Exercise treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and intervention component analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the components used in exercise interventions for people with symptoms of neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis and identify components associated with successful interventions.

DATA SOURCES

Eligible papers published up to April 2023 from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and trial registry websites.

REVIEW METHODS

Literature searches were performed by an Information Specialist. We searched for randomised trials evaluating exercise interventions for people with neurogenic claudication symptoms (the primary symptom of lumbar spinal stenosis). Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool Version 2 and the TIDieR checklist for intervention reporting. Details of intervention components were extracted, tabulated, and synthesised using an intervention component analysis approach.

RESULTS

We found thirteen trials reporting 23 exercise interventions delivered to 1440 participants. These featured 60 different components. Most exercise interventions included supervision and flexion-based exercises. Balance exercises were rarely included. Exercise components featured more frequently in successful interventions included stretches, strength or trunk muscle exercises, fitness exercises, especially cycling, and psychologically informed approaches. Interpretation is limited by low study numbers and heterogeneity. No conclusions could be drawn about exercise supervision or dose.

DISCUSSION

Exercise interventions for people with neurogenic claudication typically feature multiple components. Common features such as supervision, lumbar flexion, and aerobic fitness exercises and also less common features such as stretches, strengthening exercises, and psychologically informed approaches warrant consideration for inclusion when designing and optimising exercise interventions for people with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of rehabilitation, surgical, injection, and medication interventions

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has a substantial impact on mobility, autonomy, and quality of life. Previous reviews have demonstrated inconsistent results and/or have not delineated between specific nonsurgical interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of interventions in the management of LSS.

METHODS

Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies, included patients with LSS, assessed the effectiveness of any interventions (rehabilitation, surgical, injection, medication), included at least two intervention groups, and included at least one measure of pain, disability, ambulation assessment, or LSS-specific symptoms. Eighty-five articles met inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were conducted across outcomes. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedge's g and reported descriptively. Formal grading of evidence was conducted.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis comparing rehabilitation to no treatment/placebo demonstrated significant effects on pain favoring rehabilitation (mean difference, MD -1.63; 95% CI: -2.68, -0.57; I² = 71%; p = .002). All other comparisons to no treatment/placebo revealed nonsignificant findings. The level of evidence ranged from very low to high for rehabilitation and medication versus no treatment/placebo for pain, disability, ambulation ability, and LSS symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the findings of this review are inconclusive regarding superiority of interventions, this accentuates the value of multimodal patient-centered care in the management of patients with LSS.

Efficacy and characteristics of physiotherapy interventions in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To determine the efficacy of physiotherapy approaches used in the treatment of LSS and compare their delivery characteristics.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PEDro, CINAHL and Web of Science databases, from inception until March 2021. Inclusion criteria were clinical diagnosis of LSS confirmed through imaging techniques, RCTs written in English comparing physiotherapy interventions among them or versus placebo or usual care without restrictions on treatment and follow-up duration, outcomes related to pain, physical function, disability and quality of life. Two independent reviewers assessed records for eligibility and methodological quality (PEDro scale) and extracted participants' characteristics, interventions details and outcome measures at each timepoint. Pooled or un-pooled findings were reported as mean difference with 95% confidence interval, depending on heterogeneity. Evidence quality was rated using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Twelve studies (944 patients, mean PEDro score 7.6, range 5-9) were included. Three weeks of weight-supported walking improved pain and disability, while 8 weeks of aquatic exercises improved pain and walking tolerance (very low evidence). Six weeks of cycling reduced disability compared to weight-supported walking (low evidence). Six weeks of manual therapy plus exercise was not superior to supervised exercises (low evidence), but improved pain, walking tolerance, disability and quality of life compared to home/group exercises (moderate to very low evidence). Very low evidence supported 2 weeks of electromagnetic fields, whereas TENS (low evidence) and ultrasounds (very low evidence) revealed no effects.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings may assist clinicians in delivering effective physiotherapy interventions in LSS patients.

Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a prevalent and disabling cause of low back and leg pain in older persons, affecting an estimated 103 million persons worldwide. Most are treated nonoperatively. Approximately 600 000 surgical procedures are performed in the US each year for lumbar spinal stenosis.

OBSERVATIONS

The prevalence of the clinical syndrome of lumbar spinal stenosis in US adults is approximately 11% and increases with age. The diagnosis can generally be made based on a clinical history of back and lower extremity pain that is provoked by lumbar extension, relieved by lumbar flexion, and confirmed with cross-sectional imaging, such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Nonoperative treatment includes activity modification such as reducing periods of standing or walking, oral medications to diminish pain such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and physical therapy. In a series of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis followed up for up to 3 years without operative intervention, approximately one-third of patients reported improvement, approximately 50% reported no change in symptoms, and approximately 10% to 20% of patients reported that their back pain, leg pain, and walking were worse. Long-term benefits of epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis have not been demonstrated. Surgery appears effective in carefully selected patients with back, buttock, and lower extremity pain who do not improve with conservative management. For example, in a randomized trial of 94 participants with symptomatic and radiographic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, decompressive laminectomy improved symptoms more than nonoperative therapy (difference, 7.8 points; 95% CI, 0.8-14.9; minimum clinically important difference, 10-12.8) on the Oswestry Disability Index (score range, 0-100). Among persons with lumbar spinal stenosis and concomitant spondylolisthesis, lumbar fusion increased symptom resolution in 1 trial (difference, 5.7 points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 11.3) on the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical dimension score (range, 0-100), but 2 other trials showed either no important differences between the 2 therapies or noninferiority of lumbar decompression alone compared with lumbar decompression plus spinal fusion (MCID, 2-4.9 points). In a noninferiority trial, 71.4% treated with lumbar decompression alone vs 72.9% of those receiving decompression plus fusion achieved a 30% or more reduction in Oswestry Disability Index score, consistent with the prespecified noninferiority hypothesis. Fusion is associated with greater risk of complications such as blood loss, infection, longer hospital stays, and higher costs. Thus, the precise indications for concomitant lumbar fusion in persons with lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis remain unclear.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Lumbar spinal stenosis affects approximately 103 million people worldwide and 11% of older adults in the US. First-line therapy is activity modification, analgesia, and physical therapy. Long-term benefits from epidural steroid injections have not been established. Selected patients with continued pain and activity limitation may be candidates for decompressive surgery.

Non-operative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: an updated systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a growing health problem in older adults. We updated our previous Cochrane review (2013) to determine the effectiveness of non-operative treatment of LSS with neurogenic claudication.

DESIGN

A systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Index to Chiropractic Literature databases were searched and updated up to 22 July 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We only included randomised controlled trials published in English where at least one arm provided data on non-operative treatment and included participants diagnosed with neurogenic claudication with imaging confirmed LSS.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used for evidence synthesis.

RESULTS

Of 15 200 citations screened, 156 were assessed and 23 new trials were identified. There is moderate-quality evidence from three trials that: Manual therapy and exercise provides superior and clinically important short-term improvement in symptoms and function compared with medical care or community-based group exercise; manual therapy, education and exercise delivered using a cognitive-behavioural approach demonstrates superior and clinically important improvements in walking distance in the immediate to long term compared with self-directed home exercises and glucocorticoid plus lidocaine injection is more effective than lidocaine alone in improving statistical, but not clinically important improvements in pain and function in the short term. The remaining 20 new trials demonstrated low-quality or very low-quality evidence for all comparisons and outcomes, like the findings of our original review.

CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that a multimodal approach which includes manual therapy and exercise, with or without education, is an effective treatment and that epidural steroids are not effective for the management of LSS with neurogenic claudication. All other non-operative interventions provided insufficient quality evidence to make conclusions on their effectiveness.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020191860.

Interventions for the Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: Revision 2021

Low back pain (LBP) remains a musculoskeletal condition with an adverse societal impact. Globally, LBP is highly prevalent and a leading cause of disability. This is an update to the 2012 Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy (AOPT), formerly the Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), clinical practice guideline (CPG) for LBP. The overall objective of this update was to provide recommendations on interventions delivered by physical therapists or studied in care settings that included physical therapy providers. It also focused on synthesizing new evidence, with the purpose of making recommendations for specific nonpharmacologic treatments. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):CPG1-CPG60. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0304.

Effects of adding neural mobilization to traditional physical therapy on pain, functional disability, and H-reflex in patients after lumbar laminectomy: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether adding neural mobilization to a standard postoperative physical therapy program could improve the outcomes of patients after lumbar laminectomy.

DESIGN

A single blinded randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Outpatient setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty participants of both sexes who had undergone lumbar laminectomy.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were allocated randomly to two groups; study and control groups. All patients received a standard postoperative physical therapy program. Those in the study group received additional neural mobilization in the form of straight leg raising and dorsiflexion with two-ended slider. Treatment was administered three times/week for six successive weeks.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and H-reflex latency were measured pre and post-treatment.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants was 44.23 ± 4.64 and 45.3 ± 5.3 in study and control groups respectively (P > 0.05). There were statistically significant differences in VAS, ODI, and H-reflex latency in favor of the study group (P < 0.05). The mean ± SD for VAS, ODI, and H-reflex latency pre vs post treatment was 6.13 ± 1.22 vs 1.40 ± 0.77, 64.46 ± 4.05 vs 16.86 ± 2.55, and 32.07 ± 2.76 vs 27.46 ±1.79 in study group and 5.86 ± 1.07 vs 2.46 ± 0.73, 63.93 ± 3.91 vs 23.40 ± 2.93, and 31.76 ± 2.69 vs 29.4 ± 1.94 in control group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Neural mobilization combined with traditional physical therapy program achieved better improvement in pain, functional disability and H-reflex in patients who underwent decompressive laminectomy than traditional physical therapy program only.

Effectiveness of Conservative Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Pain, Disability, Physical Capacity, and Physical Activity Behavior in Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of conservative nonpharmacologic therapies on pain, disability, physical capacity, and physical activity outcomes in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

DATA SOURCES

Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO from inception to November 4, 2019, without language restrictions.

STUDY SELECTION

Pairs of review authors independently identified randomized controlled trials published in peer-reviewed scientific journals reporting on the effects of rehabilitation interventions on pain intensity (back or leg), disability, symptom severity, physical capacity, physical activity behavior, or adverse events (secondary outcome) in adults with LSS. The search identified 1718 records; data from 21 reports of 19 trials (1432 patients) were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Review author pairs independently extracted data and assessed included studies. We assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane tool, and overall study quality with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation classification.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses; treatment effects were reported as mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Directed exercise and manual therapy was superior to self-directed or group exercise for improving short-term walking capacity (MD, 293.3 m; 95% CI, 61.7-524.9 m; low-quality evidence), back pain (MD, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.8 to -0.4; moderate quality evidence), leg pain (MD, -.9; 95% CI, -0.2 to -1.5; moderate-quality evidence), and symptom severity (MD, -0.3; 95% CI, -0.4 to -0.2; low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that rehabilitation is no better than surgery at improving intermediate- or long-term disability. Single trials provided conflicting evidence of effectiveness for a variety of therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with LSS, there is low- to moderate-quality evidence that manual therapy with supervised exercises improves short-term walking capacity and results in small improvements in pain and symptom severity compared with self-directed or group exercise. The choice between rehabilitation and surgery for LSS is very uncertain owing to the very low quality of available evidence.

Comparing the effects of aquatic exercises with or without high intensity on the functional status, muscular endurance, and performance of patients with chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of low back pain is lower when physical fitness (aerobic and muscular) is higher. Strength exercises are important for subjects with low back pain, but there are few studies on the inclusion of aerobic exercise in low back pain programs. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of aquatic exercises with or without high-intensity component on the functional status, lumbar and abdominal muscle endurance, and performance of subjects with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Forty-eight volunteers between 20 and 60 years old were randomly allocated to an experimental group AEDWR (aquatic exercises plus deep-water running group, N.=25) or to a control group AE (aquatic exercises only group, N.=23). The dependent variables included functional status (Repeated Sit-to-Stand test), lumbar (Sorensen test) and abdominal (One Minute Abdominal test) muscle endurance, and physical performance (Maximum Physical Fitness test), which were measured before and after the 9-week intervention and at 21 weeks of follow-up.

RESULTS

Lumbar endurance was higher in the AEDWR group at the end of the treatment, with a mean difference (MD) of 43.2 seconds, 95% confidence intervals (CI) (9.6; 76.7), P=0.01, d̅=0.74, and better in the follow-up with MD=40.2 seconds, 95% CI (7.1; 73.3), P=0.02, d̅=0.71, than in the AE group. Participant performance also improved on the 9^th week in the AEDWR group, with an MD=0.53 kgf, 95% CI (0.008; 0.98), P=0.02, d̅=0.60.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of deep-water running exercise to aquatic exercises improved lumbar muscle endurance and performance when compared with aquatic exercises only, and this effect was maintained during the follow-up to lumbar muscle endurance.

Effectiveness of additional deep-water running for disability, lumbar pain intensity, and functional capacity in patients with chronic low back pain: A randomised controlled trial with 3-month follow-up

BACKGROUND

Aquatic exercise (AQE) programme is commonly used as an alternative to the chronic low back pain (CLBP) treatment. The addition of aquatic aerobic exercises to AQE may be beneficial to patients with CLBP.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of AQE with the addition of aerobic exercise - deep-water running (DWR) - compared to exclusive AQE in improving disability, lumbar pain intensity, and functional capacity in patients with CLBP.

METHODS

Fifty-four adult patients with CLBP were randomised either to the experimental group (AQE + DWR) or the control group (AQE). An assessor who was blinded to the group allocation performed both pre- and post-interventions assessments. Both treatments lasted 9 weeks, with a 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome was disability, as evaluated using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. The secondary outcomes were pain and functional capacity; pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and functional capacity (travelled distance) was measured using the 6-min walk test (6WT).

RESULTS

A significant difference in pain was observed between groups after intervention in favour of DWR (mean difference -1.3 cm [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.17 to -0.45], d‾ = 0.80 [95% CI 0.22 to 1.33]).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with DWR was effective in the short term for achieving the desired outcome of pain reduction when compared with AQE only but not for disability and functional capacity.

Abstracts of low back pain trials are poorly reported, contain spin of information and are inconsistent with the full text: An overview study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate trials abstracts evaluating treatments for low back pain with regards to completeness of reporting, spin (i.e., interpretation of study results that overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention), and inconsistencies in data with the full text.

DATA SOURCES

The search was performed on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in February 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

This is an overview study of a random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015. The languages of publication were restricted to English, Spanish and Portuguese.

DATA EXTRACTION

Completeness of reporting was assessed using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (CONSORT-A). Spin was assessed using a SPIN-checklist. Consistency between abstract and full text were assessed by applying the assessment tools to both the abstract and full text of each trial and calculating inconsistencies in the summary score (paired t test) and agreement in the classification of each item (Kappa statistics). Methodological quality was analyzed using the total PEDro score.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The mean number of fully reported items for abstracts using the CONSORT-A was 5.1 (SD 2.4) out of 15 points and the mean number of items with spin was 4.9 (SD 2.6) out of 7 points. Abstract and full text scores were statistically inconsistent (P=0.01). There was slight to moderate agreement between items of the CONSORT-A in the abstracts and full text (mean Kappa 0.20 SD 0.13) and fair to moderate agreement for items of the SPIN-checklist (mean Kappa 0.47 SD 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The abstracts were incomplete, with spin and inconsistent with the full text. We advise health care professionals to avoid making clinical decisions based solely upon abstracts. Journal editors, reviewers and authors are jointly responsible for improving abstracts, which could be guided by amended editorial policies.