The efficacy of physical therapy and physical therapy plus calcitonin in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

Effects of calcitonin on lumbar spinal stenosis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

There is some controversy about the effects of calcitonin (CT) on lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). This systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of CT in the treatment of patients with LSS.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We performed an electronic search depicting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through 4 databases from the date of database creation to January 2023. 3 different researchers conducted independent literature screening, data extractions, and quality assessments. The outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS), walking distance, and oswestry disability index (ODI). Meta-analysis and trial sequence analysis (TSA) were carried out using RevMan 5.4, Stata 16.0, and TSA 0.9. GRADE 3.6 was used to evaluate the evidence quality.

RESULTS

We accepted 9 studies with 496 participants. The meta-analysis revealed that CT offered no significant improvement in VAS, walking distance, or ODI in patients with LSS.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence that CT has a benefit in patients with LSS, either alone or in combination with other treatments, or depending on the route of administration, according to the systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant RCTs.

Spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a multi-center randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Nonoperative management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) includes activity modification, medication, injections, and physical therapy. Conventional physical therapy includes a multimodal approach of exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities. There is a paucity of evidence supporting the use of spinal manipulation and dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the effects of adding thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Randomized, single-blinded, multi-center, parallel-group clinical trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred twenty-eight (n=128) patients with LSS from 12 outpatient clinics in 8 states were recruited over a 34-month period.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included the Roland Morris Disability Index (RMDI), Global Rating of Change (GROC), and medication intake. Follow-up assessments were taken at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive either spinal manipulation, electrical dry needling, and conventional physical therapy (MEDNCPT group, n=65) or conventional physical therapy alone (CPT group, n=63).

RESULTS

At 3 months, the MEDNCPT group experienced greater reductions in overall low back, buttock, and leg pain (NPRS: F=5.658; p=.002) and related-disability (ODI: F=9.921; p<.001; RMDI: F=7.263; p<.001) compared to the CPT group. Effect sizes were small at 2 and 6 weeks, and medium at 3 months for the NPRS, ODI, and RMDI. At 3 months, significantly (p=.003) more patients in the MEDNCPT group reported a successful outcome (GROC≥+5) than the CPT group.

CONCLUSION

Patients with LSS who received electrical dry needling and spinal manipulation in addition to impairment-based exercise, manual therapy and electro-thermal modalities experienced greater improvements in low back, buttock and leg pain and related-disability than those receiving exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities alone at 3 months, but not at the 2 or 6 week follow-up.

Effect of Comprehensive and Integrative Medical Services on Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Pilot Study

Background and Objectives: Two types of medicinal systems are available in Korea: Western and oriental. These exist as separate services that independently provide medical care to patients. We determined the utility and benefits of compressive and integrated medical services (CIMS) comprising 12 sessions of acupuncture and healing programs over 6 weeks. Methods and Methods: In this two-group parallel single-center randomized controlled assessor-blinded trial, 25 participants were assigned to either the experimental (conventional medical treatment plus CIMS, n = 12) or control (conventional medical treatment, n = 13) group. Spinal nerve root block was performed on the compressed spinal nerve root (identified using magnetic resonance imaging) when no improvement was observed after the initial treatment. The experimental group received 12 cycles of acupuncture and manual therapy for 6 weeks; the control group received conventional medical treatment alone. Results: The average age of participants in the experimental and control groups was 70.73 ± 5.95 and 67.33 ± 8.89 years, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of age, body mass index, Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, sex, and current medical history. We found high compliance for both programs (acupuncture and healing). On exclusion of between-group effects, the visual analog scale (VAS) score improved significantly over time (p = 0.045). Further, comparison of the groups after excluding the effects of visits revealed significantly lower VAS scores in the experimental group than in the control group (p = 0.000). Conclusions: Patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who mainly complain of radiating pain in the lower leg may benefit from CIMS after spinal nerve root block for ≤3 months after treatment. Our study findings suggest that this treatment improves spinal function and Oswestry Disability Index score. However, CIMS did not improve QoL.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Validity of outcome measures used in randomized clinical trials and observational studies in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

It is unclear whether outcome measures used in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) have been validated for this condition. Cross-sectional analysis of studies for DLSS included in systematic reviews (SA) and meta-analyses (MA) indexed in the Cochrane Library. We extracted all outcome measures for pain and disability. We assessed whether the studies provided external references for the validity of the outcome measures and the quality of the validation studies. Out of 20 SA/MA, 95 primary studies used 242 outcome measures for pain and/or disability. Most commonly used were the VAS (n = 69), the Oswestry Disability Index (n = 53) and the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (n = 22). Although validation references were provided in 45 (47.3%) primary studies, only 14 validation studies for 9 measures (disability n = 7, pain and disability combined n = 2) were specifically validated in a DLSS population. The quality of the validation studies was mainly poor. The Zurich Claudication Questionnaire was the only disease specific tool with adequate validation for assessing treatment response in DLSS. To compare results from clinical studies, outcome measures need to be validated in a disease specific population. The quality of validation studies need to be improved and the validity in studies adequately cited.

Outcome Domain and Measurement Instrument Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of Interventions for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To describe outcome measurement instruments and outcome domains in randomized controlled trials of any interventions for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

LITERATURE SEARCH

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and PubMed were searched from inception to May 2020.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were eligible if patients were diagnosed with LSS, with or without neurogenic claudication. Trials were eligible if they used at least 1 outcome measurement instrument.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Measurement instruments used in trials were extracted and then classified into outcome domains. We described the frequency of measurement instruments and outcome domains.

RESULTS

After study screening, 29 trials were included. In total, 54 different individual outcome measurement instruments were used. The Visual Analogue Scale (59%; n = 17) and the Oswestry Disability Index (52%; n = 15) were the most frequently used outcome measurement instruments in trials; function (90%; n = 26) and pain (62%; n = 18) were the most common outcome domains.

CONCLUSION

In total, 54 different measurement instruments were used in trials of interventions for LSS. This diverse range of observations contributes to outcome instrument heterogeneity between trials and impedes the analysis of data due to lack of comparability. The most common outcome domains assessed were pain and function, which will help inform a core outcome measure set for symptomatic LSS. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):446-456. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10879.

Amyloid Deposits in the Ligamentum Flavum Related to Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis and Lumbar Disc Degeneration

Background: Amyloidosis is a protein conformational disorder, with distinctive features of accumulation of protein fibrils in different body tissues, causing a wide range of signs and symptoms. These amyloid fibrils are usually derived from about 30 different precursor proteins that have been identified. Although the most common tissue for their accumulation is cardiac, amyloidosis may appear in many other tissues, though rarely cause symptoms. One of these extracardiac tissues is the ligamentum flavum (LF).

Participants and Methods: Patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis or lumbar disc degeneration, scheduled for surgery, were included in the study. A total of 17 LF specimens were obtained from 16 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (two specimens were taken from two consecutive stenotic levels belonging to one patient), and 11 LF specimens were obtained from 11 patients with lumbar disc degeneration. Tissue biopsy was taken from the LF at the affected level and was stained with special immunohistochemical stain to detect transthyretin (TTR)-related amyloidosis (ATTR). The diameters of the lumbar canal and the LF thickness were measured at the affected level by a radiologist.

Results: This study includes 22 LF specimens. Male to female ratio was 5.4:4.6 with the mean age comparatively equal (M = 46 years for men and 48 years for women). The patients were divided into two groups: lumbar canal stenosis and lumbar disc degeneration. The result of the immunohistochemical stain towards TTR amyloid was positive in five out of 22 (22%) samples and all were from the stenosis group. The relationship of the LF thickness to the canal diameter in the positively stained stenosis group specimens was significant (p = 0.001). All the positive specimens were taken from levels L3−4 and L4−5.

Conclusion: There was a significant relationship between LF thickness and canal stenosis in the positively stained specimens (towards TTR amyloid) of the stenosis group. However, the disc degeneration group showed no relationship between canal diameter and LF thickness; moreover, all the specimens of that group stained negative. Middle-age patients with canal stenosis proved to have a significant relationship to amyloid deposit LF hypertrophy.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

A systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

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

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

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

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020191860.

Therapeutic Advantages of Frequent Physical Therapy Sessions for Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study of a randomized clinical trial and a prospective study of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify the effects of the number of physical therapy (PT) sessions on clinical outcomes of patients with LSS.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Supervised PT for patients with LSS has been reported to lead to better short-term outcomes in terms of disability and leg pain than unsupervised exercise. However, no studies have investigated the relationship between the number of PT sessions and the therapeutic effects in patients with LSS.

METHODS

All patients received exercise therapy for 6 weeks. Included were 43 patients receiving supervised PT twice a week (P2 group), 38 patients receiving supervised PT once a week (P1 group), and 43 patients receiving a home exercise program alone (HE group). Clinical outcomes were measured using the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), a numerical rating scale (NRS) of back pain and leg pain, the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) at baseline and at 6 weeks.

RESULTS

At 6 weeks, the P2 group showed significant improvements in ZCQ physical function, back and leg pain on the NRS compared with the P1 group (P < 0.05). Compared with the HE group, the P2 group showed significant improvements in ZCQ symptom severity and physical function, back and leg pain on the NRS, and JOABPEQ gait disturbance (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in mean changes after 6 weeks between the P1 and HE groups.

CONCLUSION

Six weeks of supervised PT twice a week resulted in significant short-term improvements in symptom severity, physical function, back and leg pain, and gait disturbance compared with once a week and/or home exercise alone. Patients with LSS should be treated with intensive and supervised exercise programs to obtain maximum benefit of exercise therapy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

AAPT Diagnostic Criteria for Chronic Low Back Pain

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) conditions are highly prevalent and constitute the leading cause of disability worldwide. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations Innovations Opportunities and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration and the American Pain Society (APS), have combined to create the ACTTION-APS Pain Taxonomy (AAPT). The AAPT initiative convened a working group to develop diagnostic criteria for CLBP. The working group identified 3 distinct low back pain conditions which result in a vast public health burden across the lifespan. This article focuses on: 1) the axial predominant syndrome of chronic musculoskeletal low back pain, 2) the lateralized, distally-radiating syndrome of chronic lumbosacral radicular pain 3) and neurogenic claudication associated with lumbar spinal stenosis. This classification of CLBP is organized according to the AAPT multidimensional framework, specifically 1) core diagnostic criteria; 2) common features; 3) common medical and psychiatric comorbidities; 4) neurobiological, psychosocial, and functional consequences; and 5) putative neurobiological and psychosocial mechanisms, risk factors, and protective factors. PERSPECTIVE: An evidence-based classification of CLBP conditions was constructed for the AAPT initiative. This multidimensional diagnostic framework includes: 1) core diagnostic criteria; 2) common features; 3) medical and psychiatric comorbidities; 4) neurobiological, psychosocial, and functional consequences; and 5) putative neurobiological and psychosocial mechanisms, risk factors, and protective factors.

Supervised physical therapy vs. home exercise for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Exercise has been reported to improve short-term outcomes for patients with LSS in terms of disability and back and leg pain. However, no studies have compared supervised exercise with unsupervised exercise or quantified physical activity using a pedometer to confirm compliance with a home exercise program.

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness of supervised physical therapy (PT) with unsupervised exercise for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients presenting with symptoms of neurogenic claudication caused by LSS, which was confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was improvement in symptom severity scores on the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included physical function on the ZCQ, self-paced walking test (SPWT) performance, pain indicated using a numerical rating scale (NRS), and the number of daily steps measured by pedometer.

METHODS

Patients with LSS were randomized to a PT group, who performed supervised PT twice a week for 6 weeks, or a home exercise (HE) group. PT sessions included manual therapy, individually tailored stretching and strengthening exercises, cycling, and body weight-supported treadmill walking.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients were randomly allocated to the PT group and 43 patients to the HE group. Compared with the HE group, the PT group had greater percentage of responders achieving minimum clinically important difference in ZCQ symptom severity (difference for percentage between groups [95%confidence interval], 30.2% [9.1-48.6], p=.01), ZCQ physical function (32.6% [11.6-50.6], p<.01), walking distance on the SPWT (39.5% [18.8-56.7], p<.01), leg pain on the NRS (34.9% [13.9-52.7], p<.01), and number of daily steps (25.6% [4.9-43.9], p=.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Supervised PT for patients with LSS resulted in significant short-term improvements in symptom severity, physical function, walking distance, pain, and physical activity compared with unsupervised exercise.

A comparative study of three conservative treatments in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: lumbar spinal stenosis with acupuncture and physical therapy study (LAP study)

Background

Although the efficiency of conservative management for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has been examined, different conservative management approaches have not been compared. We have performed the first comparative trial of three types of conservative management (medication with acetaminophen, exercise, and acupuncture) in Japanese patients with LSS.

Methods

Patients with L5 root radiculopathy associated with LSS who visited our hospital for surgical treatment were enrolled between December 2011 and January 2014. In this open-label study, patients were assigned to three treatment groups (medication, exercise, acupuncture) according to the visit time. The primary outcomes were Zurich claudication questionnaire (ZCQ) scores before and after 4 weeks of treatment. Least square mean analysis was used to assess the following dependent variables in the treatment groups: changes in symptom severity and physical function scores of the ZCQ and the ZCQ score of patient’s satisfaction after treatment.

Results

Thirty-eight, 40, and 41 patients were allocated to the medication, exercise, and acupuncture groups, respectively. No patient underwent surgical treatment during the study period. The symptom severity scores of the ZCQ improved significantly after treatment in the medication (p = 0.048), exercise (p = 0.003), and acupuncture (p = 0.04) groups. The physical function score improved significantly in the acupuncture group (p = 0.045) but not in the medication (p = 0.20) and exercise (p = 0.29) groups. The mean reduction in the ZCQ score for physical function was significantly greater for acupuncture than for exercise. The mean ZCQ score for treatment satisfaction was significantly greater for acupuncture than for medication.

Conclusions

Acupuncture was significantly more effective than physical exercise according to the physical function score of the ZCQ and than medication according to the satisfaction score. The present study provides new important information that will aid decision making in LSS treatment.

Trial registration

This study was registered with the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000006957).

Surgical and nonsurgical treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common indication for spinal surgery in older adults; however, the efficacy of surgery for LSS as compared to nonsurgical treatments remains unclear. Here, we reviewed numerous studies, including randomized control trails (RCTs), to compare nonsurgical and surgical treatments for LSS. The nonsurgical management of LSS includes medication, epidural injections, physiotherapy, lifestyle modification, and multidisciplinary rehabilitative approaches. Patients with LSS who do not improve after nonsurgical treatments are typically treated surgically using decompressive surgery, which has the strongest evidence base. Although decompressive surgical treatment is associated with modestly successful outcomes, it remains unclear whether decompression combined with fusion surgery results in clinical outcomes that are superior to those following decompression surgery alone. Future RCTs assessing the effectiveness of specific treatments based on high-quality scientific evidence are expected to aid clinical decision-making and improve treatment outcomes for LSS.

Effects of calcitonin on lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To investigate whether calcitonin can improve walking distance (WD) and visual analog pain scale (VAS) in patients who suffer lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

We performed a search on CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases up to July 2014; we finally found 19 original articles, of which only 6 were in full compliance with the RCT criteria. These full articles were carefully reviewed independent and in blinded way by two previously capacitated reviewers for the objective to extract data and score a quality of these articles by the criteria of Cochrane Handbook (5.1.0).

RESULTS

We accepted 6 studies with 232 participants. There is no evidence show calcitonin is better than placebo or paracetamol regardless of mode of administration.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggest that calcitonin provide no significant improvement in pain symptoms or walking distance in LSS patients.

The efficacy of intramuscular calcitonin injection in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis

Study Design

A prospective, cross-sectional, non-randomized study.

Purpose

To assess the effectiveness of intramuscular calcitonin injection in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Overview of Literature

LSS, manifesting as chronic low back pain and neurogenic claudication, is a chronic condition with an increasing incidence in the elderly population having inadequate effective conservative treatment options.

Methods

In this study, 36 patients with LSS who were diagnosed based on the clinical findings and magnetic resonance imaging were included. Patients received 100 IU of calcitonin per week for one month and were evaluated before and after treatment using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) questionnaire and visual analogue scale (VAS). Before treatment, the patients were divided into two subgroups based on their ODI results: patients with mild to moderate low back pain (disability, 0%-40%) and patients with severe or very severe low back pain (disability, 40%-100%).

Results

In patients with mild to moderate low back pain, there were no significant changes in the ODI and VAS after calcitonin injection. But in patients with severe or very severe low back pain, pain severity, personal functions, ability to lift and carry objects, time interval between standing and initiation of pain, social life, disability percentage, and VAS were significantly improved after treatment with calcitonin.

Conclusions

It seems that an intramuscular injection of low dose of calcitonin may have some beneficial effects on the pain due to LSS, especially in patients who suffer from severe or very severe low back pain.

What interventions improve walking ability in neurogenic claudication with lumbar spinal stenosis? A systematic review

PURPOSE

To investigate what interventions can improve walking ability in neurogenic claudication with lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and ICL databases up to June 2012. Only randomized controlled trials published in English and measuring walking ability were included. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quality of the evidence evaluation were performed using methods of the Cochrane Back Review Group.

RESULTS

We accepted 18 studies with 1,220 participants. There is very low quality evidence that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol regardless of mode of administration. There is low quality evidence that prostaglandins, and very low quality evidence that gabapentin or methylcobalamin, improves walking distance. There is low and very low quality evidence that physical therapy was no better in improving walking ability compared to no treatment, oral diclofenac plus home exercises, or combined manual therapy and exercise. There is very low quality evidence that epidural injections improve walking distance up to 2 weeks compared to placebo. There is low- and very low-quality evidence that various direct decompression surgical techniques show similar significant improvements in walking ability. There is low quality evidence that direct decompression is no better than non-operative treatment in improving walking ability. There is very low quality evidence that indirect decompression improves walking ability compared to non-operative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence for surgical and non-surgical treatment to improve walking ability is of low and very low quality and thus prohibits recommendations to guide clinical practice.

Physical therapy interventions for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Physical therapy is commonly prescribed for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS); however, little is known about its effectiveness.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials, and cohort studies evaluating the effectiveness of physical therapy for LSS.

DATA SOURCES

Studies were searched on electronic databases to January 2012.

STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion criteria were: clinical diagnosis of LSS with confirmatory imaging, evaluation of physical therapy treatment, presence of a comparison group, and outcomes of pain, disability, function, or quality of life.

DATA EXTRACTION

Outcomes were extracted and, when possible, pooled using RevMan 5, a freely available review program from the Cochrane Library.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Ten studies were included: 5 RCTs, 2 controlled trials, 2 mixed-design studies, and 1 longitudinal cohort study. Pooled effects of 2 studies revealed that the addition of a physical therapy modality to exercise had no statistically significant effect on outcome. Pooled effects results of RCTs evaluating surgery versus physical therapy demonstrated that surgery was better than physical therapy for pain and disability at long term (2 years) only. Other results suggested that exercise is significantly better than no exercise, that cycling and body-weight-supported treadmill walking have similar effects, and that corsets are better than no corsets.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of this review include the low quality and small number of studies, as well as the heterogeneity in outcomes and treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

No conclusions could be drawn from the review regarding which physical therapy treatment is superior for LSS. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that modalities have no additional effect to exercise and that surgery leads to better long-term (2 years) outcomes for pain and disability, but not walking distance, than physical therapy in patients with LSS.

Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated pathological spinal conditions. It frequently afflicts the elderly population.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication.

SEARCH METHODS

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) databases were searched up to June 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials published in English, in which at least one arm provided data on nonoperative treatments

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Risk of bias in each study was independently assessed by two review authors using the 12 criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group (Furlan 2009). Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as relative risk, continuous outcomes as mean difference or standardized mean difference; uncertainty was expressed with 95% confidence intervals. If possible a meta-analysis was performed, otherwise results were described qualitatively. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

From the 8635 citations screened, 56 full-text articles were assessed and 21 trials (1851 participants) were included. There was very low-quality evidence from six trials that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol, regardless of mode of administration or outcome assessed. From single small trials, there was low-quality evidence for prostaglandins, and very low-quality evidence for gabapentin or methylcobalamin that they improved walking distance. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial that epidural steroid injections improved pain, function, and quality of life, up to two weeks, compared with home exercise or inpatient physical therapy. There was low-quality evidence from a single trial that exercise is of short-term benefit for leg pain and function compared with no treatment. There was low and very low-quality evidence from six trials that multimodal nonoperative treatment is less effective than indirect or direct surgical decompression with or without fusion. A meta-analysis of two trials comparing direct decompression with or without fusion to multimodal nonoperative care found no significant difference in function at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% CI -10.12 to 2.80) and one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66), but at 24 months a significant difference was found favouring decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate and high-quality evidence for nonoperative treatment is lacking and thus prohibits recommendations for guiding clinical practice. Given the expected exponential rise in the prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, large high-quality trials are urgently needed.

An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update)

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The evidence-based clinical guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis by the North American Spine Society (NASS) provides evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of July 2010. The goals of the guideline recommendations are to assist in delivering optimum efficacious treatment and functional recovery from this spinal disorder.

PURPOSE

Provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine care providers in improving quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline.

METHODS

This report is from the Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Work Group of the NASS's Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group consisted of multidisciplinary spine care specialists trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. The original guideline, published in 2006, was carefully reviewed. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based, databases to identify articles published since the search performed for the original guideline. The relevant literature was then independently rated by a minimum of three physician reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final recommendations to answer each clinical question were arrived at via work group discussion, and grades were assigned to the recommendations using standardized grades of recommendation. In the absence of Levels I to IV evidence, work group consensus statements have been developed using a modified nominal group technique, and these statements are clearly identified as such in the guideline.

RESULTS

Sixteen key clinical questions were assessed, addressing issues of natural history, diagnosis, and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. The answers are summarized in this document. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature that was stratified by levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinical guideline for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis has been updated using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available clinical evidence to aid both practitioners and patients involved with the care of this condition. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, will be available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

Nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Neurogenic claudication can significantly impact functional ability, quality of life, and independence in the elderly. METHODS.: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ICL databases up to January 2011 for randomized controlled trials published in English, in which at least 1 arm provided data on nonoperative treatments. Risk of bias in each study was independently assessed by 2 reviewers using 12 criteria. Quality of the evidence was evaluated using Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

From the 8635 citations screened, 56 were assessed and 21 trials with 1851 participants were selected. There is very low-quality evidence from 6 trials that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol, regardless of mode of administration or outcome. From single small trials, there is low-quality evidence that prostaglandins, and very low-quality evidence that gabapentin or methylcobalamin, improve walking distance. There is very low-quality evidence from a single trial that epidural steroid injections improve pain, function, and quality of life up to 2 weeks compared with home exercise or inpatient physical therapy. There is low-quality evidence from a single trial that exercise is of short-term benefit for leg pain and function compared with no treatment. There is low- and very low-quality evidence from 6 trials that multimodal nonoperative treatment is less effective than indirect or direct surgical decompression with or without fusion.

CONCLUSION

Moderate- and high-GRADE evidence for nonoperative treatment is lacking and thus prohibiting recommendations to guide clinical practice. Given the expected exponential rise in the prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, large high-quality trials are urgently needed.

The effectiveness of land based exercise compared to decompressive surgery in the management of lumbar spinal-canal stenosis: a systematic review

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is prevalent in those over the age of 65 years and the leading cause of spinal surgery in this population. Recent systematic reviews have examined the effectiveness of conservative management for LSS, but not relative to surgical interventions. The aim of this review was to systematically examine the effectiveness of land based exercise compared with decompressive surgery in the management of patients with LSS.

Methods

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials and clinical trials was undertaken. The databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro and Cochrane Library Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 2000 to June 2011. Only studies that included subjects with lumbar spinal canal stenosis were considered in this review. Studies also had to use a patient reported functional outcome measure for a land based exercise intervention or lumbar decompressive surgery.

Results

Only one study compared the effectiveness of exercise and decompressive surgery for LSS. Surgery demonstrated statistically significant improvements in patient reported functional outcome scores at 6, 12 and 24-months post-intervention (p < 0.01). To facilitate further analysis, the results from 12 exercise and 10 surgical intervention arms were compared using percentage change in patient reported functional outcome measure scores. Exercise interventions showed initial improvements, ranging from 16 to 29% above baseline. All decompressive surgical interventions demonstrated greater and sustained improvements over 2-years (range 38-67% improvement) with moderate to large effect sizes. The most commonly reported complications associated with surgery were dural tears, while details of adverse effects were lacking in exercise interventions.

Conclusions

This systematic review of the recent literature demonstrates that decompressive surgery is more effective than land based exercise in the management of LSS. However, given the condition's slowly progressive nature and the potential for known surgical complications, it is recommended that a trial of conservative management with land based exercise be considered prior to consideration of surgical intervention.