-
The Clinical Journal of Pain Mar 2023The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of conservative interventions compared with other interventions, placebo/sham...
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of conservative interventions compared with other interventions, placebo/sham interventions, or no intervention on disability, pain, function, quality of life, and psychological impact in adults with cervical radiculopathy (CR).
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to June 15, 2022 to identify studies that were randomized controlled trials, had at least one conservative treatment arm, and diagnosed participants with CR through confirmatory clinical examination and/or diagnostic tests. Studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the quality of the evidence was rated using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Of the 2561 records identified, 59 trials met our inclusion criteria (n = 4108 participants). Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, the findings were synthesized narratively. There is very-low certainty evidence supporting the use of acupuncture, prednisolone, cervical manipulation, and low-level laser therapy for pain and disability in the immediate to short-term, and thoracic manipulation and low-level laser therapy for improvements in cervical range of motion in the immediate term. There is low to very-low certainty evidence for multimodal interventions, providing inconclusive evidence for pain, disability, and range of motion. There is inconclusive evidence for pain reduction after conservative management compared with surgery, rated as very-low certainty.
DISCUSSION
There is a lack of high-quality evidence, limiting our ability to make any meaningful conclusions. As the number of people with CR is expected to increase, there is an urgent need for future research to help address these gaps.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Conservative Treatment; Radiculopathy; Quality of Life; Acupuncture Therapy; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36599029
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001092 -
Neurosurgical Focus Jan 2023The authors sought to analyze the current literature to determine dimensional trends across the lumbar levels of Kambin's triangle, clarify the role of imaging...
OBJECTIVE
The authors sought to analyze the current literature to determine dimensional trends across the lumbar levels of Kambin's triangle, clarify the role of imaging techniques for preoperative planning, and understand the effect of inclusion of the superior articular process (SAP). This compiled knowledge of the triangle is needed to perform successful procedures, reduce nerve root injuries, and help guide surgeons in training.
METHODS
The authors performed a search of multiple databases using combinations of keywords: Kambin's triangle, size, measurement, safe triangle, and bony triangle. Articles were included if their main findings included measurement of Kambin's triangle. The PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline databases were systematically searched for English-language articles with no time frame restrictions through July 2022.
RESULTS
Eight studies comprising 132 patients or cadavers were included in the study. The mean ± SD age was 66.69 ± 9.6 years, and 53% of patients were male. Overall, the size of Kambin's triangle increased in area moving down vertebral levels, with L5-S1 being the largest (133.59 ± 4.36 mm2). This trend followed a linear regression model when SAP was kept (p = 0.008) and removed (p = 0.003). There was also a considerable increase in the size of Kambin's triangle if the SAP was removed.
CONCLUSIONS
Here, the authors have provided the first reported systematic review of the literature of Kambin's triangle, its measurements at each lumbar level, and key areas of debate related to the definition of the working safe zone. These findings indicate that CT is heavily utilized for imaging of the safe zone, the area of Kambin's triangle tends to increase caudally, and variation exists between patients. Future studies should focus on using advanced imaging techniques for preoperative planning and establishing guidelines for surgeons.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Aged; Female; Lumbar Vertebrae; Radiculopathy; Cadaver; Surgeons
PubMed: 36587400
DOI: 10.3171/2022.10.FOCUS22606 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Feb 2023Physiotherapy interventions are prescribed as first-line treatment for people with sciatica; however, their effectiveness remains controversial. The purpose of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Physiotherapy interventions are prescribed as first-line treatment for people with sciatica; however, their effectiveness remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review was to establish the short-, medium- and long-term effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to control interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica.
METHODS
This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42018103900. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to January 2021 without language restrictions. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions compared to a control intervention in people with clinical or imaging diagnosis of sciatica. Primary outcome measures were pain and disability. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers with consensus reached by discussion or third-party arbitration if required. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool with third-party consensus if required. Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed with random effects models using Revman v5.4. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to examine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to minimal (e.g. advice only) or substantial control interventions (e.g. surgery).
RESULTS
Three thousand nine hundred and fifty eight records were identified, of which 18 trials were included, with a total number of 2699 participants. All trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analysis of trials for the outcome of pain showed no difference in the short (SMD - 0.34 [95%CI - 1.05, 0.37] p = 0.34, I = 98%), medium (SMD 0.15 [95%CI - 0.09, 0.38], p = 0.22, I= 80%) or long term (SMD 0.09 [95%CI - 0.18, 0.36], p = 0.51, I= 82%). For disability there was no difference in the short (SMD - 0.00 [95%CI - 0.36, 0.35], p = 0.98, I = 92%, medium (SMD 0.25 [95%CI - 0.04, 0.55] p = 0.09, I = 87%), or long term (SMD 0.26 [95%CI - 0.16, 0.68] p = 0.22, I = 92%) between physiotherapy and control interventions. Subgroup analysis of studies comparing physiotherapy with minimal intervention favoured physiotherapy for pain at the long-term time points. Large confidence intervals and high heterogeneity indicate substantial uncertainly surrounding these estimates. Many trials evaluating physiotherapy intervention compared to substantial intervention did not use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.
CONCLUSION
Based on currently available, mostly high risk of bias and highly heterogeneous data, there is inadequate evidence to make clinical recommendations on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica. Future studies should aim to reduce clinical heterogeneity and to use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.
Topics: Humans; Sciatica; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 36580149
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-022-07356-y -
World Neurosurgery Dec 2022Uniportal interlaminar contralateral endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (ICELF) aims to achieve decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis in the contralateral lateral recess...
BACKGROUND
Uniportal interlaminar contralateral endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (ICELF) aims to achieve decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis in the contralateral lateral recess and foraminal and extraforaminal regions of the same segment. This technique is performed under normal saline irrigation using an endoscope with optical lens magnification close to the targeted stenotic segment and has the potential of lower incidence of exiting nerve root dorsal root ganglion irritation.
METHODS
A systematic review of the ICELF technique was conducted from March 2000 to March 2022. Articles were selected with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Eligibility of studies was independently determined by 2 reviewers, and disagreements were resolved by a third author.
RESULTS
Eight retrospective cohort studies comprising 194 patients with foraminal stenosis who underwent uniportal ICELF were selected for systematic review. Mean age range was 62-79 years, and surgical duration was 48-73.5 minutes. There was significant improvement in Oswestry Disability Index and visual analog scale leg pain score in the included studies. Four studies met the minimum clinically significant difference for leg pain, with visual analog scale improved >5 points and Oswestry Disability Index improved >8.2 points. Four studies reported a majority of the operated patients with good or excellent outcomes following surgery, with a low rate of complications in the studies selected.
CONCLUSIONS
There is low-level evidence that ICELF when performed by an experienced spinal endoscopic surgeon is effective in providing pain relief and improved function with low rate of complications in select patients.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Aged; Foraminotomy; Retrospective Studies; Constriction, Pathologic; Lumbar Vertebrae; Spinal Stenosis; Endoscopy; Radiculopathy; Pain; Decompression, Surgical; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36527218
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.04.130 -
International Journal of Environmental... Nov 2022I read with interest the article by Kuligowski et al., 2021 published in the Journal [...].
I read with interest the article by Kuligowski et al., 2021 published in the Journal [...].
Topics: Public Health; Musculoskeletal Manipulations
PubMed: 36497686
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192315613 -
Pain Management Nursing : Official... Apr 2023To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) mind-body therapies in patients with neuropathic pain. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) mind-body therapies in patients with neuropathic pain.
DESIGN
This systematic review was undertaken according to the PRISMA 2020 statement.
DATA SOURCES
We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in seven English databases and four Chinese databases up to March 2022.
REVIEW/ANALYSIS METHODS
The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 was used for the quality assessment, and the mean difference with a 95% confidence interval for data pooling. The review was registered in the INPLASY (INPLASY202240016).
RESULTS
Twenty-three RCTs were identified, including 1,693 patients with lumbar herniated discs (LHD), cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR), sympathetic cervical spondylosis (SCS), trigeminal neuralgia, and central poststroke pain. Pooled results showed that for LHD, TCM mind-body therapy used alone (MD: -0.57, [-0.77, -0.36], P<0.01, week 8) or combined with physiotherapy (MD: -1.02, [-1.12, -0.91], P<0.01, week 4) showed advantages over physiotherapy alone on pain relief. However, there was no statistical difference on physical function. For CSR, TCM mind-body movement combined with physiotherapy had better effect than physiotherapy alone on pain relief (MD: -1.15, [-1.37, -0.94], P<0.01, week 4). Six trials reported safety. Nausea, dizziness, fatigue, and pain at the acupuncture point were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Low-quality evidence showed that TCM mind-body therapies might reduce pain intensity and improve physical function when used as an adjuvant therapy or monotherapy. There is a need to conduct high-quality trials to confirm the effectiveness and safety of TCM mind-body therapies for neuropathic pain.
Topics: Humans; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Neuralgia; Mind-Body Therapies; Pain Management
PubMed: 36400656
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmn.2022.10.003 -
The Spine Journal : Official Journal of... May 2023Currently, there are no published studies that compare nonpharmacological, pharmacological and invasive treatments for chronic low back pain in adults and provide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Currently, there are no published studies that compare nonpharmacological, pharmacological and invasive treatments for chronic low back pain in adults and provide summary statistics for benefits and harms.
PURPOSE
The aim of this review was to compare the benefits and harms of treatments for the management of chronic low back pain without radiculopathy and to report the findings in a format that facilitates direct comparison (Benefit-Harm Scale: level 1 to 7).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, including trial registries, from electronic databases up to 23 May 2022.
PATIENT SAMPLE
Adults with chronic nonspecific low back pain, excluding radicular pain, in any clinical setting.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Comparison of pain at immediate-term (≤2 weeks) and short-term (>2 weeks to ≤12 weeks) and serious adverse events using the Benefit-Harm Scale (level 1 to 7).
METHODS
This was a registered systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Interventions included nonpharmacological (acupuncture, spinal manipulation), pharmacological and invasive treatments compared to placebo. Best evidence criteria was used. Two independent reviewers conducted eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality appraisal.
RESULTS
The search retrieved 17,362 records. Three studies provided data on the benefits of interventions, and 30 provided data on harms. Studies included interventions of acupuncture (n=8); manipulation (n=2); pharmacological therapies (n=9), including NSAIDs and opioid analgesics; surgery (n=8); and epidural corticosteroid injections (n=3). Acupuncture (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.51, 95%CI -0.88 to -0.14, n=1 trial, moderate quality of evidence, benefit rating of 3) and manipulation (SMD -0.39, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.21, n=2 trials, moderate quality of evidence, benefit rating of 5) were effective in reducing pain intensity compared to sham. The benefit of the other interventions was scored as uncertain due to not being effective, statistical heterogeneity preventing pooling of effect sizes, or the absence of relevant trials. The harms level warnings were at the lowest (eg, indicating rarer risk of events) for acupuncture, spinal manipulation, NSAIDs, combination ingredient opioids, and steroid injections, while they were higher for single ingredient opioid analgesics (level 4) and surgery (level 6).
CONCLUSIONS
There is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of all the interventions reviewed due to the lack of trials conducted in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain without radiculopathy. From the limited trials conducted, nonpharmacological interventions of acupuncture and spinal manipulation provide safer benefits than pharmacological or invasive interventions. However, more research is needed. There were high harms ratings for opioids and surgery.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Low Back Pain; Radiculopathy; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Pain
PubMed: 36400393
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.11.003 -
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation Mar 2023Neuromobilization exercises (NE) could be a useful therapeutic tool to induce analgesia and increase function and range of motion (ROM) in patients with musculoskeletal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Neuromobilization exercises (NE) could be a useful therapeutic tool to induce analgesia and increase function and range of motion (ROM) in patients with musculoskeletal pathologies with neuropathic components; however, the effectiveness of this intervention in patients with cervical radiculopathy (CR) is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effectiveness of NE in CR on pain, function, and ROM.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE, Scopus, PEDro, and EBSCO databases from inception until June 2022. The authors included randomized clinical trials that evaluated the effectiveness of NE against control groups or other interventions that aimed to treat patients with CR.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Seven clinical trials met the eligibility criteria, and for the quantitative synthesis, 5 studies were included. For the studies that compared NE with a control group, the standardized mean difference for pain was -1.33/10 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.80 to -0.86; P < .01; I2 = 0%), for function with the Neck Disability Index was -1.21/50 (95% CI, -1.67 to -0.75; P < .01; I2 = 0%), and for neck flexion and extensions was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.23 to 1.10; P < .01; I2 = 0%) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.04 to 0.90; P < .01; I2 = 0%), respectively, with evidence of clinical effectiveness. These findings were based on moderate-quality evidence according to the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation rating. In studies that compared NE with other interventions, the meta-analysis failed to demonstrate the statistical or clinical superiority of NE.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate quality of evidence suggests that NE may be superior to no treatment for pain, function, and ROM in patients with CR. In contrast, NE are not superior to other interventions in the same outcomes, based on low- to very low-quality evidence. More high-quality research is needed to assess the consistency of these results.
Topics: Humans; Radiculopathy; Exercise Therapy; Pain Management; Range of Motion, Articular; Pain
PubMed: 36395760
DOI: 10.1123/jsr.2022-0259 -
Pain Physician Nov 2022Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is the main cause of low back pain and/or radiculopathy. Currently, epidural intervention is a widely used and effective conservative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is the main cause of low back pain and/or radiculopathy. Currently, epidural intervention is a widely used and effective conservative treatment method for managing low back and radicular pain caused by LDH.
OBJECTIVES
To explore the effectiveness of different epidural injection approaches in adult patients with lumbosacral radicular pain.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS
An electronic literature search was performed in the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Two authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. A Bayesian random effects model was conducted to incorporate the estimates of direct and indirect treatment comparisons and rank the interventions in order. Effect estimates from Bayesian NMA were presented as mean difference (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI).
RESULTS
This NMA assessed caudal (C), interlaminar (IL), transforaminal (TF) and parasagittal interlaminar (PIL) epidural injection approaches for lumbosacral radicular pain from 7 trials. A statistically significant treatment difference for pain relief was reported for midline interlaminar (MIL) vs PIL (MD, 1.16; 95%CrI, 0.31-2.06), MIL vs TF (MD, 1.12; 95%CrI, 0.51-1.85), C vs TF (MD, 1.07; 95%CrI, 0.01-2.18) in short-term follow-up and MIL vs TF (MD, 1.8; 95% CrI, 0.3-3.48) in intermediate-term follow-up. For functional improvement, a statistically significant difference was observed with MIL vs PIL (MD, 9.9; 95% CrI, 0.64-19.94) and MIL vs TF (MD, 1.08; 95% CrI, 1.08-17.08) in short-term follow-up. Moreover, the PIL approach and TF appeoach were ranked in the top 2 for pain relief and functional improvement, both in short-term and intermediate-term follow-up.
LIMITATIONS
1) The number of studies included was small; 2) some treatments lacked direct comparisons; 3) only scores from the visual analog scale for pain and the Oswestry Disability Index were included in the result; 4) important outcomes, such as complications, were not included.
CONCLUSION
In short-term and intermediate-term follow-up, the PIL approach has the highest probability for pain relief and functional improvement.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Injections, Epidural; Radiculopathy; Low Back Pain; Back Pain; Intervertebral Disc Displacement
PubMed: 36375181
DOI: No ID Found -
Biomedicines Nov 2022Back pain with radicular symptoms is associated with detrimental physical and emotional functioning and economic burden. Conservative treatments including physical,... (Review)
Review
Back pain with radicular symptoms is associated with detrimental physical and emotional functioning and economic burden. Conservative treatments including physical, pharmacologic and injection therapy may not provide clinically significant or long-standing relief. Regenerative medicine research including Platelet rich plasma (PRP), Platelet lysate (PL) or Plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) continues to develop, however evidence appraisal for treatment of radicular pain remains lacking. Thus, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections containing PRP or related products to treat radicular pain. Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar databases were queried. Twelve studies were included in qualitative analysis, consisting of three randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies. The primary outcome was pain intensity, and secondary outcomes included functional improvement, anatomical changes on advanced imaging, and adverse events. All studies identified improved pain intensity and functional outcomes after epidural injection of PRP, PRGF and/or PL. Similar or longer lasting pain relief was noted in the PRP cohort compared to the cohort receiving epidural steroid injections with effects lasting up to 12-24 months. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis revealed a very-low certainty of evidence due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.
PubMed: 36359333
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10112813