-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2016Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) affects more than 200,000 adults in the United States, resulting in substantial pain and disability. It is the most common reason for spinal... (Review)
Review
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) affects more than 200,000 adults in the United States, resulting in substantial pain and disability. It is the most common reason for spinal surgery in patients over 65 years. Lumbar spinal stenosis is a clinical syndrome of pain in the buttocks or lower extremities, with or without back pain. It is associated with reduced space available for the neural and vascular elements of the lumbar spine. The condition is often exacerbated by standing, walking, or lumbar extension and relieved by forward flexion, sitting, or recumbency. Clinical care and research into lumbar spinal stenosis is complicated by the heterogeneity of the condition, the lack of standard criteria for diagnosis and inclusion in studies, and high rates of anatomic stenosis on imaging studies in older people who are completely asymptomatic. The options for non-surgical management include drugs, physiotherapy, spinal injections, lifestyle modification, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation. However, few high quality randomized trials have looked at conservative management. A systematic review concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend any specific type of non-surgical treatment. Several different surgical procedures are used to treat patients who do not improve with non-operative therapies. Given that rapid deterioration is rare and that symptoms often wax and wane or gradually improve, surgery is almost always elective and considered only if sufficiently bothersome symptoms persist despite trials of less invasive interventions. Outcomes (leg pain and disability) seem to be better for surgery than for non-operative treatment, but the evidence is heterogeneous and often of limited quality.
Topics: Analgesics; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Decision Support Techniques; Decompression, Surgical; Diagnostic Imaging; Humans; Incidence; Injections, Epidural; Intermittent Claudication; Lumbar Vertebrae; Musculoskeletal Pain; Physical Therapy Modalities; Postoperative Care; Prevalence; Scoliosis; Spinal Fusion; Spinal Stenosis; Spondylolisthesis; Steroids; United States
PubMed: 26727925
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h6234 -
Spine Jan 2016A systematic review with meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review with meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation following lumbar fusion surgery (LFS).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
LFS for the management of lower back pain, with(out) neurogenic leg pain, is increasing as the population ages. Clinical outcomes commonly lag behind surgical outcomes and 40% of patients experience significant back-related disability 12 months after LFS. Identifying rehabilitation strategies to improve function and quality of life following LFS is important.
METHODS
A systematic review of databases were searched, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, and grey literature. Studies identified were screened for inclusion by title and abstract. Full text of eligible/potentially eligible studies was evaluated against predetermined eligibility criteria. Included studies were subjected to critical appraisal and risk of bias evaluation. The GRADE approach to quality of evidence was utilized. A meta-analysis comparing usual care with "complex rehabilitation," comprising exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy, for outcomes relating to pain, disability, fear of movement, and mental health was conducted at short and longer term (<3 and >12 months postsurgery) time points.
RESULTS
Three studies were identified for the systematic review and 2 included in the meta-analysis (n = 237, female = 62%, mean age = 55). Low-quality evidence suggests that "complex rehabilitation" provides short-term improvement in disability [effect size, -0.85, 95% confidence interval (95% CI), -1.41 to -0.29] and fear avoidance behavior (-1.07, 95% CI -1.33, -0.80), compared with usual care. Low-quality evidence exists favoring "complex rehabilitation" over usual care for longer term disability (-0.84, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.58) and fear avoidance behavior (-1.40, 95% CI -1.69 to -1.12).
CONCLUSIONS
A small number of low-quality studies suggest that "complex rehabilitation" reduces short and long-term disability and fear avoidance behavior following LFS. More, high-quality research is required to confirm the effectiveness of "complex rehabilitation" programs.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Male; Middle Aged; Physical Therapy Modalities; Quality of Life; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 26555833
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001132 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a debilitating condition associated with degeneration of the spine with aging. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a debilitating condition associated with degeneration of the spine with aging.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of surgery compared with different types of non-surgical interventions in adults with symptomatic LSS. Primary outcomes included quality of life, disability, function and pain. Also, to consider complication rates and side effects, and to evaluate short-, intermediate- and long-term outcomes (six months, six months to two years, five years or longer).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registries up to February 2015. We also screened reference lists and conference proceedings related to treatment of the spine.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical versus non-operative treatments in participants with lumbar spinal stenosis confirmed by clinical and imaging findings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For data collection and analysis, we followed methods guidelines of the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group (Furlan 2009) and those provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).
MAIN RESULTS
From the 12,966 citations screened, we assessed 26 full-text articles and included five RCTs (643 participants).Low-quality evidence from the meta-analysis performed on two trials using the Oswestry Disability Index (pain-related disability) to compare direct decompression with or without fusion versus multi-modal non-operative care showed no significant differences at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.12 to 2.80) and at one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66). At 24 months, significant differences favoured decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96). Low-quality evidence from one small study revealed no difference in pain outcomes between decompression and usual conservative care (bracing and exercise) at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 8.59), four years (RR 7.50, 95% CI 1.00 to 56.48) and 10 years (RR 4.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 17.58).Low-quality evidence from one small study suggested no differences at six weeks in the Oswestry Disability Index for patients treated with minimally invasive mild decompression versus those treated with epidural steroid injections (MD 5.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 10.83; 38 participants). Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) results were better for epidural injection at six weeks (MD -0.60, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.28), and visual analogue scale (VAS) improvements were better in the mild decompression group (MD 2.40, 95% CI 1.92 to 2.88). At 12 weeks, many cross-overs prevented further analysis.Low-quality evidence from a single study including 191 participants favoured the interspinous spacer versus usual conservative treatment at six weeks, six months and one year for symptom severity and physical function.All remaining studies reported complications associated with surgery and conservative side effects of treatment: Two studies reported no major complications in the surgical group, and the other study reported complications in 10% and 24% of participants, including spinous process fracture, coronary ischaemia, respiratory distress, haematoma, stroke, risk of reoperation and death due to pulmonary oedema.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have very little confidence to conclude whether surgical treatment or a conservative approach is better for lumbar spinal stenosis, and we can provide no new recommendations to guide clinical practice. However, it should be noted that the rate of side effects ranged from 10% to 24% in surgical cases, and no side effects were reported for any conservative treatment. No clear benefits were observed with surgery versus non-surgical treatment. These findings suggest that clinicians should be very careful in informing patients about possible treatment options, especially given that conservative treatment options have resulted in no reported side effects. High-quality research is needed to compare surgical versus conservative care for individuals with lumbar spinal stenosis.
Topics: Aged; Braces; Decompression, Surgical; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Injections, Epidural; Laminectomy; Lumbosacral Region; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Cord Compression; Spinal Fusion; Spinal Stenosis
PubMed: 26824399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010264.pub2 -
BioMed Research International 2023We conducted this meta-analysis to provide better evidence of the efficacy of manual therapy (MT) on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
We conducted this meta-analysis to provide better evidence of the efficacy of manual therapy (MT) on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).
METHODS
All RCTs of MT for the management of patients with AIS were included in the present study. The treatment difference between the experimental and control group was mainly MT. The outcomes consisted of the total effective rate, the Cobb angle, and Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire score. Electronic database searches were conducted from database inception to July 2022, including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Wanfang Data, CNKI, and VIP. The pooled data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 software.
RESULTS
Four RCTs with 213 patients in the experimental group were finally included. There are 2 studies of standalone MT in the experimental group and 3 studies of MT with identical conservative treatments in the control group. Three trials reported total effective rate, and a statistically significant difference was found ( = 0.004). Three trials reported Cobb angle, and a statistical difference was found ( = 0.01). Then, sensitivity analysis showed that there was a significant difference in the additional MT subgroup ( < 0.00001) while not in the standalone MT subgroup ( = 0.41). Three trials reported SRS-22 scores ( = 0.55) without significant differences.
CONCLUSION
There is insufficient data to determine the effectiveness of spinal manipulation limited by the very low quality of included studies. High-quality studies with appropriate design and follow-up periods are warranted to determine if MT may be beneficial as an adjunct therapy for AIS. Currently, there is no evidence to support spinal manipulation.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Scoliosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Kyphosis; Manipulation, Spinal; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 36644168
DOI: 10.1155/2023/7928429 -
Health Technology Assessment... Mar 2023We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and complication rates of total ankle replacement with those of arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion) in the...
BACKGROUND
We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and complication rates of total ankle replacement with those of arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion) in the treatment of end-stage ankle osteoarthritis.
METHODS
This was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis who were aged 50-85 years and were suitable for both procedures were recruited from 17 UK hospitals and randomised using minimisation. The primary outcome was the change in the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain scores between the preoperative baseline and 52 weeks post surgery.
RESULTS
Between March 2015 and January 2019, 303 participants were randomised using a minimisation algorithm: 152 to total ankle replacement and 151 to ankle fusion. At 52 weeks, the mean (standard deviation) Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score was 31.4 (30.4) in the total ankle replacement arm ( = 136) and 36.8 (30.6) in the ankle fusion arm ( = 140); the adjusted difference in the change was -5.6 (95% confidence interval -12.5 to 1.4; = 0.12) in the intention-to-treat analysis. By week 52, one patient in the total ankle replacement arm required revision. Rates of wound-healing issues (13.4% vs. 5.7%) and nerve injuries (4.2% vs. < 1%) were higher and the rate of thromboembolic events was lower (2.9% vs. 4.9%) in the total ankle replacement arm than in the ankle fusion arm. The bone non-union rate (based on plain radiographs) in the ankle fusion arm was 12.1%, but only 7.1% of patients had symptoms. A post hoc analysis of fixed-bearing total ankle replacement showed a statistically significant improvement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score (-11.1, 95% confidence interval -19.3 to -2.9; = 0.008). We estimate a 69% likelihood that total ankle replacement is cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patient's lifetime.
LIMITATIONS
This initial report contains only 52-week data, which must therefore be interpreted with caution. In addition, the pragmatic nature of the study means that there was heterogeneity between surgical implants and techniques. The trial was run across 17 NHS centres to ensure that decision-making streams reflected the standard of care in the NHS as closely as possible.
CONCLUSIONS
Both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion improved patients' quality of life at 1 year, and both appear to be safe. When total ankle replacement was compared with ankle fusion overall, we were unable to show a statistically significant difference between the two arms in terms of our primary outcome measure. The total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis (TARVA) trial is inconclusive in terms of superiority of total ankle replacement, as the 95% confidence interval for the adjusted treatment effect includes both a difference of zero and the minimal important difference of 12, but it can rule out the superiority of ankle fusion. A post hoc analysis comparing fixed-bearing total ankle replacement with ankle fusion showed a statistically significant improvement of total ankle replacement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score. Total ankle replacement appears to be cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over a patient's lifetime based on long-term economic modelling.
FUTURE WORK
We recommend long-term follow-up of this important cohort, in particular radiological and clinical progress. We also recommend studies to explore the sensitivity of clinical scores to detect clinically important differences between arms when both have already achieved a significant improvement from baseline.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This trial is registered as ISRCTN60672307 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02128555.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 27, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Humans; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Ankle; Ankle; Quality of Life; Osteoarthritis; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Arthrodesis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37022932
DOI: 10.3310/PTYJ1146 -
Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and... Nov 2017Our objective was to perform a systematic review of the literature and conduct a meta-analysis to investigate the outcomes of open versus arthroscopic methods of ankle... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Our objective was to perform a systematic review of the literature and conduct a meta-analysis to investigate the outcomes of open versus arthroscopic methods of ankle fusion.
METHODS
In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards, we performed a systematic review. Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify randomised and non-randomised studies comparing outcomes of arthroscopic and open ankle arthrodesis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of the selected studies. Fixed-effect or random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data.
RESULTS
We identified one prospective cohort study and 5 retrospective cohort studies, enrolling a total of 286 patients with ankle arthritis. Our analysis showed that open ankle fusion was associated with a lower fusion rate (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13-0.52, P = 0.0002), longer tourniquet time (MD 16.49, 95% CI 9.46-23.41, P < 0.00001), and longer length of stay (MD 1.60,95% CI 1.10-2.10, P < 0.00001) compared to arthroscopic ankle fusion; however, there was no significant difference between two groups in terms of infection rate (OR 2.41, 95% CI 0.76-7.64, P = 0.14), overall complication rate (OR: 1.54, 95% CI 0.80-2.96, P = 0.20), and operation time (MD 4.09, 95% CI -2.49-10.66, P = 0.22). The between-study heterogeneity was high for tourniquet time but low or moderate for other outcomes. The direction of the effect sizes remains unchanged throughout sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
The best available evidence demonstrates that arthroscopic ankle fusion may be associated with a higher fusion rate, shorter tourniquet time, and shorter length of stay compared to open ankle fusion. We found no significant difference between two groups in terms of infection rate, overall complication rate, and operation time. The best available evidence is not adequately robust to make definitive conclusions. Long-term results of the comparative efficacy of arthroscopic ankle fusion over open ankle fusion are not currently available. Further high quality randomised controlled trials that are adequately powered are required.
PubMed: 29339846
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2017.03.010 -
Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online Mar 2021The aims of this systematic review were to examine the use of radiolunate (RL) or radioscapholunate (RSL) arthrodesis as surgical management for patients with advanced...
PURPOSE
The aims of this systematic review were to examine the use of radiolunate (RL) or radioscapholunate (RSL) arthrodesis as surgical management for patients with advanced radiocarpal arthritis that failed conservative management and to assess postoperative outcomes.
METHODS
We reviewed articles from PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception through December 2019. We identified complete manuscripts written in English reporting on RL or RSL arthrodesis for treatment of wrist pathology that included the primary outcomes (pain or grip strength) and at least 2 secondary outcomes (range of motion, patient-reported outcomes, or nonunion). Data pooling was used to calculate weighted averages.
RESULTS
We identified 2,252 articles and selected 13 for inclusion. Across all studies, RSL arthrodesis was performed for 180 patients (49% female; 45 years old) and RL for 94 (87% female; 50 years old). Both procedures exhibited improvements in pain score and grip strength. Both cohorts demonstrated postoperative changes in flexion-extension arc, flexion, extension, ulnar deviation, supination, and pronation after data pooling. The nonunion rate for RSL was 15% versus 2% for RL, whereas the rate of progression to total wrist arthrodesis for RSL and RL was 4% and 0%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Both RL and RSL arthrodesis can be successfully used to manage debilitating radiocarpal arthritis by affording patients with pain reduction. Each has its own benefits, in which RSL arthrodesis provides a total arc of motion within the functional demands of most activities of daily living, and RL arthrodesis has low rates of nonunion and progression to total wrist arthrodesis. Further research is needed to compare the 2 surgeries directly and prospectively in comparable patient groups.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic III.
PubMed: 35415540
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2020.12.003 -
Hand (New York, N.Y.) Jan 2023Proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) arthrodesis is a salvage option in the management of end-stage PIPJ arthropathy. Numerous techniques have been described, including... (Review)
Review
Proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) arthrodesis is a salvage option in the management of end-stage PIPJ arthropathy. Numerous techniques have been described, including screws, Kirschner wires, tension band wiring, intramedullary devices, and plate fixation. There remains no consensus as to the optimum method, and no recent summary of the literature exists. A literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases. English-language articles reporting PIPJ arthrodesis outcomes were included and presented in a systematic review. Pearson χ and 2-sample proportion tests were used to compare fusion time, nonunion rate, and complication rate between arthrodesis techniques. The mean fusion time ranged from 5.1 to 12.9 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences in fusion time between arthrodesis techniques. Nonunion rates ranged from 0.0% to 33.3%. Screw arthrodesis demonstrated a lower nonunion rate than wire fusion (3.0% and 8.5% respectively; = .01). Complication rates ranged from 0.0% to 22.1%. Aside from nonunions, there were no statistically significant differences in complication rates between arthrodesis techniques. The available PIPJ arthrodesis techniques have similar fusion time, nonunion rate, and complication rate outcomes. The existing data have significant limitations, and further research would be beneficial to elucidate any differences between techniques.
Topics: Humans; Bone Wires; Bone Screws; Arthrodesis; Joint Diseases; Finger Joint
PubMed: 33682483
DOI: 10.1177/1558944721998019 -
BMC Surgery Jul 2023Considering the high reoperation rate in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) patients undergoing lumbar surgeries and controversial results on the risk factors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Considering the high reoperation rate in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) patients undergoing lumbar surgeries and controversial results on the risk factors for the reoperation, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the reoperation rate and risk factors for the reoperation in DLS patients undergoing lumbar surgeries.
METHODS
Literature search was conducted from inception to October 28, 2022 in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Odds ratio (OR) was used as the effect index for the categorical data, and effect size was expressed as 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity test was performed for each outcome effect size, and subgroup analysis was performed based on study design, patients, surgery types, follow-up time, and quality of studies to explore the source of heterogeneity. Results of all outcomes were examined by sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was assessed using Begg test, and adjusted using trim-and-fill analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 39 cohort studies (27 retrospective cohort studies and 12 prospective cohort studies) were finally included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall results showed a 10% (95%CI: 8%-12%) of reoperation rate in DLS patients undergoing lumbar surgeries. In surgery types subgroup, the reoperation rate was 11% (95%CI: 9%-13%) for decompression, 10% (95%CI: 7%-12%) for fusion, and 9% (95%CI: 5%-13%) for decompression and fusion. An increased risk of reoperation was found in patients with obesity (OR = 1.91, 95%CI: 1.04-3.51), diabetes (OR = 2.01, 95%CI: 1.43-2.82), and smoking (OR = 1.51, 95%CI: 1.23-1.84).
CONCLUSIONS
We found a 10% of reoperation rate in DLS patients after lumbar surgeries. Obesity, diabetes, and smoking were risk factors for the reoperation.
Topics: Humans; Reoperation; Spondylolisthesis; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Spinal Stenosis; Decompression, Surgical; Spinal Fusion; Risk Factors; Lumbar Vertebrae; Diabetes Mellitus; Obesity
PubMed: 37407952
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-023-02082-8