Systematic reviews related to this topic

loading
4 References (4 articles) loading Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

Management of lumbar zygapophysial (facet) joint pain.

blocked
Journal World journal of orthopedics
Year 2016
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 12 Primary studies 12 Primary studies (12 references)

Loading references information
AIM: To investigate the diagnostic validity and therapeutic value of lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain. METHODS: The review process applied systematic evidence-based assessment methodology of controlled trials of diagnostic validity and randomized controlled trials of therapeutic efficacy. Inclusion criteria encompassed all facet joint interventions performed in a controlled fashion. The pain relief of greater than 50% was the outcome measure for diagnostic accuracy assessment of the controlled studies with ability to perform previously painful movements, whereas, for randomized controlled therapeutic efficacy studies, the primary outcome was significant pain relief and the secondary outcome was a positive change in functional status. For the inclusion of the diagnostic controlled studies, all studies must have utilized either placebo controlled facet joint blocks or comparative local anesthetic blocks. In assessing therapeutic interventions, short-term and long-term reliefs were defined as either up to 6 mo or greater than 6 mo of relief. The literature search was extensive utilizing various types of electronic search media including PubMed from 1966 onwards, Cochrane library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, clinicaltrials.gov, along with other sources including previous systematic reviews, non-indexed journals, and abstracts until March 2015. Each manuscript included in the assessment was assessed for methodologic quality or risk of bias assessment utilizing the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies checklist for diagnostic interventions, and Cochrane review criteria and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment tool for therapeutic interventions. Evidence based on the review of the systematic assessment of controlled studies was graded utilizing a modified schema of qualitative evidence with best evidence synthesis, variable from level I to level V. RESULTS: Across all databases, 16 high quality diagnostic accuracy studies were identified. In addition, multiple studies assessed the influence of multiple factors on diagnostic validity. In contrast to diagnostic validity studies, therapeutic efficacy trials were limited to a total of 14 randomized controlled trials, assessing the efficacy of intraarticular injections, facet or zygapophysial joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy of the innervation of the facet joints. The evidence for the diagnostic validity of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with at least 75% pain relief with ability to perform previously painful movements was level I, based on a range of level I to V derived from a best evidence synthesis. For therapeutic interventions, the evidence was variable from level II to III, with level II evidence for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy for long-term improvement (greater than 6 mo), and level III evidence for lumbosacral zygapophysial joint injections for short-term improvement only. CONCLUSION: This review provides significant evidence for the diagnostic validity of facet joint nerve blocks, and moderate evidence for therapeutic radiofrequency neurotomy and therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in managing chronic low back pain.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Injection therapy and denervation procedures for chronic low-back pain: A systematic review

blocked
Journal European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
Year 2010
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 24 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference) 2 Broad syntheses 24 Broad syntheses (2 references)

This article includes 24 Primary studies 24 Primary studies (24 references)

Loading references information
Injection therapy and denervation procedures are commonly used in the management of chronic low-back pain (LBP) despite uncertainty regarding their effectiveness and safety. To provide an evaluation of the current evidence associated with the use of these procedures, a systematic review was performed. Existing systematic reviews were screened, and the Cochrane Back Review Group trial register was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they recruited adults with chronic LBP, evaluated the use of injection therapy or denervation procedures and measured at least one clinically relevant outcome (such as pain or functional status). Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias (RoB). A meta-analysis was performed with clinically homogeneous studies, and the GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total, 27 RCTs were included, 14 on injection therapy and 13 on denervation procedures. 18 (66%) of the studies were determined to have a low RoB. Because of clinical heterogeneity, only two comparisons could be pooled. Overall, there is only low to very low quality evidence to support the use of injection therapy and denervation procedures over placebo or other treatments for patients with chronic LBP. However, it cannot be ruled out that in carefully selected patients, some injection therapy or denervation procedures may be of benefit. © 2010 The Author(s).

Systematic review

Unclassified

Analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain: A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials

Journal Rheumatology (Oxford, England)
Year 2009
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 76 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference)

This article includes 76 Primary studies 76 Primary studies (76 references)

Loading references information
Objective. Estimates of treatment effects reported in placebo-controlled randomized trials are less subject to bias than those estimates provided by other study designs. The objective of this meta-analysis was to estimate the analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain reported in placebo-controlled randomized trials. Methods. Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsychInfo and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for eligible trials from earliest records to November 2006. Continuous pain outcomes were converted to a common 0 - 100 scale and pooled using a random effects model. Results. A total of 76 trials reporting on 34 treatments were included. Fifty percent of the investigated treatments had statistically significant effects, but for most the effects were small or moderate: 47% had point estimates of effects of <10 points on the 100-point scale, 38% had point estimates from 10 to 20 points and 15% had point estimates of >20 points. Treatments reported to have large effects (>20 points) had been investigated only in a single trial. Conclusions. This meta-analysis revealed that the analgesic effects of many treatments for non-specific low back pain are small and that they do not differ in populations with acute or chronic symptoms. © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Injection therapy for subacute and chronic low-back pain

blocked
Journal Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)
Year 2008
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 1 Broad synthesis 19 Broad syntheses (1 reference)

This article includes 19 Primary studies 19 Primary studies (19 references)

Loading references information
Background: The effectiveness of injection therapy for low-back pain is still debatable. Heterogeneity of target tissue, pharmacological agent and dosage generally found in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) points to the need for clinically valid comparisons in a literature synthesis. Objectives: To determine if injection therapy is more effective than placebo or other treatments for patients with subacute or chronic low-back pain. Search strategy: We updated the search of the earlier systematic review and searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 1999 to March 2007 for relevant trials reported in English, French, German, Dutch and Nordic languages. We also screened references from trials identified. Selection criteria: RCTs on the effects of injection therapy involving epidural, facet or local sites for subacute or chronic low-back pain were included. Studies which compared the effects of intradiscal injections, prolotherapy or Ozone therapy with other treatments, were excluded unless injection therapy with another pharmaceutical agent (no placebo treatment) was part of one of the treatment arms. Studies about injections in sacroiliac joints and studies evaluating the effects of epidural steroids for radicular pain were also excluded. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed the quality of the trials. If study data were clinically and statistically too heterogeneous to perform a meta-analysis, we used a best evidence synthesis to summarize the results. The evidence was classified into five levels (strong, moderate, limited, conflicting or no evidence), taking into account the methodological quality of the studies. Main results: 18 trials (1179 participants) were included in this updated review. The injection sites varied from epidural sites and facet joints (i.e. intra-articular injections, peri-articular injections and nerve blocks) to local sites (i.e. tender- and trigger points). The drugs that were studied consisted of corticosteroids, local anesthetics and a variety of other drugs. The methodological quality of the trials was limited with 10 out of 18 trials rated as having a high methodological quality. Statistical pooling was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity in the trials. Overall, the results indicated that there is no strong evidence for or against the use of any type of injection therapy. Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of injection therapy in subacute and chronic low-back pain. However, it cannot be ruled out that specific subgroups of patients may respond to a specific type of injection therapy. Copyright © 2008 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.