-
Pain Physician Oct 2022Epidural injections are among the most commonly performed procedures for managing low back and lower extremity pain. Pinto et al and Chou et al previously performed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Epidural injections are among the most commonly performed procedures for managing low back and lower extremity pain. Pinto et al and Chou et al previously performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which, along with a recent update from Oliveira et al showing the lack of effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and radiculopathy. In contrast to these papers, multiple other systematic reviews and meta-analyses have supported the effectiveness and use of epidural injections utilizing fluoroscopically guided techniques. A major flaw in the review can be related to attributing active-controlled trials to placebo-controlled trials. The assumption that local anesthetics do not provide sustained benefit, despite extensive evidence that local anesthetics provide long-term relief, similar to a combination of local anesthetic with steroids is flawed.
STUDY DESIGN
The Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy were reanalyzed using systematic methodology and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To re-evaluate Cochrane data on RCTs of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy utilizing qualitative and quantitative techniques with dual-arm and single-arm analysis.
METHODS
In this systematic review, we have used the same RCTs from the Cochrane Review of a minimum of 20% change in pain scale or significant pain relief of >= 50%. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. Significant improvement was defined as 50% or greater pain relief and functional status improvement. Our review was performed utilizing the Cochrane Review methodologic quality assessment and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Evidence was summarized utilizing the principles of best evidence synthesis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Clinical relevance of the pragmatic nature of each study was assessed.
RESULTS
In evaluating the RCTs in the Cochrane Review, 10 trials were performed with fluoroscopic guidance. Utilizing conventional dual-arm and single-arm meta-analysis, the evidence is vastly different from the interpretation of the data within the Cochrane Review. The overall combined evidence is Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months, and Level II, or moderate evidence, at 6 and 12 months.
LIMITATIONS
The limitation of this study is that only data contained in the Cochrane Review were analyzed.
CONCLUSION
A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of the Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy yielded different results. This review, based on the evidence derived from placebo-controlled trials and active-controlled trials showed Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months and Level II at 6 and 12 months. This review once again emphasizes the importance of the allocation of studies to placebo-control and active-control groups, utilizing standards of practice with inclusion of only the studies performed under fluoroscopic guidance.
Topics: Humans; Radiculopathy; Anesthetics, Local; Sciatica; Low Back Pain; Injections, Epidural; Steroids
PubMed: 36288577
DOI: No ID Found -
Arquivos de Neuro-psiquiatria Jun 2023Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or...
BACKGROUND
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or neuropathy. Therefore, determining their efficacy and safety is of enormous value.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the efficacy and safety of using gabapentin and pregabalin for CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy.
METHODS
We performed a search on the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Web of Science data bases for clinical trials, cohorts, and case-control studies that evaluated patients with CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy for at least eight weeks. The data were extracted and inserted into a previously-prepared Microsoft Excel spreadsheet; the outcomes were evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and the quality of evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
RESULTS
Of the 2,230 articles identified, only 5 were included, totaling 242 participants. In them, pregabalin was slightly less efficacious than amitriptyline, the combination of tramadol/acetaminophen, and celecoxib, and pregabalin added to celecoxib showed no benefit when compared to celecoxib alone (very low evidence for all). On the other hand, although one study with gabapentin did not support its use in a general sample of patients with low back pain, another found a reduction in the pain scale and improved mobility (moderate evidence). No serious adverse events were observed in any of the studies.
CONCLUSION
Quality information to support the use of pregabalin or gabapentin in the treatment of CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy is lacking, although results may suggest gabapentin as a viable option. More data is needed to fill this current gap in knowledge.
Topics: Humans; Radiculopathy; Gabapentin; Pregabalin; Low Back Pain; Celecoxib
PubMed: 37379868
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1764414 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Mar 2020Lumbar radiculopathy is characterized by radiating pain with or without motor weakness or sensory disturbances; the point prevalence ranges from 1.6 to 13.4%. The... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Lumbar radiculopathy is characterized by radiating pain with or without motor weakness or sensory disturbances; the point prevalence ranges from 1.6 to 13.4%. The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical management of symptomatic lumbar radiculopathy in adults.
METHODS
We searched PubMed from January 1, 2007, to April 10, 2019 with hand searches of systematic reviews for studies prior to 2007. One reviewer extracted data and a second checked for accuracy. Two reviewers completed independent risk of bias and strength of evidence ratings.
RESULTS
We included seven RCTs (N = 1158) and three cost-effectiveness analysis. Surgery reduced leg pain by 6 to 26 points more than nonsurgical interventions as measured on a 0- to 100-point visual analog scale of pain at up to 26 weeks follow-up; differences between groups did not persist at 1 year or later. The evidence was somewhat mixed for function and disability in follow-up through 26 weeks (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.16 (95% CI, - 0.30 to - 0.03); minimal differences were observed at 2 years (SMD - 0.06 (95% CI, - 0.20 to 0.07). There were similar improvements in quality of life, neurologic symptoms, and return to work. No surgical deaths occurred and surgical morbidity was infrequent. The incidence of reoperations ranged from 0 to 10%. The average cost per quality-adjusted life year gained from a healthcare payor perspective ranged from $51,156 to $83,322 for surgery compared to nonsurgical interventions.
DISCUSSION
Most findings are based on a body of RCT evidence graded as low to very low certainty. Compared with nonsurgical interventions, surgery probably reduces pain and improves function in the short- and medium-term, but this difference does not persist in the long-term. Although surgery appears to be safe, it may or may not be cost-effective depending on a decision maker's willingness to pay threshold.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pain; Pain Measurement; Quality of Life; Radiculopathy
PubMed: 31713029
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05476-8 -
The Spine Journal : Official Journal of... Oct 2019Posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with decompression is a treatment option for patients with conditions such as spondylosis, spinal stenosis, and degenerative disc... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with decompression is a treatment option for patients with conditions such as spondylosis, spinal stenosis, and degenerative disc disorders that result in myelopathy or radiculopathy. The annual rate, number, and cost of PCF in the United States has increased. Far fewer studies have been published on PCF outcomes than on anterior cervical fusion (ACF) outcomes, most likely because far fewer PCFs than ACFs are performed.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the patient-reported and clinical outcomes of adult patients who underwent subaxial posterior cervical fusion with decompression.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
PATIENT SAMPLE
The total number of patients in the 31 articles reviewed and included in the meta-analysis was 1,238 (range 7-166).
OUTCOME MEASURES
Preoperative to postoperative change in patient-reported outcomes (visual analog scales for arm pain and neck pain, Neck Disability Index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association [JOA] score, modified JOA score, and Nurick pain scale) and rates of fusion, revision, and complications or adverse events.
METHODS
This study was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and a preapproved protocol. PubMed and Embase databases were searched for articles published from January 2001 through July 2018. Statistical analyses for patient-reported outcomes were performed on the outcomes' raw mean differences, calculated as postoperative value minus preoperative value from each study. Pooled rates of successful fusion, revision surgery, and complications or adverse events, and their 95% confidence intervals, were also calculated. Two subgroup analyses were performed: one for studies in which only myelopathy or radiculopathy (or both) were stated as surgical indications and the other for studies in which only myelopathy or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (or both) were stated as surgical indications. This study was funded by Providence Medical Technology, Inc. ($32,000).
RESULTS
Thirty-three articles were included in the systematic review, and 31 articles were included in the meta-analysis. For all surgical indications and for the 2 subgroup analyses, every cumulative change in patient-reported outcome improved. Many of the reported changes in patient-reported outcome also exceeded the minimal clinically important differences. Pooled outcome rates with all surgical indications were 98.25% for successful fusion, 1.09% for revision, and 9.02% for complications or adverse events. Commonly reported complications or adverse events were axial pain, C5 palsy, transient neurological worsening, and wound infection.
CONCLUSIONS
Posterior cervical fusion with decompression resulted in significant clinical improvement, as indicated by the changes in patient-reported outcomes. Additionally, high fusion rates and low rates of revision and of complications and adverse events were found.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Cervical Vertebrae; Decompression, Surgical; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Reoperation; Spinal Cord Diseases; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 31075361
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.04.019 -
Advanced Biomedical Research 2023A case with an inflamed or damaged nerve root in the cervical spine is defined as cervical radiculopathy.The purpose of the current study is to recognize the most... (Review)
Review
A case with an inflamed or damaged nerve root in the cervical spine is defined as cervical radiculopathy.The purpose of the current study is to recognize the most effective surgical procedures in cervical radiculopathy subjects. All related studies were taken using PubMed searching international databases, Scopus, ISI Web of Science (WoS), and Science direct with no limit of until November 20, 2021. Finally, based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, after reviewing all randomized controlled trial studies which had the related data the researchers were looking for, they conducted meta-analysis with the seven remaining studies including eight different treatments. Heterogeneity was evaluated by Cochran's Q and Higgins I using R software for the network. In the results presented in this study, the neck disability index (NDI) changes as a result of taking cervical anterior discectomy without (ACD) and with fusion (ACDF) and ACD arthroplasty were -0.003, -1.659, and -1.656, respectively. According to the final diagram of the network, 11 comparisons were made in pairs. When each treatment group is compared with ACDF, it is shown that there was a significant mean effect among the patients who receive Mobi-C, Kineflx|C, and ADR, with mean differences of - 8.60 [CI 95% (- 12.75, - 4.45)], - 1.10 [CI 95% (- 5.22, 3.02)], and - 1.00 [CI 95% (- 7.18, 5.18)], respectively. The most effective surgical treatments for cervical radiculopathy were Mobi-c, Kineflx|C, and artificial disc replacement compared to ACDF treatment, respectively.
PubMed: 37694261
DOI: 10.4103/abr.abr_251_22 -
Cureus Nov 2023The main aim of this study was to determine the level of evidence in the literature for the main indications of osteopathy as recommended by the French osteopathy... (Review)
Review
The main aim of this study was to determine the level of evidence in the literature for the main indications of osteopathy as recommended by the French osteopathy societies. This systematic review followed the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and evaluated articles published between January 2012 and January 2022 with one modification: when level one evidence studies were available, level two to five studies were excluded. Sources included PubMed, the Cochrane library, the French National Health Authority (HAS) and its affiliates. Inclusion criteria were level one published studies on the indications for osteopathic treatment in French and English, and level two to three studies when no level one studies were available. The level of evidence assessment was based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence classification. The primary outcome was the level of evidence in the literature supporting osteopathic practices. The secondary outcome was to assess French professional osteopathy recommendations and French HAS guidelines in relation to the scientific literature. A total of 51 articles and nine recommendations from the HAS and its affiliates met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Analysis of the studies revealed 41 osteopathic indications from French osteopathy societies for musculoskeletal, neurosensory, psychological, pediatric, gynecological, digestive, and pulmonary disorders. High-level scientific evidence supported the use of osteopathy for low back pain, sciatica, cervical radiculopathy, and ankle sprain. There was moderate evidence for tension headache, temporomandibular joint disorder, endometriosis, and low back and pelvic pain in pregnant women. HAS recommended five indications, while nine indications were supported in the scientific literature. Osteopathy has been shown to have evidence-based benefits for a range of conditions, in particular for musculoskeletal and neurosensory disorders.
PubMed: 38161897
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49674 -
Journal of Pain Research 2021The association between electromyography (EMG)-confirmed lumbosacral (LS) radiculopathy and pain outcomes following epidural steroid injection (ESI) has not been... (Review)
Review
The association between electromyography (EMG)-confirmed lumbosacral (LS) radiculopathy and pain outcomes following epidural steroid injection (ESI) has not been systematically summarized. The primary objective of this systematic review was to summarize the effects of EMG-confirmed LS radiculopathy on pain intensity following ESI. A secondary objective was to summarize the effects of EMG-confirmed LS radiculopathy on physical functioning following ESI. An a priori protocol was registered and a database search conducted by a reference librarian from January 2000 through December 2020. The search was date-limited to ensure the results of the systematic review represented contemporary clinical practice. Study-inclusion criteria included randomized trials, prospective and retrospective studies, cross-sectional studies, case series, and case reports, age ≥18 years, and use of EMG as a prognostic tool prior to an ESI. Two independent reviewers screened all titles, abstracts, and full texts. Data were extracted using a templated electronic database. The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool and certainty in evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Due to clinical heterogeneity in study characteristics, a meta-analysis was not performed. A total of 454 studies were screened, and eight nonrandomized studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies had a moderate risk of bias, two serious risks, and one a critical risk. The key findings included four of eight nonrandomized studies reporting a significant association between EMG-confirmed radiculopathy and ESI response and four of eight nonrandomized studies reporting no significant association. Important sources of bias limited interpretation of individual study findings, and multiple sources of clinical heterogeneity limited between-study comparisons. The findings of this systematic review demonstrate that associations existed between EMG-confirmed LS radiculopathy and pain outcomes after ESI in some, but not all studies. These results should be carefully interpreted with full understanding of the risk of bias and very low certainty in evidence that characterize the nonrandomized studies comprising this systematic review.
PubMed: 34539187
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S327504 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2023Lumbar radiculopathy causes lower back and lower extremity pain that may be managed with neural mobilization (NM) techniques. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the... (Review)
Review
Lumbar radiculopathy causes lower back and lower extremity pain that may be managed with neural mobilization (NM) techniques. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of NM in alleviating pain and reducing disability in patients with lumbar radiculopathy. We hypothesized that NM would reduce pain and improve disability in the lumbar radiculopathy population, leveraging the statistical power of multiple studies. Electronic databases from their inception up to October 2023 were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that explored the impact of NM on lumbar radiculopathy. Our primary outcome measure was the alteration in pain intensity, while the secondary one was the improvement of disability, standardized using Hedges' . To combine the data, we employed a random-effects model. A total of 20 RCTs comprising 877 participants were included. NM yielded a significant reduction in pain intensity (Hedges' = -1.097, 95% CI = -1.482 to -0.712, < 0.001, I2 = 85.338%). Subgroup analyses indicated that NM effectively reduced pain, whether employed alone or in conjunction with other treatments. Furthermore, NM significantly alleviated disability, with a notable effect size (Hedges' = -0.964, 95% CI = -1.475 to -0.453, < 0.001, I2 = 88.550%), particularly in chronic cases. The findings provide valuable insights for clinicians seeking evidence-based interventions for this patient population. This study has limitations, including heterogeneity, potential publication bias, varied causal factors in lumbar radiculopathy, overall study quality, and the inability to explore the impact of neural pathology on NM treatment effectiveness, suggesting opportunities for future research improvements.
PubMed: 38137856
DOI: 10.3390/life13122255 -
Archives of Physiotherapy Mar 2021Only low-quality evidence is currently available to support the effectiveness of different traction modalities in the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy (LR). Yet,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Only low-quality evidence is currently available to support the effectiveness of different traction modalities in the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy (LR). Yet, traction is still very commonly used in clinical practice. Some authors have suggested that the subgroup of patients presenting signs and symptoms of nerve root compression and unresponsive to movements centralizing symptoms may benefit from lumbar traction. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of vertical traction (VT) on pain and activity limitation in patients affected by LR.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science and PEDro from their inception to March 31, 2019 to retrieve RCTs on adults with LR using VT to reduce pain and activity limitation. We considered only trials reporting complete data on outcomes. Two reviewers selected the studies, extracted the results, and performed the quality assessment using the Risk of Bias and GRADE tools.
RESULTS
Three studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the included studies. We found very low quality evidence for a large effect of VT added to bed rest when compared to bed rest alone (g = - 1.01; 95% CI = -2.00 to - 0.02). Similarly, VT added to medication may have a large effect on pain relief when compared to medication alone (g = - 1.13; 95% CI = -1.72 to - 0.54, low quality evidence). Effects of VT added to physical therapy on pain relief were very small when compared to physical therapy without VT (g = - 0.14; 95% CI = -1.03 to 0.76, low quality evidence). All reported effects concerned short-term effect up to 3 months post-intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
With respect to short-term effects, VT may have a positive effect on pain relief if added to medication or bed rest. Long-term effects of VT are currently unknown. Future higher quality research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change these conclusions.
PubMed: 33715638
DOI: 10.1186/s40945-021-00102-5