9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain: Current Treatment Strategies and Future Options—a Literature Review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain

          Low back pain (LBP) is a common and disabling disorder in western society. The management of LBP comprises a range of different intervention strategies including surgery, drug therapy, and non-medical interventions. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions (i.e. exercise therapy, back school, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), low level laser therapy, education, massage, behavioural treatment, traction, multidisciplinary treatment, lumbar supports, and heat/cold therapy) for chronic LBP. The primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to 22 December 2008. Existing Cochrane reviews for the individual interventions were screened for studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Groups (CBRG) was followed. The following were included for selection criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials, (2) adult (≥18 years) population with chronic (≥12 weeks) non-specific LBP, and (3) evaluation of at least one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures (pain, functional status, perceived recovery, or return to work). Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. The GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total 83 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria: exercise therapy (n = 37), back school (n = 5), TENS (n = 6), low level laser therapy (n = 3), behavioural treatment (n = 21), patient education (n = 1), traction (n = 1), and multidisciplinary treatment (n = 6). Compared to usual care, exercise therapy improved post-treatment pain intensity and disability, and long-term function. Behavioural treatment was found to be effective in reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Finally, multidisciplinary treatment was found to reduce pain intensity and disability at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Overall, the level of evidence was low. Evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of exercise therapy compared to usual care, there is low evidence for the effectiveness of behavioural therapy compared to no treatment and there is moderate evidence for the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary treatment compared to no treatment and other active treatments at reducing pain at short-term in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Based on the heterogeneity of the populations, interventions, and comparison groups, we conclude that there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusion on the clinical effect of back schools, low-level laser therapy, patient education, massage, traction, superficial heat/cold, and lumbar supports for chronic LBP. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1518-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            What is the source of chronic low back pain and does age play a role?

            The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence, mean age, and association of prevalence and age of lumbar internal disc disruption (IDD), facet joint pain (FJP), sacroiliac joint pain (SIJP), spinal and pelvic insufficiency fractures, interspinous ligament injury/Baastrup's Disease, and soft tissue irritation by fusion hardware. The study's design was a retrospective chart review. The study was set in an academic spine center. A total of 378 cases from 358 patients were reviewed of which 170 cases from 156 patients who underwent diagnostic procedures were included. Discography, dual diagnostic facet joint blocks, intra-articular sacroiliac joint injections, anesthetic injections of painful interspinous ligaments/opposing spinous processes/posterior fusion hardware, or percutaneous augmentation were performed. Prevalence and age were analyzed for each diagnosis group. Patients with recalcitrant low back pain underwent diagnostic procedures based on their clinical presentation until the pain source was identified. The prevalence of internal disc disruption, facet joint pain and sacroiliac joint pain was 42%, 31%, and 18%, respectively. Patients with internal disc disruption were significantly younger than those with facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain. Increased age was associated with a decreased probability of internal disc disruption and increased probabilities of facet joint pain and sacroiliac joint pain as the source of low back pain until approximately age 70. Our data confirm the intervertebral disc as the most common etiology of chronic low back pain in adults. Based on our sample, the younger the patient, the more likely low back pain is discogenic in origin. Facetogenic or sacroiliac joint pain is more likely in older patients. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Exercise therapy for chronic nonspecific low-back pain.

              Exercise therapy is the most widely used type of conservative treatment for low back pain. Systematic reviews have shown that exercise therapy is effective for chronic but not for acute low back pain. During the past 5 years, many additional trials have been published on chronic low back pain. This articles aims to give an overview on the effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with low back pain. For this overview, existing Cochrane reviews for the individual interventions were screened for studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, and the search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) was followed. Studies were included if they fulfilled the following criteria: (1) randomised controlled trials,(2) adult (> or =18 years) population with chronic (> or =12 weeks) nonspecific low back pain and (3) evaluation of at least one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures (pain, functional status, perceived recovery or return to work). Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, risk of bias and outcomes at short-term, intermediate and long-term follow-up. The GRADE approach (GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total, 37 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in this overview. Compared to usual care, exercise therapy improved post-treatment pain intensity and disability, and long-term function. The authors conclude that evidence from randomised controlled trials demonstrated that exercise therapy is effective at reducing pain and function in the treatment of chronic low back pain. There is no evidence that one particular type of exercise therapy is clearly more effective than others. However, effects are small and it remains unclear which subgroups of patients benefit most from a specific type of treatment. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Current Pain and Headache Reports
                Curr Pain Headache Rep
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                1531-3433
                1534-3081
                November 2019
                November 9 2019
                November 2019
                : 23
                : 11
                Article
                10.1007/s11916-019-0821-x
                30637489
                a4e479d8-9414-43f2-af77-2eaf06ff3ace
                © 2019

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article