A prospective randomized controlled study of VAX-D and TENS for the treatment of chronic low back pain

The assessment of the validity, safety, and utility of ChatGPT for patients with herniated lumbar disc: A preliminary study

ChatGPT is perceived as a potential tool for patients diagnosed with herniated lumbar disc (HLD) to ask questions concerning desired information, with provision for necessary responses. In this preliminary study, we assessed the validity, safety, and utility of ChatGPT in patients with HLD. Two physicians specializing in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders discussed and determined the 12 most frequently asked questions by patients with HLD in clinical practice. We used ChatGPT (version 4.0) to ask questions related to HLD. Each question was inputted into ChatGPT, and the responses were assessed by the 2 physicians. A Likert score was used to evaluate the validity, safety, and utility of the responses generated by ChatGPT. Each score for validity, safety, and utility was divided into 4 points, with a score of 4 indicating the most valid, safe, and useful answers and 1 point indicating the worst answers. Regarding validity, ChatGPT responses demonstrated 4 points for 9 questions (9/12, 75.0%) and 3 points for 3 questions (3/12, 25.0%). Regarding safety, ChatGPT scored 4 points for 11 questions (11/12, 91.7%) and 3 points for 1 question (1/12, 8.3%). Regarding utility, ChatGPT responses exhibited 4 points for 9 questions (9/12, 75.0%) and 3 points for 3 questions (3/12, 25.0%). ChatGPT demonstrates a tendency to offer relatively valid, safe, and useful information regarding HLD. However, users should exercise caution as ChatGPT may occasionally provide incomplete answers to some questions on HLD.

Reciprocal activation changes of lower extremity muscles caused by the abdominal hollowing maneuver in patients with unilateral lumbar disc herniation: an EMG study

Introduction: Decreased or delayed multifidus and transversus abdominis (TrA) activity, transition of the TrA from tonic to phasic activity, and increased activity in the more superficial erector spinae muscles are behaviors unique to people with lumbar radiculopathy. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the isolated AHM could compensate for functional impairments caused by tibialis anterior (TA) muscle weakness due to unilateral L4-L5 radiculopathy. Material and Method: The healthy and affected lower extremities of seventeen patients with unilateral lumbar disc herniation were analyzed. The ratio of TA and medial gastrocnemius (MGC) values that emerged during the activities to the maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) values of these muscles was called MVIC%. Then the MVIC% values of the TA and MGC were matched and the muscle reciprocal activation ratio was determined ("MVIC%"-TA/"MVIC%"-MGC). While the activities were being performed, the MVIC% values of both muscles were measured separately without performing the AHM and during the AHM. Results: During the tandem walking activity performed with the AHM, the reciprocal activation rates of TA:MGC on the affected and healthy legs converged (p=0.010,d=0.71). Conclusion: According to the results of the study, integration of the AHM into tandem walking activity brought the reciprocal activation rates of both legs closer to each other and enabled them to exhibit similar behaviors, even without adherence to any exercise protocol. Therefore, tandem walking can be selected as an appropriate activity to combine with spinal stabilization exercises performed by unilateral L4-L5 radiculopathy patients using the AHM along with the task.

Characterising the Features of 381 Clinical Studies Evaluating Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Pain Relief: A Secondary Analysis of the Meta-TENS Study to Improve Future Research

Background and Objectives: Characterising the features of methodologies, clinical attributes and intervention protocols, of studies is valuable to advise directions for research and practice. This article reports the findings of a secondary analysis of the features from studies screened as part of a large systematic review of TENS (the meta-TENS study). Materials and Methods: A descriptive analysis was performed on information associated with methodology, sample populations and intervention protocols from 381 randomised controlled trials (24,532 participants) evaluating TENS delivered at a strong comfortable intensity at the painful site in adults with pain, irrespective of diagnosis. Results: Studies were conducted in 43 countries commonly using parallel group design (n = 334) and one comparator group (n = 231). Mean ± standard deviation (SD) study sample size (64.05 ± 58.29 participants) and TENS group size (27.67 ± 21.90 participants) were small, with only 13 of 381 studies having 100 participants or more in the TENS group. Most TENS interventions were ‘high frequency’ (>10 pps, n = 276) and using 100 Hz (109/353 reports that stated a pulse frequency value). Of 476 comparator groups, 54.2% were active treatments (i.e., analgesic medication(s), exercise, manual therapies and electrophysical agents). Of 202 placebo comparator groups, 155 used a TENS device that did not deliver currents. At least 216 of 383 study groups were able to access other treatments whilst receiving TENS. Only 136 out of 381 reports included a statement about adverse events. Conclusions: Clinical studies on TENS are dominated by small parallel group evaluations of high frequency TENS that are often contaminated by concurrent treatment(s). Study reports tended focus on physiological and clinical implications rather than the veracity of methodology and findings. Previously published criteria for designing and reporting TENS studies were neglected and this should be corrected in future research using insights gleaned from this analysis.

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.

Effectiveness of Mechanical Traction for Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar radiculopathy (LR) is a pain syndrome caused by compression/irritation of the lumbar nerve root(s). Traction is a well-known and commonly used conservative treatment for LR, although its effectiveness is disputed. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was to evaluate the effects of different types of traction added to or compared with conservative treatments on pain and disability.

METHODS

Data were obtained from CENTRAL, PUBMED, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and PEDro from their inception to April 2020. All randomized controlled trials on adults with LR, using mechanical traction, and without any restriction regarding publication time or language were considered. Two reviewers selected the studies, evaluated the quality assessment, and extracted the results. Meta-analysis used a random-effects model. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, and 5 were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses of results from low-quality studies indicated that supine mechanical traction added to physical therapist treatments had significant effects on pain (g = -0.58 [95% confidence interval = -0.87 to -0.29]) and disability (g = -0.78 [95% confidence interval = -1.45 to -0.11]). Analyses of results from high-quality studies of prone mechanical traction added to physical therapist intervention for pain and disability were not significant. These results were also evident at short-term follow-up (up to 3 months after intervention).

CONCLUSION

The literature suggests that, for pain and disability in LR, there is short-term effectiveness of supine mechanical traction when added to physical therapist intervention.

IMPACT

This systematic review may be relevant for clinical practice due to its external validity because the treatments and the outcome measures are very similar to those commonly used in a clinical context.

Motor Control Training Compared With Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in Patients With Disc Herniation With Associated Radiculopathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of motor control training and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in relieving pain, reducing functional disability, and improving transversus abdominis activation in patients with lumbar disc herniation with associated radiculopathy.

DESIGN

This is a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Forty patients diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation were randomly divided into two groups: motor control training group (n = 20) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation group (n = 20).

INTERVENTIONS

The motor control training group and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation group attended 60 mini sessions twice a week for 8 wks, totaling to 16 sessions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures are pain, functional disability, and transversus abdominis activation capacity.

RESULTS

Differences between both groups were observed after 8 wks, favoring the motor control training group. Motor control training was more effective than transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in relieving pain (mean difference = 3.3 points, 95% confidence interval = 2.12-4.48), reducing functional disability (mean difference = 8.4 points, 95% confidence interval = 5.44-11.36), improving the quality of pain (mean difference = 17 points, 95% confidence interval = 7.93-26.07), sensory quality of pain (mean difference = 10.3 points, 95% confidence interval = 5.55-15.05), and transversus abdominis activation (mean difference = 1.5 points, 95% confidence interval = 0.90-2.10).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that motor control training is more effective than transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation with respect to relieving pain, reducing functional disability, and improving transversus abdominis activation in patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Nonsurgical treatments for patients with radicular pain from lumbosacral disc herniation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbosacral disc herniation (LDH) is one of the most frequent musculoskeletal diseases causative of sick leave in the workplace and morbidity in daily activities. Nonsurgical managements are considered as first line treatment before surgical treatment.

PURPOSE

This clinical practice guideline (CPG) is intended to provide physicians who treat patients diagnosed with LDH with a guideline supported by scientific evidence to assist in decision-making for appropriate and reasonable treatments.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A systematic review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Studies of human subjects written in Korean or English that met the following criteria were selected: patients aged ≥18 years, clinical presentation of low back and radicular leg pain, diagnosis of LDH on radiological evaluation including computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.

OUTCOMES MEASURES

Pain and functional evaluation scales such as visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and Oswestry disability index METHODS: The MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Review, and KoreaMed databases were searched for articles regarding non-surgical treatments for LDH published up to July 2017. Of the studies fulfilling these criteria, those investigating clinical results after non-surgical treatment including physical and behavioral therapy, medication, and interventional treatment in terms of pain control and functional improvements were chosen for this study.

RESULTS

Nonsurgical treatments were determined to be clinically effective with regards to pain reduction and functional improvement in patients with LDH. Nevertheless, the evidence level was generally not evaluated as high degree, which might be attributed to the paucity of well-designed randomized controlled trials. Exercise and traction were strongly recommended despite moderate level of evidence. Epidural injection was strongly recommended with high degree of evidence and transforaminal approach was more strongly recommended than caudal approach.

CONCLUSIONS

This CPG provides new and updated evidence-based recommendations for treatment of the patients with LDH, which suggested that, despite an absence of high degrees of evidence level, non-surgical treatments were clinically effective.

Nonsurgical medical treatment in the management of pain due to lumbar disc prolapse: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment strategies for patients with pain due to lumbar disc prolapse (LDP).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database were searched through September 2017. Randomized controlled trials on LDP reporting on pain intensity and/or global pain effects which compared included treatments head-to-head, against placebo, and/or against conventional care were included. Study data were independently double-extracted and data on patient traits and outcomes were collected. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Separate Bayesian network meta-analyses were undertaken to synthesize direct and indirect, short-term and long-term outcomes, summarized as odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% credible intervals (CI) as well as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

58 studies in global effects and 74 studies in pain intensity analysis were included. Thirty-eight (65.5%) of these studies reported a possible elevated risk of bias. Autonomic drugs and transforminal epidural steroid injections (TESIs) had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (86.7 and 83.5 respectively), while Cytokines/Immunomodulators and TESI had the highest SUCRA values at long-term-follow-up in the global effect's analysis (86.6 and 80.9 respectively). Caudal steroid injections and TESIs had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (79.4 and 75.9 respectively), while at long-term follow-up biological agents and manipulation had the highest SUCRA scores (86.4 and 68.5 respectively) for pain intensity. Some treatments had few studies and/or no associated placebo-controlled trials. Studies often did not report on co-interventions, systematically differed, and reported an overall elevated risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

No treatment stands out as superior when compared on multiple outcomes and time periods but TESIs show promise as an effective short-term treatment. High quality studies are needed to confirm many nodes of this network meta-analysis.

Assessment of variability in traction interventions for patients with low back pain: a systematic review

Background

Previous systematic reviews have concluded that lumbar traction is not effective for patients with low back pain (LBP), yet many clinicians continue to assert its clinical effectiveness.

Objective

To systematically identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traction and explore the variability of traction interventions used in each RCT.

Method

A literature search started in September 2016 to retrieve systematic reviews and individual RCTs of lumbar traction. The term “lumbar traction” and other key words were used in the following databases: Cochrane Registry, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. The retrieved systematic reviews were used to extract individual RCTs. The most current systematic review included RCTs from inception until August 2012. We performed an additional literature search to update this systematic review with newer RCTs published between September 2012 and December 2016. All of the identified RCTs were combined and summarized into a single evidence table.

Results

We identified a total of 37 traction RCTs that varied greatly in their method of traction intervention. The RCTs included several types of traction: mechanical (57%), auto-traction (16%), manual (10.8%), gravitational (8.1%) and aquatic (5.4%). There was also great variability in the types of traction force, rhythm, session duration and treatment frequency used in the RCTs. Patient characteristics were a mixture of acute, subacute and chronic LBP; with or without sciatica.

Conclusion

There is wide variability in the type of traction, traction parameters and patient characteristics found among the RCTs of lumbar traction. The variability may call into question the conclusion that lumbar traction has little no or value on clinical outcomes. Also, this variability emphasizes the need for targeted delivery methods of traction that match appropriate dosages with specific subgroups of patients with LBP.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain, which is due to nerve disease or damage, represents a significant burden on people and society. It can be particularly unpleasant and achieving adequate symptom control can be difficult. Non-pharmacological methods of treatment are often employed by people with neuropathic pain and may include transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). This review supersedes one Cochrane Review 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain' (Nnoaham 2014) and one withdrawn protocol 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults' (Claydon 2014). This review replaces the original protocol for neuropathic pain that was withdrawn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic effectiveness of TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, PEDro, LILACS (up to September 2016) and various clinical trials registries. We also searched bibliographies of included studies for further relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials where TENS was evaluated in the treatment of central or peripheral neuropathic pain. We included studies if they investigated the following: TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all database search results and identified papers requiring full-text assessment. Subsequently, two review authors independently applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to these studies. The same review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies with 724 participants. We found a range of treatment protocols in terms of duration of care, TENS application times and intensity of application. Briefly, duration of care ranged from four days through to three months. Similarly, we found variation of TENS application times; from 15 minutes up to hourly sessions applied four times daily. We typically found intensity of TENS set to comfortable perceptible tingling with very few studies titrating the dose to maintain this perception. Of the comparisons, we had planned to explore, we were only able to undertake a quantitative synthesis for TENS versus sham TENS. Insufficient data and large diversity in the control conditions prevented us from undertaking a quantitative synthesis for the remaining comparisons.For TENS compared to sham TENS, five studies were suitable for pooled analysis. We described the remainder of the studies in narrative form. Overall, we judged 11 studies at high risk of bias, and four at unclear risk. Due to the small number of eligible studies, the high levels of risk of bias across the studies and small sample sizes, we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the pooled analysis and very low individual GRADE rating of outcomes from single studies. For the individual studies discussed in narrative form, the methodological limitations, quality of reporting and heterogeneous nature of interventions compared did not allow for reliable overall estimates of the effect of TENS.Five studies (across various neuropathic conditions) were suitable for pooled analysis of TENS versus sham TENS investigating change in pain intensity using a visual analogue scale. We found a mean postintervention difference in effect size favouring TENS of -1.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.00001, n = 207, six comparisons from five studies) (very low quality evidence). There was no significant heterogeneity in this analysis. While this exceeded our prespecified minimally important difference for pain outcomes, we assessed the quality of evidence as very low meaning we have very little confidence in this effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from that reported in this review. Only one study of these five investigated health related quality of life as an outcome meaning we were unable to report on this outcome in this comparison. Similarly, we were unable to report on global impression of change or changes in analgesic use in this pooled analysis.Ten small studies compared TENS to some form of usual care. However, there was great diversity in what constituted usual care, precluding pooling of data. Most of these studies found either no difference in pain outcomes between TENS versus other active treatments or favoured the comparator intervention (very low quality evidence). We were unable to report on other primary and secondary outcomes in these single trials (health-related quality of life, global impression of change and changes in analgesic use).Of the 15 included studies, three reported adverse events which were minor and limited to 'skin irritation' at or around the site of electrode placement (very low quality evidence). Three studies reported no adverse events while the remainder did not report any detail with regard adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we reported on the comparison between TENS and sham TENS. The quality of the evidence was very low meaning we were unable to confidently state whether TENS is effective for pain control in people with neuropathic pain. The very low quality of evidence means we have very limited confidence in the effect estimate reported; the true effect is likely to be substantially different. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment modality.

Comparison of the short-term effects of the conventional motorized traction with non-surgical spinal decompression performed with a DRX9000 device on pain, functionality, depression, and quality of life in patients with low back pain associated with lumbar disc herniation: A single-blind randomized-controlled trial

Objectives

This study aims to compare the efficiency of conventional motorized traction (CMT) with non-surgical spinal decompression (NSD) using the DRX9000™ device in patients with low back pain associated with lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Patients and methods

Between March 2009 and September 2009, a total of 48 patients (29 females, 19 males; mean age 43.1±9.8 years; range, 18 to 65 years) were randomized into two groups. The first group (n=24) underwent CMT and the second group (n=24) underwent NSD for a total of 20 sessions over six weeks. The patients were evaluated before and after the treatment. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), functional status using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), quality of life using the Short Form-36 (SF-36), state of depression mood using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the global assessment of the illness using the Patient's Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) and Investigator's Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (IGART) scales.

Results

There was no significant difference in the evaluation outcomes before the treatment between the groups. However, a statistically significant decline was found in the VAS, ODI, and BDI scores after the treatment in both groups (all p<0.001). Except for two subgroups, no significant changes were observed in the SF-36 form. Assessment of "marked improvement" was globally most frequently reported one in both groups. No significant difference was observed in the evaluation outcomes after treatment between the groups.

Conclusion

Our study results show that both CMT and NSD are effective methods in pain management and functional status and depressive mood improvement in patients with LDH, and NSD is not superior to CMT in terms of pain, functionality, depression and quality of life.

High-Force Versus Low-Force Lumbar Traction in Acute Lumbar Sciatica Due to Disc Herniation: A Preliminary Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the effects of high-force versus low-force lumbar traction in the treatment of acute lumbar sciatica secondary to disc herniation.

METHODS

A randomized double blind trial was performed, and 17 subjects with acute lumbar sciatica secondary to disc herniation were assigned to high-force traction at 50% body weight (BW; LT50, n = 8) or low force traction at 10% BW (LT10, n = 9) for 10 sessions in 2 weeks. Radicular pain (visual analogue scale [VAS]), lumbo-pelvic-hip complex motion (finger-to-toe test), lumbar-spine mobility (Schöber-Macrae test), nerve root compression (straight-leg-raising test), disability (EIFEL score), drug consumption, and overall evaluation of each patient were measured at days 0, 7, 1, 4, and 28.

RESULTS

Significant (P < .05) improvements were observed in the LT50 and LT10 groups, respectively, between day 0 and day 14 (end of treatment) for VAS (-44% and -36%), EIFEL score (-43% and -28%) and overall patient evaluation (+3.1 and +2.0 points). At that time, LT50 specifically improved in the finger-to-toe test (-42%), the straight-leg-raising test (+58), and drug consumption (-50%). No significant interaction effect (group-by-time) was revealed, and the effect of traction treatment was independent of the level of medication. During the 2-week follow-up at day 28, only the LT10 group improved (P < .05) in VAS (-52%) and EIFEL scores (-46%). During this period, no interaction effect (group-by-time) was identified, and the observed responses were independent of the level of medication.

CONCLUSIONS

For this preliminary study, patients with acute lumbar sciatica secondary to disc herniation who received 2 weeks of lumbar traction reported reduced radicular pain and functional impairment and improved well-being regardless of the traction force group to which they were assigned. The effects of the traction treatment were independent of the initial level of medication and appeared to be maintained at the 2-week follow-up.

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.

Efficacy of vertebral axial decompression on chronic low back pain: study of dosage regimen

Vertebral axial decompression (VAX-D) is capable of reducing intradiscal pressure to the negative range. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two dosage regimens of VAX-D treatments on the level of low back pain in patients who were referred to a neurosurgical practice after failing standard medical therapy. In this study, one group of patients received an average course of treatment consisting of 18 daily sessions and another group received half that number of daily treatment sessions. The treatment parameters for all patients differed only in the number of sessions. Seventy-six percent of the higher dosage group achieved remission of low back pain compared to 43% of the lower dosage group. Chi-squared analysis revealed that the differences in response in the two dosage groups were statistically significant at p< 0.0001.

Radiographic disk height increase after a trial of multimodal spine rehabilitation and vibration traction: a retrospective case series

OBJECTIVE

Although spinal decompression therapy has been touted as an effective treatment of disk pathologies, there is little existing research that specifically uses disk parameters as an outcome measure after a course of spinal decompression therapy. Our study presents multidimensional outcomes after a structured protocol of multimodal chiropractic rehabilitation and uses a radiographic parameter of disk disease as an indication of the effects of a vibration traction decompression-type table.

CLINICAL FEATURES

Patients selected for this retrospective cohort reported a medical history of lumbar herniated or bulging disk verified by previous magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography, history of paresthesia in one or both lower extremities, pain level reported as a minimum of 8/10, and/or history of sciatica or other radicular pain finding.

INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME

A total of 6 patients' outcomes are reported in this study. All patients received a multimodal spinal rehabilitation treatment with vibration traction therapy. Positive and statistically significant outcomes were obtained in radiographic disk height, functional rating index, numeric pain rating, spirometry, and patient height. All patients achieved improved outcomes after treatment.

CONCLUSION

The multidimensional outcomes reported here were achieved after a structured protocol of multimodal chiropractic rehabilitation. It is unknown which, if any, of these procedures were responsible for the observed improvements.

Conservative management of lumbar disc herniation with associated radiculopathy: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and adverse effects of conservative treatments for people who have lumbar disc herniation with associated radiculopathy (LDHR).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although conservative management is commonly used for people who have LDHR, the efficacy and adverse effects of conservative treatments for this condition are unclear.

METHODS

We searched 10 computer databases for trials published in English between 1971 and 2008. Trials focusing on people with referred leg symptoms and radiologic confirmation of a lumbar disc herniation were included if at least 1 group received a conservative and noninjection treatment.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials involving 1671 participants were included. Seven (39%) trials were considered of high quality. Meta-analysis on 2 high-quality trials revealed that advice is less effective than microdiscectomy surgery at short-term follow-up, but equally effective at long-term follow-up. Individual high-quality trials provided moderate evidence that stabilization exercises are more effective than no treatment, that manipulation is more effective than sham manipulation for people with acute symptoms and an intact anulus, and that no difference exists among traction, laser, and ultrasound. One trial showed some additional benefit from adding mechanical traction to medication and electrotherapy methods. Adverse events were associated with traction (pain, anxiety, lower limb weakness, and fainting) and ibuprofen (gastrointestinal events).

CONCLUSION

Advice is less effective than microdiscectomy in the short term but equally effective in the long term for people who have LDHR. Moderate evidence favors stabilization exercises over no treatment, manipulation over sham manipulation, and the addition of mechanical traction to medication and electrotherapy. There was no difference among traction, laser, and ultrasound. Adverse events were associated with traction and ibuprofen. Additional high-quality trials would allow firmer conclusions regarding adverse effects and efficacy.

Analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

Estimates of treatment effects reported in placebo-controlled randomized trials are less subject to bias than those estimates provided by other study designs. The objective of this meta-analysis was to estimate the analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain reported in placebo-controlled randomized trials.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsychInfo and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for eligible trials from earliest records to November 2006. Continuous pain outcomes were converted to a common 0-100 scale and pooled using a random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 76 trials reporting on 34 treatments were included. Fifty percent of the investigated treatments had statistically significant effects, but for most the effects were small or moderate: 47% had point estimates of effects of <10 points on the 100-point scale, 38% had point estimates from 10 to 20 points and 15% had point estimates of >20 points. Treatments reported to have large effects (>20 points) had been investigated only in a single trial.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis revealed that the analgesic effects of many treatments for non-specific low back pain are small and that they do not differ in populations with acute or chronic symptoms.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) versus placebo for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was introduced more than 30 years ago as a therapeutic adjunct to the pharmacological management of pain. However, despite widespread use, its effectiveness in chronic low-back pain (LBP) is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether TENS is more effective than placebo for the management of chronic LBP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro and CINAHL were searched up to July 19, 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing TENS to placebo in patients with chronic LBP were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials, assessed their methodological quality and extracted relevant data. If quantitative meta-analysis was not possible, a qualitative synthesis was performed, taking into consideration 5 levels of evidence as recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.

MAIN RESULTS

Four high-quality RCTs (585 patients) met the selection criteria. Clinical heterogeneity prevented the use of meta-analysis. Therefore, a qualitative synthesis was completed. There was conflicting evidence about whether TENS was beneficial in reducing back pain intensity and consistent evidence in two trials (410 patients) that it did not improve back-specific functional status. There was moderate evidence that work status and the use of medical services did not change with treatment. Conflicting results were obtained from two studies regarding generic health status, with one study showing no improvement on the modified Sickness Impact Profile and another study showing significant improvements on several, but not all subsections of the SF-36 questionnaire. Multiple physical outcome measures lacked statistically significant improvement relative to placebo. In general, patients treated with acupuncture-like TENS responded similarly to those treated with conventional TENS. However, in two of the trials, an inadequate stimulation intensity was used for acupuncture-like TENS, given that muscle twitching was not induced. Optimal treatment schedules could not be reliably determined based on the available data. Adverse effects included minor skin irritation at the site of electrode placement.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At this time, the evidence from the small number of placebo-controlled trials does not support the use of TENS in the routine management of chronic LBP. Further research is encouraged.

Imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials: a systematic review of the literature

The placebo is an important tool to blind patients to treatment allocation and therefore minimise some sources of bias in clinical trials. However, placebos that are improperly designed or implemented may introduce bias into trials. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the adequacy of placebo interventions used in low back pain trials. Electronic databases were searched systematically for randomised placebo-controlled trials of conservative interventions for low back pain. Trial selection and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. A total of 126 trials using over 25 different placebo interventions were included. The strategy most commonly used to enhance blinding was the provision of structurally equivalent placebos. Adequacy of blinding was assessed in only 13% of trials. In 20% of trials the placebo intervention was a potentially genuine treatment. Most trials that assessed patients' expectations showed that the placebo generated lower expectations than the experimental intervention. Taken together, these results demonstrate that imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials; a result suggesting that many trials provide potentially biased estimates of treatment efficacy. This finding has implications for the interpretation of published trials and the design of future trials. Implementation of strategies to facilitate blinding and balance expectations in randomised groups need a higher priority in low back pain research.

Outcomes after a prone lumbar traction protocol for patients with activity-limiting low back pain: a prospective case series study

OBJECTIVE

To determine outcomes after administration of a prone lumbar traction protocol.

DESIGN

Prospective, longitudinal, case series.

SETTING

Suburban, chiropractic practice.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 296 subjects with low back pain (LBP) and evidence of a degenerative and/or herniated intervertebral disk at 1 or more levels of the lumbar spine. We excluded patients involved in litigation and those receiving workers' compensation.

INTERVENTION

An 8-week course of prone lumbar traction, using the vertebral axial decompression (VAX-D) system, consisting of five 30-minute sessions a week for 4 weeks, followed by one 30-minute session a week for 4 additional weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The numeric pain rating scale and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were completed at preintervention, discharge (within 2 weeks of the last visit), and at 30 days and 180 days after discharge. Intention-to-treat strategies were used to account for those subjects lost to follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 250 (84.4%) subjects completed the treatment protocol. On the 30-day follow-up, 247 (83.4%) subjects were available; on the 180-day follow-up, data were available for 241 (81.4%) subjects. We noted significant improvements for all postintervention outcome scores when compared with preintervention scores (P<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Traction applied in the prone position using the VAX-D for 8 weeks was associated with improvements in pain intensity and RMDQ scores at discharge, and at 30 and 180 days after discharge in a sample of patients with activity-limiting LBP. Causal relationships between these outcomes and the intervention should not be made until further study is performed using randomized comparison groups.

Stress in lumbar intervertebral discs during distraction: a cadaveric study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The intervertebral disc is a common source of low back pain (LBP). Prospective studies suggest that treatments that intermittently distract the disc might be beneficial for chronic LBP. Although the potential exists for distraction therapies to affect the disc biomechanically, their effect on intradiscal stress is debated.

PURPOSE

To determine if distraction alone, distraction combined with flexion, or distraction combined with extension can reduce nucleus pulposus pressure and posterior annulus compressive stress in cadaveric lumbar discs compared with simulated standing or lying.

STUDY DESIGN

Laboratory study using single cadaveric motion segments.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Strain gauge measures of nucleus pulposus pressure and compressive stress in the anterior and posterior annulus fibrosus.

METHODS

Intradiscal stress profilometry was performed on 15 motion segments during 5 simulated conditions: standing, lying, and 3 distracted conditions. Disc degeneration was graded by inspection from 1 (normal) to 4 (severe degeneration).

RESULTS

All distraction conditions markedly reduced nucleus pressure compared with either simulated standing or lying. There was no difference between distraction with flexion and distraction with extension in regard to posterior annulus compressive stress. Discs with little or no degeneration appeared to distribute compressive stress differently than those with moderate or severe degeneration.

CONCLUSIONS

Distraction appears to predictably reduce nucleus pulposus pressure. The effect of distraction therapy on the distribution of compressive stress may be dependent in part on the health of the disc.

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, interferential current, electrical muscle stimulation, ultrasound, and thermotherapy

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven to be very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing among available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with traction therapy

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven to be very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing among available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

The effectiveness of motorised lumbar traction in the management of LBP with lumbo sacral nerve root involvement: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Traction is commonly used for the treatment of low back pain (LBP), predominately with nerve root involvement; however its benefits remain to be established. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to compare the difference between two treatment protocols (manual therapy, exercise and advice, with or without traction) in the management of acute/sub acute LBP with 'nerve root' involvement.

METHODS

30 LBP patients with nerve root pain were recruited and randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups. Primary outcome measures were the: McGill pain questionnaire, Roland Morris disability questionnaire, and the SF36 Questionnaire; recorded at baseline, discharge, 3 and 6 months post-discharge.

RESULTS

27 patients completed treatment with a loss of another four patients at follow up. Intention to treat analysis demonstrated an improvement in all outcomes at follow up points but there appeared to be little difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown that a trial recruiting patients with 'nerve root' problems is feasible. Further research based upon a fully powered trial is required to ascertain if the addition of traction has any benefit in the management of these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN78417198.

Non-surgical spinal decompression therapy: does the scientific literature support efficacy claims made in the advertising media?

Background

Traction therapy has been utilized in the treatment of low back pain for decades. The most recent incarnation of traction therapy is non-surgical spinal decompression therapy which can cost over $100,000. This form of therapy has been heavily marketed to manual therapy professions and subsequently to the consumer. The purpose of this paper is to initiate a debate pertaining to the relationship between marketing claims and the scientific literature on non-surgical spinal decompression.

Discussion

Only one small randomized controlled trial and several lower level efficacy studies have been performed on spinal decompression therapy. In general the quality of these studies is questionable. Many of the studies were performed using the VAX-D^® unit which places the patient in a prone position. Often companies utilize this research for their marketing although their units place the patient in the supine position.

Summary

Only limited evidence is available to warrant the routine use of non-surgical spinal decompression, particularly when many other well investigated, less expensive alternatives are available.

Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica

BACKGROUND

Traction is used to treat low-back pain (LBP), often with other treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To determine traction's effectiveness, compared to reference treatments, placebo, sham traction or no treatment for LBP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to October 2006, references in relevant reviews and personal files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving traction to treat acute (less than four weeks duration), sub-acute (four to 12 weeks) or chronic (more than 12 weeks) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection, methodological quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by two authors. As there were insufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a qualitative analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs (2206 patients; 1045 receiving traction). Five trials were considered high quality. For patients with mixed symptom patterns (acute, sub-acute and chronic LBP with and without sciatica) there is: strong evidence of no statistically significant difference in outcomes between traction as a single treatment and placebo, sham or no treatment; moderate evidence that traction as a single treatment is no more effective than other treatments; limited evidence of no significant difference in outcomes between a standard physical therapy program with or without continuous traction. For LBP patients with sciatica (with acute, sub-acute or chronic pain), there is conflicting evidence in several comparisons: autotraction compared to placebo, sham or no treatment; other forms of traction compared to other treatments; different forms of traction. In other comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences; the evidence is moderate for continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham or no treatment, and limited for light versus normal force traction.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results of the available studies involving mixed groups of acute, sub-acute and chronic patients with LBP with and without sciatica were quite consistent, indicating that continuous or intermittent traction as a single treatment for LBP is not likely effective for this group. Traction for patients with sciatica cannot be judged effective at present either, due to inconsistent results and methodological problems in most studies. We conclude that traction as a single treatment for LBP is probably not effective.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Any future research on traction for patients with LBP should distinguish between symptom pattern and duration, and should be carried out according to the highest methodological standards.

Efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (tens) for chronic low-back pain in a multiple sclerosis population: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to investigate the hypoalgesic effects of self-applied transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on chronic low-back pain (LBP) in a multiple sclerosis (MS) population.

METHODS

Ninety participants with probable or definite MS (aged 21 to 78 y) presenting with chronic LBP were recruited and randomized into 3 groups (n=30 per group): (1) low-frequency TENS group (4 Hz, 200 micros); (2) high-frequency TENS group (110 Hz, 200 micros); and (3) placebo TENS. Participants self-applied TENS for 45 minutes, a minimum of twice daily, for 6 weeks. Outcome measures were recorded at weeks 1, 6, 10, and 32. Primary outcome measures included: Visual Analog Scale for average LBP and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures included: Visual Analog Scale for worst and weekly LBP, back and leg spasm; Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire; Barthel Index; Rivermead Mobility Index; Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54 Instrument, and a daily logbook. Data were analyzed blind using parametric and nonparametric tests, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Results indicated a statistically significant interactive effect between groups for average LBP (P=0.008); 1-way analysis of covariance did not show any significant effects at any time point once a Bonferonni correction was applied (P>0.05). However, clinically important differences were observed in some of the outcome measures in both active treatment groups during the treatment and follow-up periods.

DISCUSSION

Although not statistically significant, the observed effects may have implications for the clinical prescription and the use of TENS within this population.

Systematic Literature Review of Spinal Decompression Via Motorized Traction for Chronic Discogenic Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to assess the efficacy of nonsurgical spinal decompression achieved with motorized traction for chronic discogenic lumbosacral back pain.

DESIGN

Computer-aided systematic literature search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane collaboration for prospective clinical trials on adults with low back pain in the English literature from 1975 to October 2005. Methodologic quality for each study was assessed. Studies were included if the intervention group received motorized spinal decompression and the comparison group received sham or another type of nonsurgical treatment.

RESULTS

Data from 10 studies were fully analyzed. Seven studies were randomized controlled trials using various apparatus types. Because of this low number, we also analyzed three nonrandomized case series studies of spinal decompression systems. As the overall quality of studies was low and the patient groups heterogeneous, a meta-analysis was not appropriate and a qualitative review was undertaken. Sample sizes averaged 121 patients (range 27-292), with six of the seven randomized studies reporting no difference with motorized spinal decompression and one study reporting reduced pain but not disability. The three unrandomized studies (no control group) of motorized spinal decompression found a 77% to 86% reduction in pain.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that the efficacy of spinal decompression achieved with motorized traction for chronic discogenic low back pain remains unproved. This may be, in part, due to heterogeneous patient groups and the difficulties involved in properly blinding patients to the mechanical pulling mechanism. Scientifically more rigorous studies with better randomization, control groups, and standardized outcome measures are needed to overcome the limitations of past studies.

Nonsurgical management of acute and chronic low back pain

A variety of nonsurgical treatment alternatives exists for acute and chronic low back pain. Patients should receive appropriate education about the favorable natural history of low back pain, basic body mechanics, and methods (eg, exercises, activity modification, behavioral modification) that can reduce symptoms. Nonprescription medication is efficacious for mild to moderate pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alone or in combination with muscle relaxants, relieve pain and improve overall symptoms of acute low back pain. Exercise therapy has limited value for acute low back pain, but strong evidence supports exercise therapy in the management of chronic low back pain. Moderately strong evidence supports the use of manipulation in acute back pain. Evidence is weak for the use of epidural corticosteroid injections in patients with acute low back pain, strong for short-term relief of chronic low back pain, and limited for long-term relief of chronic low back pain. The use of facet injections in the management of acute low back pain is not supported by evidence, nor is the effectiveness of orthoses, traction, magnets, or acupuncture. Trigger point injections are not indicated for nonspecific acute or chronic low back pain, and sacroiliac joint injections are not indicated in the routine management of low back pain. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the use of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

Traction for low back pain with or without sciatica: an updated systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if traction is more effective than reference treatments, placebo/sham traction, or no treatment for low back pain (LBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Various types of traction are used in the treatment of LBP, often in conjunction with other treatments.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to November 2004, and screened the latest issue of the Cochrane Library (2004, issue 4) and references in relevant reviews and our personal files. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving any type of traction for the treatment of acute (less than 4 weeks duration), subacute (4-12 weeks), or chronic (more than 12 weeks) nonspecific LBP with or without sciatica. Sets of 2 reviewers independently performed study selection, methodological quality assessment, and data extraction. Because available studies did not provide sufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a qualitative "levels of evidence" analysis, systematically estimating the strength of the cumulative evidence on the difference/lack of difference observed in trial outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 24 RCTs (2177 patients) were included. There were 5 trials considered high quality. For mixed groups of patients with LBP with and without sciatica, we found: (1) strong evidence that there is no statistically significant difference in short or long-term outcomes between traction as a single treatment, (continuous or intermittent) and placebo, sham, or no treatment; (2) moderate evidence that traction as a single treatment is no more effective than other treatments; and (3) limited evidence that adding traction to a standard physiotherapy program does not result in significantly different outcomes. For LBP with sciatica, we found conflicting evidence in several of the comparisons: autotraction compared to placebo, sham, or no treatment; other forms of traction compared to other treatments; and different forms of traction. In the remaining comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences; level of evidence is moderate regarding continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham, or no treatment, and is limited regarding different forms of traction.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current evidence, intermittent or continuous traction as a single treatment for LBP cannot be recommended for mixed groups of patients with LBP with and without sciatica. Neither can traction be recommended for patients with sciatica because of inconsistent results and methodological problems in most of the studies involved. However, because high-quality studies within the field are scarce, because many are underpowered, and because traction often is supplied in combination with other treatment modalities, the literature allows no firm negative conclusion that traction, in a generalized sense, is not an effective treatment for patients with LBP.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in the management of chronic LBP.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Chronic low back pain (LBP) affects a significant proportion of the population. TENS was introduced more than 30 years ago as an adjunct to pharmacologic pain management. However, despite its widespread use, the usefulness of TENS in chronic LBP is still controversial.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2005), up to April 1, 2005. Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of TENS on chronic LBP were included. Two reviewers independently selected trials and extracted data using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochrane's Q test. A fixed effect model was used throughout for calculating continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case a random effects model was used. Results are presented as weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences were calculated by dividing the difference between the treated and control by the baseline variance. Standardized mean differences were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios.

RESULTS

Two RCTs (175 patients) were included. They differed with respect to study design, methodologic quality, inclusion and exclusion criteria, characteristics of TENS application, treatment schedule, cointerventions, and measured outcomes. In one RCT, TENS produced significantly greater pain relief than the placebo control. However, in the other RCT, no statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups were shown for multiple outcome measures. Preplanned subgroup analyses, intended to examine the impact of different stimulation parameters, sites of TENS application, treatment durations, and baseline patient characteristics were not possible because of the small number of included trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the efficacy of TENS as an isolated intervention in the management of chronic LBP is limited and inconsistent. Larger, multicenter, RCTs are needed to better resolve its role in this condition. Increased attention should be given to the risks and benefits of long-term use, which more appropriately addresses the realities of managing chronic low back pain.

Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica

BACKGROUND

Various types of traction are used in the treatment of low-back pain (LBP), often in conjunction with other treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of traction in the management of LBP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library 2004, Issue 4, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to November 2004, references in relevant reviews, and our personal files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining any type of traction for the treatment of acute (less than four weeks duration), sub-acute (four to 12 weeks) or chronic (more than 12 weeks) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection, methodological quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by sets of two reviewers. As available studies did not provide sufficient data for statistical pooling, a qualitative analysis was performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs, involving 2177 patients (1016 receiving traction) were included in the review. Five trials were considered high quality. There is strong evidence that there is no significant difference in short or long-term outcomes between either continuous or intermittent traction and placebo, sham, or other treatments for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica. There is moderate evidence that: autotraction is more effective other forms of traction are no more effective than placebo, sham or no treatment for patients with a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica. There is limited evidence that: there is no significant difference in outcomes between a standard physical therapy program with continuous traction and the same program without traction, for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica autotraction on its own is more effective than a physical therapy program that includes Tru-Trac traction for patients with a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica. There is conflicting evidence regarding the short-term effectiveness of either continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham or other treatments, in the management of patients who have either chronic LBP or a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that traction is probably not effective. Neither continuous nor intermittent traction by itself was more effective in improving pain, disability or work absence than placebo, sham or other treatments for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica. Although trials studying patients with sciatica had methodological limitations and inconsistent results, there was moderate evidence that autotraction was more effective than mechanical traction for global improvement in this population.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic low-back pain (LBP) affects a significant proportion of the population. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was introduced more than 30 years ago as an adjunct to the pharmacological management of pain. However, despite its widespread use, the usefulness of TENS in chronic LBP is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of TENS in the management of chronic LBP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PEDro up to April 1, 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of TENS on chronic LBP were included. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials and extracted data using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochrane's Q test. A fixed effect model was used throughout for calculating continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results are presented as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between the treated and control by the baseline variance. SMD were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios.

MAIN RESULTS

The only two RCTs (175 patients) meeting eligibility criteria differed in study design, methodological quality, inclusion and exclusion criteria, type and method of TENS application, treatment schedule, co-interventions and final outcomes. In one RCT, TENS produced significantly greater pain relief than the placebo control. However, in the other RCT, no statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups were shown for multiple outcome measures. Pre-planned subgroup analyses, intended to examine the impact of different stimulation parameters, sites of TENS application, treatment durations and baseline patient characteristics were not possible due to the small number of included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconsistent evidence to support the use of TENS as a single treatment in the management of chronic LBP. Larger, multi-center, randomized controlled trials are needed to better assess the true effectiveness of TENS. Special attention should be given to the risks and benefits of long-term use, which more appropriately addresses the realities of managing chronic low-back pain.

Sudden progression of lumbar disk protrusion during vertebral axial decompression traction therapy

Vertebral axial decompression (VAX-D) is a form of spinal traction that is widely promoted as an effective and safe treatment of degenerated and herniated lumbar intervertebral disks. Information targeted at the general public emphasizes that the treatment is completely risk-free. We describe a patient with a large lumbar disk protrusion who experienced sudden, severe exacerbation of radicular pain during a VAX-D therapy session. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar region showed marked enlargement of the disk protrusion, and urgent microdiskectomy was required. To our knowledge, this is the first reported complication of VAX-D therapy. This case shows that VAX-D therapy has the potential to cause sudden deterioration requiring urgent surgical intervention.

The efficacy of traction for back pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of traction for patients with low back pain (LBP) with or without radiating pain, taking into account the clinical technique or parameters used.

DATA SOURCES

A computer-aided search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, and the Cochrane Collaboration was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the English language, from 1966 to December 2001.

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs were included if: participants were over the age of 18 years, with LBP with or without radiating pain; the intervention group received traction as the main or sole treatment; the comparison group received sham traction or another conservative treatment; and the study used 1 of 4 primary outcome measures.

DATA EXTRACTION

The study was conducted in 2 strands. Strand 1 assessed methodologic quality using a specific criteria list recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. The strength of the evidence was then rated using the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research system. Strand 2 applied further inclusion criteria based on recommended clinical parameters. One reviewer conducted the selection and data extraction.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Strand 1: 1 study scored 9 points (maximum score, 10 points); the other 12 scored between 0 and 3 points, indicating that most were of poor quality. Nine studies reported negative findings, but only 1 study was of a high quality. Three studies reported positive findings and 1 study was inconclusive. Strand 2: only 4 trials having low methodologic quality were included, 2 of which reported negative findings, and 2 positive findings.

CONCLUSION

The evidence for the use of traction in LBP remains inconclusive because of the continued lack of methodologic rigor and the limited application of clinical parameters as used in clinical practice. Further trials, which give attention to these areas, are needed before any firm conclusions and recommendations may be made.

Agents physiques antalgiques

Analgesic electrotherapy is now based on more consistent scientific data; the biological action of the electric current, of the electromagnetic radiations and of the mechanical vibrations is better approached. But the randomized control trials still provide contradictory results concerning the analgesic efficiency of the cryotherapy, the TENS, the pulsed electro-magnetic fields, the ultrasound and laser therapy, the shock waves; iontophoresis, short waves, microwaves, infrasound vibrations are very few investigated. The analgesic electrotherapy cannot be recommended nor prohibited; physical agents represent only therapeutic options. On the basis of the scientific data and of their personal experience, the therapists can use them. More controlled clinical investigations of higher methodological levels are still required.