Systematic reviews related to this topic

loading
7 References (7 articles) loading Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

Surgery in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: indications, outcomes and complications. A systematic review.

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 2014
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 21 Primary studies 20 Primary studies (21 references)

Loading references information
PURPOSE: This systematic review summarises the literature on patient selection, decision-making, effectiveness and outcomes in the surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS). INTRODUCTION: In daily practice, decision-making in the treatment of LDS is challenging. There is little consensus on either the precise indications or prognostic factors for any specific therapy (operative or non-operative). METHODS: We searched for LDS trials published between 01.01.1990 and 16.11.2011 in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Cinahl. Two independent reviewers selected studies according to the inclusion criteria. Data were then extracted by two of the authors. Quality assessment was performed using the Downs and Black list for the clinical trials/studies and AMSTAR for the reviews. RESULTS: None DATA SYNTHESIS: 21 papers met the inclusion criteria (2 studies comprising both a RCT and a concurrent observational analysis, 1 RCT, 6 prospective studies, 8 retrospective studies, 3 reviews, 1 review guideline). The quality of the clinical studies was on average "fair" [mean score 15.6 points (range 10-19) out of 24 points (Downs and Black)]. The quality of the reviews ranged from 1 to 7 out of 11 points with an average of 5 points (AMSTAR). The study outcomes could not be subject to meta-analysis due to heterogeneity of study design and variable measure used. CONCLUSIONS: Despite there being many articles describing and/or comparing different surgical options for LDS, there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions concerning clear indications for specific types of surgical treatment, predictors of outcome or complication rates. There remains a need to establish a decision-making tool to facilitate daily clinical practice and to assure appropriate treatment for patients with LDS.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Motor control exercises reduces pain and disability in chronic and recurrent low back pain: a meta-analysis.

Journal Spine
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 5 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference) 1 Broad synthesis 5 Broad syntheses (1 reference)

This article includes 5 Primary studies 5 Primary studies (5 references)

Loading references information
STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. OBJECTIVE: To determine the short-term, intermediate, and long-term effectiveness of MCE, with regard to pain and disability, in patients with chronic and recurrent low-back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous meta-analyses have shown no difference between the effects of MCE and general exercise in the treatment of low back pain. Several high quality studies on this topic have been published lately, warranting a new meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched electronic databases up to October 2011 for randomized controlled trials clearly distinguishing MCE from other treatments. We extracted pain and disability outcomes and converted them to a 0 to 100 scale. We used the RevMan5 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) software to perform pooled analyses to determine the weighted mean differences (WMDs) between MCE and 5 different control interventions. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. The pooled results favored MCE compared with general exercise with regard to disability during all time periods (improvement in WMDs ranged from -4.65 to -4.86), and with regard to pain in the short and intermediate term (WMDs were -7.80 and -6.06, respectively). Compared with spinal manual therapy, MCE was superior with regard to disability during all time periods (the WMDs ranged between -5.27 and -6.12), but not with regard to pain. Furthermore, MCE was superior to minimal intervention during all time periods with regard to both pain (the WMDs ranged between -10.18 and -13.32) and disability (the WMDs ranged between -5.62 and -9.00). CONCLUSION: In patients with chronic and recurrent low back pain, MCE seem to be superior to several other treatments. More studies are, however, needed to investigate what subgroups of patients experiencing LBP respond best to MCE.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication

blocked
Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 25 Primary studies 21 Primary studies (25 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated pathological spinal conditions. It frequently afflicts the elderly population. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) databases were searched up to June 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials published in English, in which at least one arm provided data on nonoperative treatments DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Risk of bias in each study was independently assessed by two review authors using the 12 criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group (Furlan 2009). Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as relative risk, continuous outcomes as mean difference or standardized mean difference; uncertainty was expressed with 95% confidence intervals. If possible a meta-analysis was performed, otherwise results were described qualitatively. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: From the 8635 citations screened, 56 full-text articles were assessed and 21 trials (1851 participants) were included. There was very low-quality evidence from six trials that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol, regardless of mode of administration or outcome assessed. From single small trials, there was low-quality evidence for prostaglandins, and very low-quality evidence for gabapentin or methylcobalamin that they improved walking distance. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial that epidural steroid injections improved pain, function, and quality of life, up to two weeks, compared with home exercise or inpatient physical therapy. There was low-quality evidence from a single trial that exercise is of short-term benefit for leg pain and function compared with no treatment. There was low and very low-quality evidence from six trials that multimodal nonoperative treatment is less effective than indirect or direct surgical decompression with or without fusion. A meta-analysis of two trials comparing direct decompression with or without fusion to multimodal nonoperative care found no significant difference in function at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% CI -10.12 to 2.80) and one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66), but at 24 months a significant difference was found favouring decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate and high-quality evidence for nonoperative treatment is lacking and thus prohibits recommendations for guiding clinical practice. Given the expected exponential rise in the prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, large high-quality trials are urgently needed.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Journal Spine
Year 2011
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 11 Primary studies 7 Primary studies (11 references)

Loading references information
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of surgery versus conservative treatment on pain, disability, and loss of quality of life caused by symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LSS is the most common reason for spine surgery in persons older than 65 years in the United States. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any form of conservative and surgical treatment were searched in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and TripDatabase databases until July 2009, with no language restrictions. Additional data were requested from the authors of the original studies. The methodological quality of each study was assessed independently by two reviewers, following the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. Only data from randomized cohorts were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 739 citations were reviewed. Eleven publications corresponding to five RCTs were included. All five scored as high quality despite concerns deriving from heterogeneity of treatment, lack of blinding, and potential differences in the size of the placebo effect across groups. They included a total of 918 patients in whom conservative treatments had failed for 3 to 6 months, and included orthosis, rehabilitation, physical therapy, exercise, heat and cold, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, ultrasounds, analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and epidural steroids. Surgical treatments included the implantation of a specific type of interspinous device and decompressive surgery (with and without fusion, instrumented or not). In all the studies, surgery showed better results for pain, disability, and quality of life, although not for walking ability. Results of surgery were similar among patients with and without spondylolisthesis, and slightly better among those with neurogenic claudication than among those without it. The advantage of surgery was noticeable at 3 to 6 months and remained for up to 2 to 4 years, although at the end of that period differences tended to be smaller. CONCLUSION: In patients with symptomatic LSS, the implantation of a specific type of device or decompressive surgery, with or without fusion, is more effective than continued conservative treatment when the latter has failed for 3 to 6 months.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Effectiveness of spinal fusion versus structured rehabilitation in chronic low back pain patients with and without isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review.

Journal Spine
Year 2011
Links Pubmed DOI Google Scholar

This article includes 4 Primary studies 4 Primary studies (4 references)

Loading references information
STUDY DESIGN.: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE.: To determine if the presence of isthmic spondylolisthesis modifies the effect of treatment (fusion vs. multidimensional supervised rehabilitation) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Results of spinal surgery for CLBP are variable. It is unclear whether patients with CLBP and isthmic spondylolisthesis have more success with surgery versus a multidimensional supervised rehabilitation program when compared with those with CLBP but without spondylolisthesis. METHODS.: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library for articles published through January 2011. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included that compared spine fusion versus multidimensional supervised rehabilitation in patients with and without isthmic spondylolisthesis. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk differences were calculated for common outcomes, and then compared to determine potential heterogeneity of treatment effect. The final strength of the body of literature was expressed as "high," "moderate," or "low" confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect. RESULTS.: No studies were found that directly compared the two subgroups. Three RCTs compared fusion with supervised nonoperative care in patients with CLBP without isthmic spondylolisthesis; one RCT evaluated these treatments in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. There were study differences in patient characteristics, type of fusion, the nature of the rehabilitation, outcomes assessed, and length of follow-up. The SMDs for pain in favor of fusion were modest at 2 years for those without isthmic spondylolisthesis, but large in favor of fusion for those with isthmic spondylolisthesis compared with rehabilitation. Similarly, the SMDs for function in patients without isthmic spondylolisthesis compared with rehabilitation was small at 2 years, but appreciably higher in favor of fusion in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. CONCLUSION.: The overall strength of evidence evaluating whether the presence of isthmic spondylolisthesis modifies the effect of fusion compared with rehabilitation patients with CLBP is "low." Fusion should be considered for patients with low back pain and isthmic spondylolisthesis who have failed nonoperative treatment. CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS.: We recommend considering fusion for patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis and lower back pain who have failed nonoperative treatment. Recommendation: Weak.

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

Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis

blocked
Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2005
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 2 Broad syntheses 36 Broad syntheses (2 references)

This article includes 36 Primary studies 36 Primary studies (36 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Surgical investigations and interventions account for large health care utilisation and costs, but the scientific evidence for most procedures is still limited. OBJECTIVES: Degenerative conditions affecting the lumbar spine are variously described as lumbar spondylosis or degenerative disc disease (which we regarded as one entity) and may be associated with back pain and associated leg symptoms, instability, spinal stenosis and/or degenerative spondylolisthesis. The objective of this review was to assess current scientific evidence on the effectiveness of surgical interventions for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Spine and ISSLS abstracts, with citation tracking from the retrieved articles. We also corresponded with experts. All data found up to 31 March 2005 are included. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised (RCTs) or quasi-randomised trials of surgical treatment of lumbar spondylosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data from published papers. Additional information was sought from the authors if necessary. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one published RCTs of all forms of surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylosis were identified. The trials varied in quality: only the more recent trials used appropriate methods of randomization, blinding and independent assessment of outcome. Most of the earlier published results were of technical surgical outcomes with some crude ratings of clinical outcome. More of the recent trials also reported patient-centered outcomes of pain or disability, but there is still very little information on occupational outcomes. There was a particular lack of long term outcomes beyond two to three years. Seven heterogeneous trials on spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis and nerve compression permitted limited conclusions. Two new trials on the effectiveness of fusion showed conflicting results. One showed that fusion gave better clinical outcomes than conventional physiotherapy, while the other showed that fusion was no better than a modern exercise and rehabilitation programme. Eight trials showed that instrumented fusion produced a higher fusion rate (though that needs to be qualified by the difficulty of assessing fusion in the presence of metal-work), but any improvement in clinical outcomes is probably marginal, while there is other evidence that it may be associated with higher complication rates. Three trials with conflicting results did not permit any conclusions about the relative effectiveness of anterior, posterior or circumferential fusion. Preliminary results of two small trials of intra-discal electrotherapy showed conflicting results. Preliminary data from three trials of disc arthroplasty did not permit any firm conclusions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is now available to support some aspects of surgical practice. Surgeons should be encouraged to perform further RCTs in this field.