Choosing the appropriate pharmacotherapy for nonspecific chronic low back pain

Developing predictive models for residual back pain after percutaneous vertebral augmentation treatment for osteoporotic thoracolumbar compression fractures based on machine learning technique

BACKGROUND

Machine learning (ML) has been widely applied to predict the outcomes of numerous diseases. The current study aimed to develop a prognostic prediction model using machine learning algorithms and identify risk factors associated with residual back pain in patients with osteoporotic vertebrae compression fracture (OVCF) following percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP).

METHODS

A total of 863 OVCF patients who underwent PVP surgery were enrolled and analyzed. One month following surgery, a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score of ≥ 4 was deemed to signify residual low back pain following the operation and patients were grouped into a residual pain group and pain-free group. The optimal feature set for both machine learning and statistical models was adjusted based on a 2000-resample bootstrap-based internal validation via an exhaustive search. The area under the curve (AUC), classification accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of each model were then calculated to evaluate the predictive performance of each model.

RESULTS

In our current study, two main findings were observed: (1) Compared with statistical models, ML models exhibited superior predictive performance, with SVM demonstrating the highest prediction accuracy; (2) several variables were identified as the most predictive factors by both the machine learning and statistical models, including bone cement volume, number of fractured vertebrae, facet joint violation, paraspinal muscle degeneration, and intravertebral vacuum cleft.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the study demonstrated that machine learning classifiers such as SVM can effectively predict residual back pain for patients with OVCF following PVP while identifying associated predictors in a multivariate manner.

Sacroiliac joint pain: what treatment and when

INTRODUCTION

Spinal and non-spinal pathologies can cause low back pain. Non-spinal sources of low back pain include the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) and the hip. SIJ pain can be treated either conservatively or surgically. Current strategies for managing sacroiliac joint pain are debated, and limited evidence exists.

AREAS COVERED

The present expert opinion updates current evidence on conservative and surgical modalities for SIJ pain.

EXPERT OPINION

Surgical management for SIJ pain is effective. However, it exposes patients to surgery and, therefore, related complications. Conservative management may be implemented in patients with moderate SIJ pain, with less than six months of symptoms, or not eligible for surgery. Several noninvasive modalities are available, mostly centered on intra-articular injections. Corticosteroids, platelet-rich plasma, and stem cells have only midterm lasting effects, at most for nine months. Radiofrequency ablation is another methodology for pain relief. Both continuous and pulsatile radiofrequency ablation are associated with good outcomes. SIJ fusion can be performed using different techniques; however, a clear recommendation on the most appropriate modality for the management of SIJ pain is still debated.

Obstetric-related lower back pain: the effect of number of pregnancy on development of chronic lower back pain, worsening of lumbar disc degeneration and alteration of lumbar sagittal balance

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to determine whether the number of pregnancies contributes to the development of chronic lower back pain, worsening the lumbar disc degeneration and altering the normal lumbar sagittal balance.

MATERIAL METHOD

There are 134 ladies participated in this study. They are divided into two groups based on their number of pregnancies (parity). All patients with chronic back pain were assessed using a visual analog scale for pain and the Oswestry Disability Index for their functional status assessment. Degenerative signs in lumbar MRI, which are Modic changes and the presence of Schmorl's node, were evaluated. Besides that, the sagittal balance of the lumbar spine was also measured via an erect lumbar plain radiograph.

RESULTS

Patients with parities < 5 were included in Group 1, and those with parities ≥ 5 in Group 2. The mean visual analog scale score of Group 2 was significantly higher than that of Group 1 (8.42 ± 1.34 vs.6.50 ± 1.61). The mean Oswestry Disability Index score in Group 2 was significantly higher than that of Group 1 (29.87 ± 6.75 vs.18.41 ± 7.97). This relationship between the groups in terms of Modic change was statistically significant. The relationship between the groups regarding the presence of Schmorl's nodes was also statistically significant. The difference between the groups in terms of sagittal balance parameters was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Chronic lower back pain is significantly worse and associated with more disability in patients with more than five previous pregnancies. MRI degenerative changes are also significantly higher in these grand multipara groups.

How to tackle non-specific low back pain among adult patients? A systematic review with a meta-analysis to compare four interventions

OBJECTIVE

To tackle non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) among patients and find the most effective solution and to quantitatively synthesize the overall effect of motor control training (MCT) compared with Pilates, McKenzie method, and physical therapy (PT) in pain and physical function.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of four types of intervention (MCT, Pilates, McKenzie method, and PT) for LBP were collected by searching PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCOhost (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Scopus databases from the establishment of the database to September 30, 2023. The risk of bias was evaluated for included studies using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0). Taking pain and physical function in the experimental and control groups as outcome indicators, subgroup analysis was performed according to the intervention method to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 25 RCTs, including 1253 patients, were included. Meta-analysis showed that MCT effectively relieved pain [SMD = -0.65, 95% CI (- 1.00, - 0.29), p < 0.01] and improved physical function [SMD = -0.76, 95% CI (- 1.22, - 0.31), p < 0.01] comparing with other 3 types of intervention. Subgroup analysis suggested that MCT could alleviate pain [SMD = -0.92, 95% CI (- 1.34, - 0.50), p < 0.01] and improve physical function [SMD = -1.15, 95% CI (- 1.72, - 0.57), p < 0.01] compared with PT, but it had no statistical significance compared with Pilates [pain: SMD = 0.13, 95% CI (- 0.56, 0.83), p = 0.71; physical function: SMD = 0.10, 95% CI (- 0.72, 0.91), p = 0.81] and the McKenzie method [pain: SMD = -0.03, 95% CI (- 0.75, 0.68), p = 0.93; physical function: SMD = -0.03, 95% CI (- 1.00, 0.94), p = 0.95].

CONCLUSIONS

MCT can effectively relieve pain and improve physical function in patients with NSLBP. It is more effective compared with PT for LBP, while no differences were detected between MCT and Pilates, as well as McKenzie method. Therefore, MCT, Pilates, and the McKenzie method should be encouraged as exercise interventions for NSLBP rehabilitation.

Development of a low back pain care pathway in an academic hospital system: results of a consensus process

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a significant component of healthcare expenditures. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been highlighted as a key resource to improve the quality of care. This study aimed to develop a clinical pathway for LBP based on CPGs in an academic health system.

METHODS

We conducted a modified Delphi study of clinicians caring for patients with LBP who were asked to rate 21 CPG-informed seed statements through an online survey. The goal was to identify statements that achieved a minimum of 80% consensus among panelists.

RESULTS

Thirty-five healthcare providers participated as panelists. The majority of participants were male (68.6%), had MD or DO (62.9%) degrees, and were clinicians (73.8%) working in neurosurgery (36.1%), orthopedics (25.7%), emergency medicine (14.3%), or physical therapy (11.4%). Initially, consensus was reached on 20 of 21 seed statements. One statement did not reach consensus in the initial round and was revised into two separate statements based on feedback from panelists. One of these statements achieved consensus in the second review round. All statements reaching consensus were incorporated into a care pathway consisting of diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment for LBP.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare providers across various disciplines supported statements interpreting current CPGs related to care for LBP. This study represents a step toward supporting guideline-concordant care for LBP. Additional research is needed to assess how such pathways impact actual clinical care.

Comparative Analysis of Early and Long-Term Outcomes of Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease Using the DIAM Stabilizer and Standard Rehabilitation Program: A Preliminary Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial with 1-Year Follow-Up

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability and work absenteeism. The cause of LBP may be degeneration of the intervertebral disc. LBP is characterized by considerable variability and tends to develop into chronic pain. Treatment of LBP includes conservative and rehabilitative treatments, surgery, and so-called minimally invasive treatment. One of the most commonly performed procedures is interspinous stabilization using a dynamic interspinous DIAM (device for intervertebral assisted motion) stabilizer. There is still no clear, strong evidence for the effectiveness and superiority of surgical treatment over conservative treatment. This study aimed to compare the early and long-term outcomes of patients with LBP using the DIAM interspinous stabilizer in relation to patients treated conservatively. A group of 86 patients was prospectively randomized into two comparison groups: A (n = 43), treated with the DIAM dynamic stabilizer for degenerative lumbar spine disease (mean age = 43.4 years ± SD = 10.8 years), and B (n = 43), treated conservatively. Pain severity was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), whereas disability was assessed using the Oswestry disability index (ODI). The difference in preoperative and postoperative ODI scores ≥ 15 points was used as a criterion for treatment effectiveness, and the difference in VAS scores ≥ 1 point was used as a criterion for pain reduction. In patients under general anesthesia, the procedure only included implantation of the DIAM system. Patients in the control group underwent conservative treatment, which included rehabilitation, a bed regimen, analgesic drug treatment and periarticular spinal injections of anti-inflammatory drugs. It was found that all patients (n = 43) continued to experience LBP after DIAM implantation (mean VAS score of 4.2). Of the 36 patients who experienced LBP with sciatica before the procedure, 80.5% (n = 29) experienced a reduction in pain. As for the level of fitness, the average ODI score was 19.3 ± 10.3 points. As for the difference in ODI scores in the pre-treatment results vs. after treatment, the average score was 9.1 ± 10.6. None of the patients required reoperation at 12 months after surgery. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in either early (p = 0.45) or long-term outcomes (p = 0.37). In conclusion, neurosurgical treatment with the DIAM interspinous stabilizer was as effective as conservative treatment and rehabilitation during the one-year follow-up period.

Vibration therapy to improve pain and function in patients with chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Vibration therapy (VT), a treatment of musculoskeletal disorders, has been developed for clinical applications in the past decade. However, its effect on relieving chronic low back pain (CLBP) and improving lumbar function is still illusive, lacking sufficient evidence-based medical data.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of vibration therapy on pain and function in people with CLBP.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang Date, VIP, and CBM were applied to search for clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on vibration therapy for people with CLBP. The electronic databases were searched from the establishment of the database until July 1, 2023. Two researchers assessed the quality of the included studies and extracted data. The outcome indicators included the pain intensity index, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) score, and Roland-Morris dysfunction questionnaire (RMDQ) score. GRADE was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence of each outcome indicator. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Fourteen papers met the inclusion criteria with 860 subjects (VT group n = 432 and control group n = 428). VT for patients with CLBP reduced the pain intensity index [SMD = - 0.71, 95% CI (- 1.02, - 0.39), I2 = 76%, P < 0.0001], the ODI score value [MD = - 4.24, 95% CI (- 8.10, - 0.38), I2 = 88%, P = 0.03], and the RMDQ score value [MD = - 2.21, 95% CI (- 3.41, - 1.01), I2 = 0%, P = 0.0003]. Subgroup analysis displayed that the pain intensity index was lower in the whole-body vibration (WBV) group than in the control group [SMD = - 0.49, 95% CI (- 0.79, - 0.19), I2 = 58%, P = 0.001] and the local vibration (LV) group [SMD = - 1.07, 95% CI (- 1.60, - 0.53), I2 = 76%, P < 0.0001]. The ODI scores in the WBV group were lower than those in the control group [MD = - 3.30, 95% CI (- 5.76, - 0.83), I2 = 36%, P = 0.009]. There was no statistically significant difference in ODI scores between the LV group and the control group [MD = - 5.78, 95% CI (- 16.23, 4.66), I2 = 97%, P = 0.28].

CONCLUSION

The data from this study suggest that VT can reduce pain and improve lumbar function in patients with CLBP. However, we still need to carefully interpret the results of this study, as the certainty of evidence was low, and the clinical relevance of the results is questionable. Further RCTs are needed in the future to ascertain this.

Risk factors analysis and risk prediction model construction of non-specific low back pain: an ambidirectional cohort study

PURPOSE

Non-specific low back pain (NLBP) is a common clinical condition that affects approximately 60-80% of adults worldwide. However, there is currently a lack of scientific prediction and evaluation systems in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to analyze the risk factors of NLBP and construct a risk prediction model.

METHODS

We collected baseline data from 707 patients who met the inclusion criteria and were treated at the Sixth Hospital of Ningbo from December 2020 to December 2022. Logistic regression and LASSO regression were used to screen independent risk factors that influence the onset of NLBP and to construct a risk prediction model. The sensitivity and specificity of the model were evaluated by tenfold cross-validation, and internal validation was performed in the validation set.

RESULTS

Age, gender, BMI, education level, marital status, exercise frequency, history of low back pain, labor intensity, working posture, exposure to vibration sources, and psychological status were found to be significantly associated with the onset of NLBP. Using these 11 predictive factors, a nomogram was constructed, and the area under the ROC curve of the training set was 0.835 (95% CI 0.756-0.914), with a sensitivity of 0.771 and a specificity of 0.800. The area under the ROC curve of the validation set was 0.762 (95% CI 0.665-0.858), with a sensitivity of 0.800 and a specificity of 0.600, indicating that the predictive value of the model for the diagnosis of NLBP was high. In addition, the calibration curve showed a high degree of consistency between the predicted and actual survival probabilities.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a preliminary predictive model for NLBP and constructed a nomogram to predict the onset of NLBP. The model demonstrated good performance and may be useful for the prevention and treatment of NLBP in clinical practice.

Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy in chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 632 patients

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been widely used for pain control in musculoskeletal disorders. Whether ESWT can relieve chronic low back pain (CLBP) and improve lumbar function is still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of relevant studies to comprehensively analyse and determine the efficacy and safety of ESWT for chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Four databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ESWT for CLBP. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to Cochrane systematic review criteria, relevant data were extracted, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcomes were pain intensity, disability status, and mental health. The data were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD) or weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. If I² ≥ 50%, a random effects model was applied; otherwise, a fixed effects model was used.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs involving 632 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The ESWT group reported significantly more pain relief than the control group at 4 weeks (WMD =  - 1.04; 95% CI =  - 1.44 to - 0.65; P < 0.001) and 12 weeks (WMD =  - 0.85; 95% CI =  - 1.30 to - 0.41; P < 0.001). Regarding the dysfunction index, ESWT led to significant improvement in lumbar dysfunction compared with the control group at 4 weeks (WMD =  - 4.22; 95% CI =  - 7.55 to - 0.89; P < 0.001) and 12 weeks (WMD =  - 4.51; 95% CI =  - 8.58 to - 0.44; P = 0.03). For mental health, there was no significant difference between the ESWT group and the control group after 4 weeks of intervention (SMD = 1.17; 95% CI =  - 0.10 to 2.45; P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ESWT provided better pain relief and improved lumbar dysfunction compared with the other interventions included, and no serious adverse effects were found. There was no significant effect of ESWT on the mental health of patients, but we hope to obtain more RCTs for further analysis in the future. Based on the pooled results, we suggest that ESWT is effective and safe for treating chronic low back pain.

Stem cells and discogenic back pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain, common from the sixth decade, negatively impacts the quality of life of patients and health care systems. Recently, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been introduced in the management of degenerative discogenic pain. The present study summarizes the current knowledge on the effectiveness of MSCs in patients with discogenic back pain.

SOURCES OF DATA

We performed a systematic review of the literature following the PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar database, and identified 14 articles about management of chronic low back pain with MSCs injection therapy. We recorded information on type of stem cells employed, culture medium, clinical scores and MRI outcomes.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

We identified a total of 303 patients. Ten studies used bone marrow stem cells. In the other four studies, different stem cells were used (of adipose, umbilical, or chondrocytic origin and a pre-packaged product). The most commonly used scores were Visual Analogue Scale and Oswestry Disability Index.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

There are few studies with many missing data.

GROWING POINTS

The studies analysed demonstrate that intradiscal injections of MSCs are effective on discogenic low-back pain. This effect may result from inhibition of nociceptors, reduction of catabolism and repair of injured or degenerated tissues.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Further research should define the most effective procedure, trying to standardize a single method.