Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Henschke N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2989278 | biostudies-other | 2010 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Henschke Nicholas N Kuijpers Ton T Rubinstein Sidney M SM van Middelkoop Marienke M Ostelo Raymond R Verhagen Arianne A Koes Bart W BW van Tulder Maurits W MW

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 20100429 9

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 inc ...[more]

PMID: 20424870

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFacet joint pain is a common cause of chronic low back pain (CLBP). Radiofrequency (RF) denervation is an effective treatment option.PurposeA systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and effectiveness of different RF denervation treatments in managing facet joint-derived CLBP.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and China Biology Medicine were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from January 1966 through December 2021. Interventions included conventional radiofrequency denervation (CRF), pulsed radiofrequency denervation (PRF), pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the dorsal root ganglia (PRF-DRG), radiofrequency facet capsule denervation (RF-FC), and radiofrequency ablation under endoscopic guidance (ERFA). The outcome was the mean change in visual analog scale (VAS) score from baseline. A random-effects NMA was used to compare the pain relief effects of the interventions over the short term (≤6 months) and long term (12 months). The rank of effect estimation for each intervention was computed using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.ResultsA total of 10 RCTs with 715 patients met the inclusion criteria. Moderate evidence indicated that CRF denervation had a greater effect on pain relief than sham control in the short term (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.58, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -2.98 to -0.18) and the long term (SMD -4.90, 95% CI, -5.86 to -3.94). Fair evidence indicated that PRF denervation was more effective than sham control for pain over the long term (SMD -1.30, 95% CI, -2.17 to -0.43). Fair evidence showed that ERFA denervation was more effective for pain relief than sham control in the short term (SMD -3.07, 95% CI, -5.81 to -0.32) and the long term (SMD -4.00, 95% CI, -4.95 to -3.05). Fair evidence showed that RF-FC denervation was more effective for pain relief than sham control in the long term (SMD -1.11, 95% CI, -2.07 to -0.15). A fair level of evidence indicated that PRF-DRG denervation was more effective for pain relief than sham control in the short term (SMD -5.34, 95% CI, -8.30 to -2.39).ConclusionRF is an effective option for patients diagnosed with facet joint-derived CLBP.Systematic Review Registration: Identifier: CRD42022298238.

Project description:IntroductionNonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) became a public health and economic problem. Acupoint injection was used widely for patients with NCLBP. However, there were inconsistent results on the efficacy for these people. Therefore, this review was performed to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of acupoint injection.Materials and methodsThe literature sources were collected via EMBASE, Medline, CENTRAL, CINAHL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and Sino-Med Database from their inception to October 13, 2019. Endnote X7, widely used document management software, was used to manage and screen the literature sources. Each record was screened according to the predetermined inclusion criteria by two review authors independently. Quality assessment tool, "Risk of table," was used to assess the quality of the included studies according to the recommendation of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by another reviewer. Any disagreement was addressed via consulting with a third reviewer in the abovementioned processes. All procedures were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.ResultsThis review included 13 studies involving 1381 patients with NCLBP. Quantitative analysis results indicated that there is no sufficient evidence that acupoint injection can improve the pain of patients with low back pain based on two trails: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS: MD = -1.33, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -3.30 to 0.64, P=0.18, random-effect model). When assessing the effectiveness of acupoint injection therapy, the results indicated that acupoint injection can improve the effective rate for nonspecific chronic low back pain (OR = 3.64, 95% CI 2.4 to 5.21, P < 0.0001, fixed-effect model).ConclusionThere is insufficient evidence to indicate that acupoint injection therapy could improve the pain for patients with NCLBP. However, the level of evidence was downgraded to "very low quality" because of the poor methodological quality and clinical heterogeneity. The results should be interpreted with caution. Higher quality RCTs with more appropriate comparison, more objective outcome instruments, and adequate follow-up periods are necessary to assess the efficacy of acupoint injection for NCLBP. The PROSPERO Research registration identifying number is CRD42019119158.

Project description:BackgroundChronic low back pain is a common musculoskeletal disease. With the increasing number of patients, it has become a huge economic and social burden. It is urgent to relieve the burden of patients. There are many common rehabilitation methods, and aquatic physical therapy is one of them. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the existing literature and analyze the impact of aquatic physical therapy on pain intensity, quality of life and disability of patients with chronic low back pain.MethodsThrough 8 databases, we searched randomized controlled trials on the effect of aquatic physical therapy on patients with chronic low back pain. These trials published results on pain intensity, quality of life, and disability. This review is guided by Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The level of evidence was assessed through GRADE.ResultsA total of 13 articles involving 597 patients were included. The results showed that compared with the control group, aquatic physical therapy alleviated the pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale: SMD = -0.68, 95%CI:-0.91 to -0.46, Z = 5.92, P < 0.00001) and improved quality of life (physical components of 36-Item Short Form Health Survey or Short-Form 12: SMD = 0.63, 95%CI:0.36 to 0.90, Ζ = 4.57, P < 0.00001; mental components of 36-Item Short Form Health Survey or Short-Form 12: SMD = 0.59, 95%CI:0.10 to 1.08, Ζ = 2.35, P = 0.02), and reduced disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire: SMD = -0.42, 95%CI:-0.66 to -0.17, Ζ = 3.34, P = 0.0008; Oswestry Disability Index or Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire: SMD = -0.54, 95%CI:-1.07 to -0.01, Ζ = 1.99, P = 0.05). However, aquatic physical therapy did not improve patients' pain at rest (Visual Analogue Scale at rest: SMD = -0.60, 95%CI:-1.42 to 0.23, Ζ = 1.41, P = 0.16). We found very low or low evidence of effects of aquatic physical therapy on pain intensity, quality of life, and disability in patients with chronic low back pain compared with no aquatic physical therapy.ConclusionsOur systematic review showed that aquatic physical therapy could benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, because the articles included in this systematic review have high bias risk or are unclear, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to verify.

Project description:BackgroundVibration therapy (VT), a treatment of musculoskeletal disorders, has been developed for clinical applications in the past decade. However, its effect on relieving chronic low back pain (CLBP) and improving lumbar function is still illusive, lacking sufficient evidence-based medical data.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of vibration therapy on pain and function in people with CLBP.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang Date, VIP, and CBM were applied to search for clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on vibration therapy for people with CLBP. The electronic databases were searched from the establishment of the database until July 1, 2023. Two researchers assessed the quality of the included studies and extracted data. The outcome indicators included the pain intensity index, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) score, and Roland-Morris dysfunction questionnaire (RMDQ) score. GRADE was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence of each outcome indicator. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsFourteen papers met the inclusion criteria with 860 subjects (VT group n = 432 and control group n = 428). VT for patients with CLBP reduced the pain intensity index [SMD = - 0.71, 95% CI (- 1.02, - 0.39), I2 = 76%, P < 0.0001], the ODI score value [MD = - 4.24, 95% CI (- 8.10, - 0.38), I2 = 88%, P = 0.03], and the RMDQ score value [MD = - 2.21, 95% CI (- 3.41, - 1.01), I2 = 0%, P = 0.0003]. Subgroup analysis displayed that the pain intensity index was lower in the whole-body vibration (WBV) group than in the control group [SMD = - 0.49, 95% CI (- 0.79, - 0.19), I2 = 58%, P = 0.001] and the local vibration (LV) group [SMD = - 1.07, 95% CI (- 1.60, - 0.53), I2 = 76%, P < 0.0001]. The ODI scores in the WBV group were lower than those in the control group [MD = - 3.30, 95% CI (- 5.76, - 0.83), I2 = 36%, P = 0.009]. There was no statistically significant difference in ODI scores between the LV group and the control group [MD = - 5.78, 95% CI (- 16.23, 4.66), I2 = 97%, P = 0.28].ConclusionThe data from this study suggest that VT can reduce pain and improve lumbar function in patients with CLBP. However, we still need to carefully interpret the results of this study, as the certainty of evidence was low, and the clinical relevance of the results is questionable. Further RCTs are needed in the future to ascertain this.

Project description:BackgroundTrials on sling exercise (SE), commonly performed to manage chronic low back pain (LBP), yield conflicting results. This study aimed to review the effects of SE on chronic LBP.MethodsThe randomized controlled trials comparing SE with other treatments or no treatment, published up to August 2013, were identified by electronic searches. Primary outcomes were pain, function, and return to work. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated, using a random-effects model.ResultsRisk of bias was rated as high in 9 included trials, where some important quality components such as blinding were absent and sample sizes were generally small. We found no clinically relevant differences in pain or function between SE and other forms of exercise, traditional Chinese medical therapy, or in addition to acupuncture. Based on two trials, SE was more effective than thermomagnetic therapy at reducing pain (short-term: WMD -13.90, 95% CI -22.19 to -5.62; long-term: WMD -26.20, 95% CI -31.32 to -21.08) and improving function (short-term: WMD -10.54, 95% CI -14.32 to -6.75; long-term: WMD -25.75, 95% CI -30.79 to -20.71). In one trial we found statistically significant differences between SE and physical agents combined with drug therapy (meloxicam combined with eperisone hydrochloride) but of borderline clinical relevance for pain (short-term: WMD -15.00, 95% CI -19.64 to -10.36) and function (short-term: WMD -10.00; 95% CI -13.70 to -6.30). There was substantial heterogeneity among the two trials comparing SE and thermomagnetic therapy; both these trials and the trial comparing SE with physical agents combined with drug therapy had serious methodological limitations.InterpretationBased on limited evidence from 2 trials, SE was more effective for LBP than thermomagnetic therapy. Clinically relevant differences in effects between SE and other forms of exercise, physical agents combined with drug therapy, traditional Chinese medical therapy, or in addition to acupuncture could not be found. More high-quality randomized trials on the topic are warranted.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets