-
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions.
METHODS
We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point. Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes). Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects. Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant. Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review. Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Pain; Exercise Therapy; Health Services Needs and Demand; Humans; Myalgia; Pain Measurement; Patient Compliance; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28436583
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011279.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions.
METHODS
We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point. Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes). Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects. Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant. Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review. Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Pain; Exercise; Exercise Movement Techniques; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Myalgia; Pain Measurement; Patient Compliance; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28087891
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011279.pub2 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Oct 2017Intermittent claudication (IC) is frequently associated with deterioration in walking capacity and physical function, and it can often result in an impairment in... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Intermittent claudication (IC) is frequently associated with deterioration in walking capacity and physical function, and it can often result in an impairment in balance. Whereas supervised exercise is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as the first-line treatment, the mechanism behind walking improvement is poorly understood. The existing literature suggests that there may be some physiologic change to the skeletal muscle contributing to the functional impairment, but these data are conflicting. We therefore sought to undertake a systematic review to clarify the muscle properties of patients with IC.
METHODS
A systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized trials that investigated the role of muscle function in patients diagnosed with IC was undertaken using MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase databases. The searches were limited from 1947 to June 2016 in the English language.
RESULTS
The search yielded a total of 506 articles, of which 206 were duplicate articles. Of the remaining 300, a total of 201 were excluded from full-text analysis; 99 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, with 30 articles deemed appropriate for inclusion in the review. There were four main categories of functional outcome measures: muscle strength, muscle size, muscle fiber type, and muscle metabolism. A total of 2837 patients were included in the study. Nine studies reported on muscle strength, incorporating isometric, concentric, eccentric, and endurance measures. Eight studies reported on muscle size, incorporating circumference, computed tomography scans, and ultrasound imaging techniques. Eleven studies reported on muscle fibers, incorporating fiber type proportions, fiber size, and capillarity measures. Seven papers reported on muscle metabolism, incorporating adenosine diphosphate recovery and phosphocreatine recovery measures.
CONCLUSIONS
Previous literature has found clear evidence that strength (of the calf and thigh musculature) and calf characteristics are related to mortality and functional declines. However, this review has demonstrated the vast array of muscle groups assessed and multiple methods employed to determine strength; therefore, it is unclear exactly what measure of "strength" is impaired. Furthermore, the underlying morphologic causes of potential changes in strength are unclear. This information is essential for designing optimal exercise interventions. The data acquired during this systematic review are heterogeneous, with a substantial lack of high-quality intervention-based studies. Future research should endeavor to establish standardized testing procedures and to implement randomized controlled trials for targeted therapeutic interventions.
Topics: Aged; Angioplasty; Exercise Therapy; Exercise Tolerance; Female; Humans; Intermittent Claudication; Lower Extremity; Male; Middle Aged; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Peripheral Arterial Disease; Recovery of Function; Treatment Outcome; Walking
PubMed: 28822657
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.05.106 -
PloS One 2022To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cilostazol, pentoxifylline, beraprost for intermittent claudication due to lower extremity arterial occlusive disease. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cilostazol, pentoxifylline, beraprost for intermittent claudication due to lower extremity arterial occlusive disease.
METHODS
Randomized controlled clinical trials were identified from PubMed, Scopus, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, Wanfang and Chongqing VIP databases, from the database inception to 31/12/2021. The outcome measures were walking distance measured by treadmill (maximum and pain-free walking distance), ankle-brachial index and adverse events. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool. A network meta-analysis was carried out with Stata 16.0 software.
RESULTS
There were 29 RCTs included in the study, covering total 5352 patients. Cilostazol was ranked first for both maximum and pain-free walking distance, followed by beraprost and pentoxifylline. For cilostazol, pentoxifylline and beraprost, maximum walking distance increased by 62.93 95%CI(44.06, 81.79), 32.72 95%CI(13.51, 55.79) and 43.90 95%CI(2.10, 85.71) meters, respectively relative to placebo, and pain-free walking distance increased by 23.92 95%CI(11.24, 36.61), 15.16 95%CI(2.33, 27.99) and 19.78 95%CI(-3.07, 42.62) meters. For cilostazol, pentoxifylline, beraprost and cilostazol combined with beraprost, ankle-brachial index increased by 0.06 95%CI(0.04, 0.07), -0.01 95%CI(-0.08, 0.05), 0.18 95%CI(0.12, 0.23) and 0.23 95%CI(0.18, 0.27), respectively relative to placebo. The pentoxifylline and cilostazol was associated with a lower ratio of adverse events than beraprost and cilostazol combined with beraprost.
CONCLUSION
Cilostazol, pentoxifylline and beraprost were all effective treatments for intermittent claudication; cilostazol with good tolerance was likely to be the most effective in walking distance, while beraprost and cilostazol combined with beraprost were more prominent in the ankle-brachial index.
Topics: Humans; Cilostazol; Intermittent Claudication; Network Meta-Analysis; Pentoxifylline; Vasodilator Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36318524
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275392 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Feb 2018High-pressure intermittent limb compression (HPILC) has been proposed as an alternative treatment of disabling intermittent claudication. The objective of this study was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
High-pressure intermittent limb compression (HPILC) has been proposed as an alternative treatment of disabling intermittent claudication. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of HPILC in improving walking distance in patients with intermittent claudication.
METHODS
A search through December 31, 2016, was performed to identify all randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of HPILC for the management of intermittent claudication. Applicable studies were assessed for quality and pooled using Cochrane systematic review guidelines. The primary outcome measured was absolute claudication distance (ACD). A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Eight studies eligible for inclusion were identified. These studies had a combined total of 290 subjects, 172 of whom were randomized to HPILC. All studies identified an increase in walking distance for subjects receiving compression therapy. On meta-analysis, the mean difference of ACD from baseline to follow-up among subjects receiving compression compared with controls was 125 m (95% confidence interval, 58.38-191.63 m; P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS
HPILC is associated with a significant increase in ACD compared with controls. Limb compression appears to be an effective, noninvasive treatment option for patients with intermittent claudication. However, there are few studies comparing limb compression with other commonly used therapies. Further studies are needed to better guide the use of HPILC in the treatment of claudication.
Topics: Chi-Square Distribution; Exercise Tolerance; Humans; Intermittent Claudication; Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Devices; Pressure; Recovery of Function; Regional Blood Flow; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Walking
PubMed: 29389425
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.11.044 -
Cureus May 2023The current literature strongly supports the use of supervised exercise therapy (SET) as the first-line treatment for symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) such... (Review)
Review
The current literature strongly supports the use of supervised exercise therapy (SET) as the first-line treatment for symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) such as intermittent claudication (IC). However, this form of treatment remains underutilised in clinical practice. The home-based exercise therapy (HBET), in which patients must conduct themselves unsupervised is generally less effective than SET in terms of improving functional walking capacity. Nevertheless, it may be a useful alternative where SET is unavailable. The objective of this systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of HBET in reducing symptoms of IC in patients with PAD. Studies eligible for inclusion in this systematic review were parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the English language that compared the effect of HBET to a comparator arm (SET or no exercise/attention control) in adults with PAD and IC. Studies were eligible if outcome measures were available at baseline and at 12 weeks of follow-up or more. The electronic databases PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the earliest records up to January 2021. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for RCTs (RoB 2) was used to assess the risk of bias in individual studies, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) classification system was used to appraise the quality of evidence for each outcome across all studies. The primary investigator independently collected, pooled, and analysed the data. The data was then entered into the ReviewManager 5 (RevMan 5) software, and a meta-analysis was performed by using a fixed or random effects model depending on the presence or absence of statistical heterogeneity. The review author identified seven RCTs involving a total of 754 patients which were included in this study. Overall, the risk of bias in the included studies was moderate. Even though the results were variable, this analysis supported the ability of HBET to improve functional walking capacity and self-reported quality of life (QoL) to an extent. This review shows that a home-based exercise intervention with regular professional support and encouragement is beneficial in improving functional walking capacity as well as some aspects of QoL in patients with PAD and IC when compared to no exercise. However, when HBET is compared to hospital-based supervised exercise intervention, SET yields greater benefits.
PubMed: 37384085
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.39206 -
Yakugaku Zasshi : Journal of the... Nov 2004To clarify contradictions in past reports and the package inserts for beta-adrenergic blocking agents (beta-blockers) for patients with intermittent claudication (IC),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To clarify contradictions in past reports and the package inserts for beta-adrenergic blocking agents (beta-blockers) for patients with intermittent claudication (IC), we investigated the effects of beta-blockers in patients with IC using the systematic review technique. Data sources were randomized, controlled trials that investigated the effects of beta-blockers compared with the placebo or untreated group (controls) in patients with IC. Primary endpoints were walking distance and walking time, and secondary endpoints were ankle-brachial index (ABI) and calf blood flow. Nine trials were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis showed that there was a significant worsening in maximal walking distance and initial claudication distance in patients receiving beta-blockers, with standardized mean differences of -0.31 and -0.39 (95% confidence interval -0.58 to -0.04 and -0.73 to -0.06, P=0.03 and 0.02, respectively) compared with controls. There were no significant differences in maximal walking time (0.07, -0.24 to 0.37), time to onset of claudication (0.12, -0.23 to 0.47), ABI at rest (0.24, -0.30 to 0.78), calf blood flow at rest (0.00, -0.26 to 0.25), and calf blood flow after exercise (-0.23, -0.69 to 0.22). However, only one trial evaluated ABI, and the number of cases is increasing, suggesting that beta-blockers do not worsen ABI. There was no evidence that beta-blockers prescribed for patients with IC have unsuitable "precautions" in the package inserts. However, reluctance to administer beta-blockers to patients because they have IC is not appropriate.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Ankle; Blood Flow Velocity; Brachial Artery; Drug Monitoring; Endpoint Determination; Exercise; Humans; Intermittent Claudication; Leg; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rest; Walking
PubMed: 15516809
DOI: 10.1248/yakushi.124.825 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Oct 2011Despite an increasing implantation rate of interspinous process distraction (IPD) devices in the treatment of intermittent neurogenic claudication (INC), definitive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Despite an increasing implantation rate of interspinous process distraction (IPD) devices in the treatment of intermittent neurogenic claudication (INC), definitive evidence on the clinical effectiveness of implants is lacking. The main objective of this review was to perform a meta-analysis of all systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort series to quantify the effectiveness of IPDs and to evaluate the potential side-effects.
METHODS
Data from all studies prospectively describing clinical results based on validated outcome scales and reporting complications of treatment of patients with INC with IPD placement. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, Science Direct up to July 2010. Studies describing patients with INC caused by lumbar stenosis, reporting complication rate and reporting based on validated outcome scores, were eligible. Studies with only instrumented IPD results were excluded.
RESULTS
Eleven studies eligible studies were identified. Two independently RCTs and eight prospective cohorts were available. In total 563 patients were treated with IPDs. All studies showed improvement in validated outcome scores after 6 weeks and 1 year. Pooled data based on the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire of the RCTs were more in favor of IPD treatment compared with conservative treatment (pooled estimate 23.2, SD 18.5-27.8). Statistical heterogeneity after pooled data was low (I-squared 0.0, p = 0.930). Overall complication rate was 7%.
CONCLUSION
As the evidence is relatively low and the costs are high, more thorough (cost-) effectiveness studies should be performed before worldwide implementation is introduced.
Topics: Humans; Intermittent Claudication; Lumbar Vertebrae; Prostheses and Implants; Spinal Fusion; Spinal Stenosis
PubMed: 21667130
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1873-8