Objectives The aim of this network meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic strategies for patients with radiculopathy, including physical, medical, surgical, and other therapies. Methods We electronically searched electronic databases including PubMed and Embase for randomized controlled trials. The response rate and visual analog scale of pain change were considered as primary outcomes. The outcomes were measured by odds ratio (OR) value and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs) or standardized mean difference (MD) with 95% CrIs. Besides, surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were performed to rank efficacy and safety of treatments on each end points. Results A total of 16 eligible studies with 1071 subjects were included in this analysis. Our results showed that corticosteroid was significantly more effective than control regarding the response rate (OR = 3.86, 95% CrI: 1.16, 12.55). Surgery had a better performance in pain change compared with control (MD = -1.92, 95% CrI: -3.58, -0.15). According to the SUCRA results, corticosteroid, collar, and physiotherapy ranked the highest concerning response rate (SUCRA = 0.656, 0.652, and 0.610, respectively). Surgery, traction, and corticosteroid were superior to others in pain change (SUCRA = 0.866, 0.748, and 0.589, respectively). Conclusion According to the network meta-analysis result, we recommended surgery as the optimal treatment for radiculopathy patients; traction and corticosteroids were also recommended for their beneficial interventions.
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
OBJECTIVE: General practitioners refer patients with continued neck pain that do not respond well to conservative care frequently to secondary care for further assessment. Are surgical interventions to the cervical spine effective when compared to conservative care for patients with neck pain?
DESIGN: Systematic review.
METHOD: The search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) was followed. The primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to June 2011. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of adults with neck pain, which evaluated at least one clinically relevant primary outcome measure (e.g. pain, functional status, recovery), were included. In addition, treatments had to include surgery and conservative care. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the CBRG and extracted the data. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE method.
RESULTS: Patients included had neck pain with or without radiculopathy or myelopathy. In total, three RCTs and six CCTs were identified comparing different surgical interventions with conservative care, of which one had a low risk of bias. Overall there is very low quality of evidence available on the effectiveness of surgery compared to conservative care in neck pain patients showing overall no differences.
CONCLUSION: Most studies on surgical techniques comparing these to conservative care showed a high risk of bias. The benefit of surgery over conservative care is not clearly demonstrated.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review investigating the evidence of (1) efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of nonoperative treatment of patients with cervical myelopathy; (2) whether the severity of myelopathy affects outcomes of nonoperative treatment; and (3) whether specific activities or minor injuries are associated with neurological deterioration in patients with myelopathy or asymptomatic stenosis being treated nonoperatively. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Little is known about the appropriate role of nonoperative treatment in the management of cervical myelopathy, which is typically considered a surgical disorder. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Collaboration Library for articles published between January 1, 1956, and November 20, 2012. We included all articles that compared nonoperative treatments or observation with surgery for patients with cervical myelopathy or asymptomatic cervical cord compression to determine their effects on clinical outcomes, including myelopathy scales (Japanese Orthopaedic Association, Nurick), general health scores (36-Item Short Form Health Survey), and pain (neck and arm). Nonoperative treatments included physical therapy, medications, injections, orthoses, and traction. We also searched for articles evaluating the effect of specific activities or minor trauma in neurological outcomes. Case reports and studies with less than 10 patients in the exposure group were excluded. RESULTS: Of 54 citations identified from our search, 5 studies reported in 6 articles met inclusion criteria. In 1 randomized controlled study, there was low evidence that nonoperative treatment may yield equivalent or better outcomes than surgery in those with mild myelopathy. For moderate to severe myelopathy, nonoperative treatment had inferior outcomes versus surgery in 2 cohort studies, despite the fact that surgically treated patients were worse at baseline. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether specific activities or minor trauma is a risk factor for neurological deterioration in those with myelopathy or asymptomatic cord compression. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of evidence for nonoperative treatment of cervical myelopathy, and further studies are needed to determine its role more definitively. In particular, for the patient with milder degrees of myelopathy, randomized studies comparing nonoperative with surgical treatment would be particularly helpful, as would trials comparing specific types of nonoperative treatments with the natural history of myelopathy.Recommendation 1. Because myelopathy is known to be a typically progressive disorder and there is little evidence that nonoperative treatment halts or reverses its progression, we recommend not routinely prescribing nonoperative treatment as the primary modality in patients with moderate to severe myelopathy.Overall Strength of Evidence. LowStrength of Recommendation. StrongRecommendation 2. If there is a role for nonoperative treatment as a primary treatment modality, it may be in the patient with mild myelopathy. However, it is not clear which specific forms of nonoperative treatment provide any benefit compared with the natural history. If nonoperative treatment is selected, we suggest care be taken to observe for neurological deterioration.Overall Strength of Evidence. LowStrength of Recommendation. WeakRecommendation 3. In those with asymptomatic spondylotic cord compression but no clinical myelopathy, the available literature neither supports nor refutes the notion that minor trauma is a risk factor for neurological deterioration. We suggest that patients should be counseled about this uncertainty.Overall Strength of Evidence. LowStrength of Recommendation. WeakRecommendation 4. In those with a clinical diagnosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy but no ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, the available studies did not specifically address the issue of neurological deterioration secondary to minor trauma. However, in those with underlying ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, trauma may be more likely to cause worsening of existing myelopathy or even initiate symptoms in those who were previously asymptomatic. We suggest that patients should be counseled about these possibilities.Overall Strength of Evidence. LowStrength of Recommendation. Weak.
Manual therapy is often used with exercise to treat neck pain. This cervical overview group systematic review update assesses if manual therapy, including manipulation or mobilisation, combined with exercise improves pain, function/disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, and patient satisfaction for adults with neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy. Computerized searches were performed to July 2009. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (pRR) and standardized mean differences (pSMD) were calculated. Of 17 randomized controlled trials included, 29% had a low risk of bias. Low quality evidence suggests clinically important long-term improvements in pain (pSMD-0.87(95% CI: -1.69, -0.06)), function/disability, and global perceived effect when manual therapy and exercise are compared to no treatment. High quality evidence suggests greater short-term pain relief [pSMD-0.50(95% CI: -0.76, -0.24)] than exercise alone, but no long-term differences across multiple outcomes for (sub)acute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache. Moderate quality evidence supports this treatment combination for pain reduction and improved quality of life over manual therapy alone for chronic neck pain; and suggests greater short-term pain reduction when compared to traditional care for acute whiplash. Evidence regarding radiculopathy was sparse. Specific research recommendations are made.
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
The goal of this systematic literature review was to determine, for patients with degenerative disc disease, which method of single-level anterior cervical interbody fusion using the anterior approach gives the best clinical and radiological outcome. The number of new techniques for obtaining a solid fusion has increased rapidly, but the rationale for choosing between different techniques is unclear. Randomised comparative studies on anterior cervical interbody fusions were identified in a sensitive Medline, Cochrane and Current Contents database search. Two independent reviewers evaluated the articles that met the selection criteria, using a checklist. The search yielded eight randomised, controlled trials for the systematic literature review. Three of these studies were judged to be of sufficient quality with regard to methodology and the information provided. In the three articles, five different treatment methods were investigated, four of which were interbody fusions. Fusion rates varied between 28% for an allograft method and 63% for a discectomy-alone method. In one study, kyphosis varied from 40% to 62% between treatments. Good clinical outcome (disability, pain and symptoms) ratings varied from 66% to 82%. A meta-analysis to determine the best method for an anterior interbody fusion could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the methods reported and because no standard outcome parameter was used. From this systematic literature review, a gold standard for the treatment of degenerative disc disease could not be identified.
Objectives The aim of this network meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic strategies for patients with radiculopathy, including physical, medical, surgical, and other therapies. Methods We electronically searched electronic databases including PubMed and Embase for randomized controlled trials. The response rate and visual analog scale of pain change were considered as primary outcomes. The outcomes were measured by odds ratio (OR) value and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs) or standardized mean difference (MD) with 95% CrIs. Besides, surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were performed to rank efficacy and safety of treatments on each end points. Results A total of 16 eligible studies with 1071 subjects were included in this analysis. Our results showed that corticosteroid was significantly more effective than control regarding the response rate (OR = 3.86, 95% CrI: 1.16, 12.55). Surgery had a better performance in pain change compared with control (MD = -1.92, 95% CrI: -3.58, -0.15). According to the SUCRA results, corticosteroid, collar, and physiotherapy ranked the highest concerning response rate (SUCRA = 0.656, 0.652, and 0.610, respectively). Surgery, traction, and corticosteroid were superior to others in pain change (SUCRA = 0.866, 0.748, and 0.589, respectively). Conclusion According to the network meta-analysis result, we recommended surgery as the optimal treatment for radiculopathy patients; traction and corticosteroids were also recommended for their beneficial interventions.
