OBJECTIVE: Determine the relative effectiveness and safety profiles of percutaneous and minimally invasive interventions for chronic low back pain.
METHODS: A systematic search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the past 20 years reporting on radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the basivertebral, disc annulus and facet nerve structures, steroid injection of the disc, facet joint and medial branch, biologic therapies, and multifidus muscle stimulation. Outcomes evaluated included Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, quality of life (SF-36 and EQ-5D) scores and serious adverse event (SAE) rates. Basivertebral nerve (BVN) ablation was chosen as the subject of comparison to all other therapies using a random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included. BVN ablation was found to provide significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores for 6-, 12- and 24-months follow-up (P≤0.05). Biologic therapy and multifidus muscle stimulation were the only two treatments with both VAS and ODI outcomes not significantly different from BVN ablation at 6-, 12- and 24-months follow-up. All outcomes found to be statistically significant represented inferior results to those of BVN ablation. Insufficient data precluded meaningful comparisons of SF-36 and EQ-5D scores. The SAE rates for all therapies and all reported time points were not significantly different from BVN ablation except for biologic therapy and multifidus muscle stimulation at 6-months follow- up.
CONCLUSIONS: BVN ablation, biologic therapy and multifidus stimulation all provide significant, durable improvements in both pain and disability compared to other interventions, which provided only short-term pain relief. Studies on BVN ablation reported no SAEs, a significantly better result than for studies of biologic therapy and multifidus stimulation.
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To review and indirectly compare the outcomes of genicular artery embolization (GAE), radiofrequency (RF) ablation, and intra-articular (IA) injection for the treatment of knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review of the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was conducted with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement in June 2020. The visual analog scale (VAS) was recorded at baseline and at all available time points for each therapy. Standard mean differences were calculated at each time point and compared between treatments to assess the magnitude of the treatment effect. RESULTS: All 3 treatments demonstrated significant differences in VAS scores after therapy. RF ablation produced the greatest significant mean reduction in relative VAS score from baseline at 1 year of follow-up (mean, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.59; P = .03). GAE reported the most significant reductions in VAS scores across all measured time points. Overall, the comparison did not demonstrate a significant difference in VAS scores among patients receiving IA injections, RF ablation, and GAE. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence does not suggest a significant difference in outcomes among IA injection, RF ablation, and GAE for knee pain secondary to OA.
BACKGROUND: Observational studies have shown percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure to be a safe means of reducing the frequency and duration of migraine.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of PFO closure in patients with migraine using evidence-based medicine.
METHODS: The Pubmed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and retrospective case series from January 1, 2001, to February 30, 2021. The Jadad scale and R 4.1.0 software were used to assess the quality of the literature and meta-analysis, respectively.
RESULTS: In total, three randomized controlled trials, one pooled study, and eight retrospective case series including 1,165 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with control intervention in migraine, PFO closure could significantly reduce headache frequency (OR = 1.5698, 95% CI: 1.0465-2.3548, p=0.0293) and monthly migraine attacks and monthly migraine days (OR = 0.2594, 95% CI: 0.0790-0.4398, p=0.0048). Subgroup analysis of patients who all completed PFO surgery showed resolution of migraine headache for migraines with aura (OR = 1.5856, 95% CI: 1.0665-2.3575, p=0.0227).
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with PFO closure could reduce the frequency of headaches and monthly migraine days and is an efficient treatment for migraine attacks with aura.
INTRODUCTION: The Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade is the most commonly used measure of radiographic disease severity in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Studies suggest that intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) should only be considered in cases of early stage knee OA. The purpose of this review was to determine if trials administering IA-HA in early-moderate knee OA patients demonstrated greater pain relief than studies that also included patients with end-stage disease.METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing IA-HA with saline injections and that diagnosed disease severity using the K-L grade criteria. The primary outcome was mean change in pain from baseline at 4-13 weeks and 22-27 weeks. Safety was evaluated on the total number of participants experiencing a treatment-related adverse event (AE).RESULTS: Twenty RCTs were included. In the early-moderate OA subgroup, the mean change in pain scores was statistically significant favoring IA-HA from baseline to 4-13 weeks [SMD = - 0.30, 95% CI - 0.44 to - 0.15, p < 0.0001] and within 22-27 weeks [SMD = - 0.27, 95% CI - 0.39 to - 0.16, p < 0.00001]. No significant differences were observed in the late OA subgroup. IA-HA was associated with a significantly greater risk of treatment-related AEs relative to saline in the late OA subgroup [RR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.16-2.67, p = 0.008].CONCLUSION: IA-HA provides significant pain relief compared to saline for patients with early-moderate knee OA, compared to cohorts including patients with end-stage OA (KL grade 4), with no increase in the risk of treatment-related AEs, up to 6 months. Patients with end-stage disease had lower levels of pain relief and may be diluting study results if included in the treatment cohort.Funding: Ferring Pharmaceuticals.
INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a significant health problem with lifetime risk of development estimated to be 45%. Effective nonsurgical treatments are needed for the management of symptoms.
METHODS: We designed a network meta-analysis to determine clinically relevant effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA platelet-rich plasma, and IA hyaluronic acid compared with each other as well as with oral and IA placebos. We used PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to perform a systematic search of KOA treatments with no date limits and last search on October 7, 2015. Article inclusion criteria considered the following: target population, randomized controlled study design, English language, human subjects, treatments and outcomes of interest, ≥30 patients per group, and consistent follow-up. Using the best available evidence, two abstractors independently extracted pain and function data at or near the most common follow-up time.
RESULTS: For pain, all active treatments showed significance over oral placebo, with IA corticosteroids having the largest magnitude of effect and significant difference only over IA placebo. For function, no IA treatments showed significance compared with either placebo, and naproxen was the only treatment showing clinical significance compared with oral placebo. Cumulative probabilities showed naproxen to be the most effective individual treatment, and when combined with IA corticosteroids, it is the most probable to improve pain and function.
DISCUSSION: Naproxen ranked most effective among conservative treatments of KOA and should be considered when treating pain and function because of its relative safety and low cost. The best available evidence was analyzed, but there were instances of inconsistency in the design and duration among articles, potentially affecting uniform data inclusion.
Journal»Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association
PURPOSE: We aimed to determine if the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated in the most recent meta-analysis on arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis included documented trials of appropriate conservative treatment prior to randomization.
METHODS: We selected all RCTs of the most recent meta-analysis by Brignardello-Petersen and recorded for each RCT, if physiotherapy prior to randomization was mandatory. We compared the treatment effect of arthroscopy in studies in which physiotherapy prior to randomization was mandatory versus studies in which it was not. This review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017070091).
RESULTS: Of the 13 RCTs in the meta-analysis, there were 2 in which physiotherapy prior to randomization was mandatory. In 1 additional multicenter RCT, prior conservative treatment was mentioned as mandatory in the publication, but not in the protocol. The treatment effects attributed to arthroscopy in terms of short-term pain (P = .0037), short-term function (P = .0309), and long-term function (P = .0012) were larger in studies in which prior physiotherapy was mandatory.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the most recent meta-analysis claims that it is based "on patients who do not respond to conservative treatment," physiotherapy was mandatory prior to randomization only in 2 of the 13 studies. As several orthopaedic guidelines recommend that the first line of treatment in patients with degenerative arthritis of the knee should be conservative, for instance with physiotherapy, and the question of performing arthroscopy arises once conservative treatment fails, 11 of the 13 RCTs failed to adhere to these accepted guidelines. Therefore, patient selection in these 11 studies may not represent the typical indications for arthroscopy, where patients have tried conservative management prior to being offered surgery. When comparing studies where prior physiotherapy was mandatory to studies in which it was not mandatory, there were statistically significant effects favoring arthroscopy in terms of pain in the short term, and for function both in the short and the long term. These findings suggest that the treatment effects attributed to arthroscopy were higher when prior physiotherapy was mandatory. Given these findings, the external validity of most of these RCTs, and the resulting "strong recommendation against the use of arthroscopy in nearly all patients with degenerative knee disease," is called into question.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.
BACKGROUND: Pain and limitations in joint mobility associated with knee osteoarthritis (OA) are clinically challenging to manage, and advanced progression of disease can often lead to total knee arthroplasty. Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA), also referred to as viscosupplementation, is a non-surgical treatment approach for OA, the effectiveness of which may depend on the HA composition, and the length of time over which it resides in the joint. One of the available options for such therapies includes NASHA (Durolane HA), a non-animal, biofermentation-derived product, which is manufactured using a process that stabilizes the HA molecules to slow down their rate of degradation and produce a unique formulation with a terminal half-life of ~1 month. The objectives of the current review were to assess, in patients with OA of the knee, the efficacy and safety of intra-articular treatment with NASHA relative to control (saline) injections, other HA products, and other injectables (corticosteroids, platelet-rich plasma, mesenchymal stem cells).
METHODS: This systematic evidence review examines patient outcomes following NASHA treatment as described in published data from studies conducted in subjects with knee OA. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-compliant literature search strategy yielded 11 eligible clinical studies with a variety of comparator arms. Outcomes assessed at various time points following intra-articular treatment included measures of pain, function, quality of life, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS: The available evidence reported for the clinical studies assessed demonstrates sustained and effective relief of knee OA symptoms following a single injection of NASHA. In addition, an excellent biocompatibility profile is observed for NASHA as an intra-articular therapy for OA, as reflected by the low rate of AEs associated with treatment.
CONCLUSION: Treatment with NASHA is an effective and safe single-injection procedure, which can be beneficial in the clinical management of knee OA.
INTRODUCTION: Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a commonly prescribed intra-articular (IA) therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA). While a single series of IA-HA has been well studied, the efficacy and safety of repeated courses of IA-HA injection therapy in knee OA patients have not been evaluated as frequently.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed databases. The primary outcome measure was knee pain reduction after each treatment course and/or last reported follow-up visit. Secondary outcomes were treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs).
RESULTS: A total of 17 articles (7 RCTs and 10 cohort studies) met the pre-defined inclusion criteria. Of the RCTs, six were double-blind with two trials including open label extension studies, and one was single-blind. Studies ranged from investigating a single reinjection cycle to four repeat injection cycles. Eleven studies evaluated one reinjection, five studies evaluated ≥2 repeated courses of IA-HA, and one study allowed either one or two repeated courses. All studies reported pain reduction from baseline in the IA-HA treatment group throughout the initial treatment cycle, and either sustained or further reduced pain throughout the repeated courses of treatment. The study with the longest follow-up repeated IA-HA injection every 6 months for 25 months. Pain decreased after the first course and continued to decrease until the end of the study, with an approximate 55% reduction in pain compared to baseline. Common AEs were joint swelling and arthralgia; there were no reported SAEs. All repeated courses were well tolerated, and the number of documented AEs and SAEs was similar to the primary injection regimens.
CONCLUSION: Repeated courses of IA-HA injections are an effective and safe treatment for knee OA. Repeat courses were demonstrated to maintain or further improve pain reduction while introducing no increased safety risk.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous vertebroplasty remains widely used to treat osteoporotic vertebral fractures although our 2015 Cochrane review did not support its role in routine practice.
OBJECTIVES: To update the available evidence of the benefits and harms of vertebroplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures.
SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase and trial registries to 15 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures, comparing vertebroplasty with placebo (sham), usual care, or another intervention. As it is least prone to bias, vertebroplasty compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Major outcomes were mean overall pain, disability, disease-specific and overall health-related quality of life, patient-reported treatment success, new symptomatic vertebral fractures and number of other serious adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one trials were included: five compared vertebroplasty with placebo (541 randomised participants), eight with usual care (1136 randomised participants), seven with kyphoplasty (968 randomised participants) and one compared vertebroplasty with facet joint glucocorticoid injection (217 randomised participants). Trial size varied from 46 to 404 participants, most participants were female, mean age ranged between 62.6 and 81 years, and mean symptom duration varied from a week to more than six months.Four placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias and one was possibly susceptible to performance and detection bias. Other trials were at risk of bias for several criteria, most notably due to lack of participant and personnel blinding.Compared with placebo, high- to moderate-quality evidence from five trials indicates that vertebroplasty provides no clinically important benefits with respect to pain, disability, disease-specific or overall quality of life or treatment success at one month. Evidence for quality of life and treatment success was downgraded due to possible imprecision. Evidence was not downgraded for potential publication bias as only one placebo-controlled trial remains unreported. Mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain) was five points with placebo and 0.7 points better (0.3 better to 1.2 better) with vertebroplasty, an absolute pain reduction of 7% (3% better to 12% better, minimal clinical important difference is 15%) and relative reduction of 10% (4% better to 17% better) (five trials, 535 participants). Mean disability measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scale range zero to 23, higher scores indicate worse disability) was 14.2 points in the placebo group and 1.5 points better (0.4 better to 2.6 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement 7% (2% to 11% better), relative improvement 9% better (2% to 15% better) (four trials, 472 participants).Disease-specific quality of life measured by the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO) (scale zero to 100, higher scores indicating worse quality of life) was 62 points in the placebo group and 2.3 points better (1.4 points worse to 6.7 points better), an absolute imrovement of 2% (1% worse to 6% better); relative improvement 4% better (2% worse to 10% better) (three trials, 351 participants). Overall quality of life (European Quality of Life (EQ5D), zero = death to 1 = perfect health, higher scores indicate greater quality of life) was 0.38 points in the placebo group and 0.05 points better (0.01 better to 0.09 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement: 5% (1% to 9% better), relative improvement: 18% (4% to 32% better) (three trials, 285 participants). In one trial (78 participants), 9/40 (or 225 per 1000) people perceived that treatment was successful in the placebo group compared with 12/38 (or 315 per 1000; 95% CI 150 to 664) in the vertebroplasty group, RR 1.40 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.95), absolute difference: 9% more reported success (11% fewer to 29% more); relative change: 40% more reported success (33% fewer to 195% more).Low-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision and potential for bias from the usual-care controlled trials) indicates uncertainty around the risk estimates of harms with vertebroplasty. The incidence of new symptomatic vertebral fractures (from six trials) was 48/418 (95 per 1000; range 34 to 264)) in the vertebroplasty group compared with 31/422 (73 per 1000) in the control group; RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.46 to 3.62)). The incidence of other serious adverse events (five trials) was 16/408 (34 per 1000, range 18 to 62) in the vertebroplasty group compared with 23/413 (56 per 1000) in the control group; RR 0.61 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.10). Notably, serious adverse events reported with vertebroplasty included osteomyelitis, cord compression, thecal sac injury and respiratory failure.Our subgroup analyses indicate that the effects did not differ according to duration of pain (acute versus subacute). Including data from the eight trials that compared vertebroplasty with usual care in a sensitivity analyses altered the primary results, with all combined analyses displaying considerable heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high- to moderate-quality evidence that vertebroplasty has little clinical benefit in terms of pain for treating acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures in routine practice when compared with a sham procedure. Results were consistent across the studies irrespective of the average duration of pain.Sensitivity analyses confirmed that open trials comparing vertebroplasty with usual care are likely to have overestimated any benefit of vertebroplasty. Correcting for these biases would likely drive any benefits observed with vertebroplasty towards the null, in keeping with findings from the placebo-controlled trials.Numerous serious adverse events have been observed following vertebroplasty. However due to the small number of events, we cannot be certain about whether or not vertebroplasty results in a clinically important increased risk of new symptomatic vertebral fractures and/or other serious adverse events. Patients should be informed about both the high- to moderate-quality evidence that shows no important benefit of vertebroplasty and its potential for harm.
Double-blind, sham-controlled neurosurgical trials for neurodegenerative disorders are debated as an ethical dilemma, particularly regarding subjects randomized to the sham surgery group with general anesthesia.
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this study was to examine the safety of sham surgeries in Parkinson's disease (PD) clinical trials through complications related to the procedure.
METHODS:
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Rates and odds ratios (OR) were compared using random effects analysis.
RESULTS:
Seven studies, all randomized, double-blind, sham surgery-controlled trials, with 309 patients with PD, were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed: 141 patients in sham groups and 168 patients in the experimental arms of gene or cell therapy trials. Sham subjects had lower rates of gastrointestinal, positioning, incision-site, respiratory (hypoxic or hypercapnic respiratory failure), cardiovascular, thromboembolism, postoperative cognitive decline, skull fracture, and intracranial or spinal complications when compared with active treatment subjects. Sham subjects, however, had a higher rate of perioperative respiratory infections, such as pneumonia or sinusitis. Further, sham subjects were less likely to experience postoperative cognitive decline (OR, 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11-0.47), intracranial or spinal complications (OR, 0.10; 95% CI.: 0.01-0.75), total major morbidity (OR, 0.30; 95% CI.: 0.19-0.47), or overall complications (OR, 0.59; 95% CI.: 0.47-0.75) when compared with patients receiving experimental therapy.
