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in adults with (sub)acute (less than 12 weeks) NSLBP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included five RCTs with a total of 563 participants recruited from primary or tertiary care. Three trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Scotland. Three trials received financial support from non-commercial funders and two did not provide information on funding sources. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias. None of the included trials measured adverse events. McKenzie method versus minimal intervention (educational booklet; McKenzie method as a supplement to other intervention - main comparison) There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may result in a slight reduction in pain in the short term (MD -7.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -2.56; 2 trials, 377 participants) but not in the intermediate term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -14.3 to 4.3; 1 trial, 180 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -2.5, 95% CI -7.5 to 2.0; 2 trials, 328 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD -0.9, 95% CI -7.3 to 5.6; 1 trial, 180 participants). McKenzie method versus manual therapy There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce pain in the short term (MD -8.7, 95% CI -27.4 to 10.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) and may result in a slight increase in pain in the intermediate term (MD 7.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 13.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -15.0 to 5.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 4.3, 95% CI -0.7 to 9.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). McKenzie method versus other interventions (massage and advice) There is very low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD 4.0, 95% CI -15.4 to 23.4; 1 trial, 30 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 10.0, 95% CI -8.9 to 28.9; 1 trial, 30 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low- to very low-certainty evidence, the treatment effects for pain and disability found in our review were not clinically important. Thus, we can conclude that the McKenzie method is not an effective treatment for (sub)acute NSLBP.

Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain has been the leading cause of disability globally for at least the past three decades and results in enormous direct healthcare and lost productivity costs.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of exercise treatment on pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo and other conservative treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Back and Neck trials register), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), and conducted citation searching of relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies. The review includes data for trials identified in searches up to 27 April 2018. All eligible trials have been identified through searches to 7 December 2020, but have not yet been extracted; these trials will be integrated in the next update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed exercise treatment compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo or other conservative treatment on the outcomes of pain or functional limitations for a population of adult participants with chronic non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened and assessed studies independently, with consensus. We extracted outcome data using electronic databases; pain and functional limitations outcomes were re-scaled to 0 to 100 points for meta-analyses where 0 is no pain or functional limitations. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence. When required, we contacted study authors to obtain missing data. To interpret meta-analysis results, we considered a 15-point difference in pain and a 10-point difference in functional limitations outcomes to be clinically important for the primary comparison of exercise versus no treatment, usual care or placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 249 trials of exercise treatment, including studies conducted in Europe (122 studies), Asia (38 studies), North America (33 studies), and the Middle East (24 studies). Sixty-one per cent of studies (151 trials) examined the effectiveness of two or more different types of exercise treatment, and 57% (142 trials) compared exercise treatment to a non-exercise comparison treatment. Study participants had a mean age of 43.7 years and, on average, 59% of study populations were female. Most of the trials were judged to be at risk of bias, including 79% at risk of performance bias due to difficulty blinding exercise treatments. We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise treatment is more effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons for pain outcomes at earliest follow-up (MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2), a clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to heterogeneity. For the same comparison, there was moderate-certainty evidence for functional limitations outcomes (MD -6.8 (95% CI -8.3 to -5.3); this finding did not meet our prespecified threshold for minimal clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to some evidence of publication bias.  Compared to all other investigated conservative treatments, exercise treatment was found to have improved pain (MD -9.1, 95% CI -12.6 to -5.6) and functional limitations outcomes (MD -4.1, 95% CI -6.0 to -2.2). These effects did not meet our prespecified threshold for clinically important difference. Subgroup analysis of pain outcomes suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than education alone (MD -12.2, 95% CI -19.4 to -5.0) or non-exercise physical therapy (MD -10.4, 95% CI -15.2 to -5.6), but with no differences observed for manual therapy (MD 1.0, 95% CI -3.1 to 5.1). In studies that reported adverse effects (86 studies), one or more adverse effects were reported in 37 of 112 exercise groups (33%) and 12 of 42 comparison groups (29%). Twelve included studies reported measuring adverse effects in a systematic way, with a median of 0.14 (IQR 0.01 to 0.57) per participant in the exercise groups (mostly minor harms, e.g. muscle soreness), and 0.12 (IQR 0.02 to 0.32) in comparison groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise is probably effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo for pain. The observed treatment effect for the exercise compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons is small for functional limitations, not meeting our threshold for minimal clinically important difference. We also found exercise to have improved pain (low-certainty evidence) and functional limitations outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence) compared to other conservative treatments; however, these effects were small and not clinically important when considering all comparisons together. Subgroup analysis suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than advice or education alone, or electrotherapy, but with no differences observed for manual therapy treatments.