Lumbar Zygapophyseal Pain During Extension-Based Stabilization Protocol Following Lumbar Transdiscal Biacuplasty

Twelve-Month Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Intradiscal Biacuplasty to Conventional Medical Management for Discogenic Lumbar Back Pain

Objective

This report conveys 12-month outcomes of subjects treated with intradiscal biacuplasty (IDB) and conservative medical management (CMM) for chronic low back pain of discogenic origin, and results for subjects who elected to receive IDB + CMM 6 months after CMM-alone.

Methods

Sixty-three subjects were originally randomized to the IDB + CMM group (N = 29) or CMM-alone (N = 34). Six months following continuous CMM-alone treatment, participants in this study group were permitted to "cross-over" to IDB + CMM (N = 25), and followed for an additional 6 months. The original IDB + CMM study subjects were followed for a total of 12 months (N = 22).

Results

Pain reduction at 12 months was statistically significant and clinically meaningful in the original IDB + CMM group compared to baseline. Functional and disability outcomes were also improved statistically and clinically. Fifty-five percent of the IDB + CMM patients responded to treatment with a mean VAS reduction of 2.2 points at 12 months. Furthermore, 50% and 64% of subjects reported clinically significant improvements in SF36-PF and in ODI, respectively. There was a 1.7-point reduction (improvement) on a 7-point PGIC scale, and a 0.13-point increase (improvement) in the EQ-5D Health Index. Fifty-percent of cross-over subjects responded to IDB + CMM intervention. Mean outcome scores for cross-over subjects were similar to those of the originally-treated subjects, and functional and disability endpoints were improved statistically and clinically compared to respective baseline values.

Conclusions

The study demonstrated long-term clinical effectiveness of IDB + CMM for treating chronic lumbar discogenic pain. Furthermore, the cross-over study subjects experienced similar improvements in pain, function, disability, and satisfaction.

A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter, Open-label Clinical Trial Comparing Intradiscal Biacuplasty to Conventional Medical Management for Discogenic Lumbar Back Pain

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a prospective, randomized, crossover, multicenter trial for the evaluation of comparative effectiveness of intradiscal biacuplasty (IDB) versus conventional medical management (CMM) in the treatment of lumbar discogenic pain.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to demonstrate the superiority of IDB over CMM in the treatment of discogenic pain with respect to the primary outcome measure.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Current therapeutic options for the treatment of chronic low back pain of discogenic origin are limited. CMM is often unsatisfactory with regard to the treatment of discogenic pain. IDB offers a minimally invasive treatment that has been demonstrated to be superior to placebo in the past.

METHODS

A total of 63 subjects with lumbar discogenic pain diagnosed via provocation discography were randomized to IDB + CMM (n = 29) or CMM-alone (n = 34). At 6 months, patients in the CMM-alone group were eligible for crossover if desired. The primary outcome measure was the change in visual analog scale (VAS) from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcome measures included treatment "responders," defined as the proportion of subjects with a 2-point or 30% decrease in VAS scores. Other secondary measures included changes from baseline to 6 months in (1) short form (SF) 36-physical functioning, (2) Oswestry Disability Index, (3) Beck Depression Inventory, (4) Patient Global Impression of Change, (5) EQ-5D VAS, and (6) back pain-related medication usage.

RESULTS

In the IDB cohort, the mean VAS score reduction exceeded that in the CMM cohort (-2.4 vs. -0.56; P = 0.02), and the proportion of treatment responders was substantially greater (50% vs. 18%). Differences in secondary measures favored IDB. No differences in opioid utilization were noted between groups.

CONCLUSION

Superior performance of IDB with respect to all study outcomes suggests that it is a more effective treatment for discogenic pain than CMM-alone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.