For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
8
views
62
references
 Top references
cited by
1
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      320
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Outcomes of Various Treatment Modalities for Lumbar Spinal Ailments in Elite Athletes: A Literature Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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.

          Abstract

          Lumbar spinal injuries are common in elite athletes, who can present with a spectrum of ailments ranging from lumbar strain to prolapsed intervertebral discs. Sequelae can include neurological impairment and lumbar instability among other possible outcomes. This group of patients is unique in terms of their clinicoradiological presentation and treatment modalities. The primary goals of treatment are a rapid return to play and prevention of recurrence, thus prolonging the athlete’s professional career. Treatment modalities can range from activity restriction to nerve root blocks and surgery. A successful treatment outcome is based on timely diagnosis, treatment suiting the demands of the particular sport, and early rehabilitation. A multidisciplinary team approach involving the coach, rehabilitation specialist, pain management specialist, and spine surgeon helps in planning appropriate treatment. In this article, we review special considerations in the elite athletic population with lumbar spinal ailments as well as the outcomes of various treatment modalities.

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

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

          Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) observational cohort.

          Jeffrey S Fischgrund, Frank Cammisa, John N Weinstein … (2006)
          For patients with lumbar disk herniation, the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized trial intent-to-treat analysis showed small but not statistically significant differences in favor of diskectomy compared with usual care. However, the large numbers of patients who crossed over between assigned groups precluded any conclusions about the comparative effectiveness of operative therapy vs usual care. To compare the treatment effects of diskectomy and usual care. Prospective observational cohort of surgical candidates with imaging-confirmed lumbar intervertebral disk herniation who were treated at 13 spine clinics in 11 US states and who met the SPORT eligibility criteria but declined randomization between March 2000 and March 2003. Standard open diskectomy vs usual nonoperative care. Changes from baseline in the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) bodily pain and physical function scales and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/MODEMS version). Of the 743 patients enrolled in the observational cohort, 528 patients received surgery and 191 received usual nonoperative care. At 3 months, patients who chose surgery had greater improvement in the primary outcome measures of bodily pain (mean change: surgery, 40.9 vs nonoperative care, 26.0; treatment effect, 14.8; 95% confidence interval, 10.8-18.9), physical function (mean change: surgery, 40.7 vs nonoperative care, 25.3; treatment effect, 15.4; 95% CI, 11.6-19.2), and Oswestry Disability Index (mean change: surgery, -36.1 vs nonoperative care, -20.9; treatment effect, -15.2; 95% CI, -18.5. to -11.8). These differences narrowed somewhat at 2 years: bodily pain (mean change: surgery, 42.6 vs nonoperative care, 32.4; treatment effect, 10.2; 95% CI, 5.9-14.5), physical function (mean change: surgery, 43.9 vs nonoperavtive care 31.9; treatment effect, 12.0; 95% CI; 7.9-16.1), and Oswestry Disability Index (mean change: surgery -37.6 vs nonoperative care -24.2; treatment effect, -13.4; 95% CI, -17.0 to -9.7). Patients with persistent sciatica from lumbar disk herniation improved in both operated and usual care groups. Those who chose operative intervention reported greater improvements than patients who elected nonoperative care. However, nonrandomized comparisons of self-reported outcomes are subject to potential confounding and must be interpreted cautiously. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000410.
          Article 0 comments Cited 129 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis.

            Gert Bronfort, Mitchell Haas, Roni L Evans … (2004)
            Despite the many published randomized clinical trials (RCTs), a substantial number of reviews and several national clinical guidelines, much controversy still remains regarding the evidence for or against efficacy of spinal manipulation for low back pain and neck pain. To reassess the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and mobilization (MOB) for the management of low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP), with special attention to applying more stringent criteria for study admissibility into evidence and for isolating the effect of SMT and/or MOB. RCTs including 10 or more subjects per group receiving SMT or MOB and using patient-oriented primary outcome measures (eg, patient-rated pain, disability, global improvement and recovery time). Articles in English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch reporting on randomized trials were identified by a comprehensive search of computerized and bibliographic literature databases up to the end of 2002. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed study quality according to eight explicit criteria. A best evidence synthesis incorporating explicit, detailed information about outcome measures and interventions was used to evaluate treatment efficacy. The strength of evidence was assessed by a classification system that incorporated study validity and statistical significance of study results. Sixty-nine RCTs met the study selection criteria and were reviewed and assigned validity scores varying from 6 to 81 on a scale of 0 to 100. Forty-three RCTs met the admissibility criteria for evidence. Acute LBP: There is moderate evidence that SMT provides more short-term pain relief than MOB and detuned diathermy, and limited evidence of faster recovery than a commonly used physical therapy treatment strategy. Chronic LBP: There is moderate evidence that SMT has an effect similar to an efficacious prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, SMT/MOB is effective in the short term when compared with placebo and general practitioner care, and in the long term compared to physical therapy. There is limited to moderate evidence that SMT is better than physical therapy and home back exercise in both the short and long term. There is limited evidence that SMT is superior to sham SMT in the short term and superior to chemonucleolysis for disc herniation in the short term. However, there is also limited evidence that MOB is inferior to back exercise after disc herniation surgery. Mix of acute and chronic LBP: SMT/MOB provides either similar or better pain outcomes in the short and long term when compared with placebo and with other treatments, such as McKenzie therapy, medical care, management by physical therapists, soft tissue treatment and back school. Acute NP: There are few studies, and the evidence is currently inconclusive. Chronic NP: There is moderate evidence that SMT/MOB is superior to general practitioner management for short-term pain reduction but that SMT offers at most similar pain relief to high-technology rehabilitative exercise in the short and long term. Mix of acute and chronic NP: The overall evidence is not clear. There is moderate evidence that MOB is superior to physical therapy and family physician care, and similar to SMT in both the short and long term. There is limited evidence that SMT, in both the short and long term, is inferior to physical therapy. Our data synthesis suggests that recommendations can be made with some confidence regarding the use of SMT and/or MOB as a viable option for the treatment of both low back pain and NP. There have been few high-quality trials distinguishing between acute and chronic patients, and most are limited to shorter-term follow-up. Future trials should examine well-defined subgroups of patients, further address the value of SMT and MOB for acute patients, establish optimal number of treatment visits and consider the cost-effectiveness of care.
            Article 0 comments Cited 99 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Twin Spine Study: contributions to a changing view of disc degeneration.

              Michele Battie, Tapio Videman, Jaakko Kaprio … (2009)
              Disc degeneration was commonly viewed over much of the last century as a result of aging and "wear and tear" from mechanical insults and injuries. Thus, prevention strategies and research in lumbar degenerative changes and associated clinical conditions focused largely on mechanical factors as primary causes using an "injury model." The Twin Spine Study, a research program on the etiology and pathogenesis of disc degeneration, has contributed to a substantial revision of this view of determinants of lumbar disc degeneration. To provide a review of the methods and findings of the Twin Spine Study project. Narrative review of the Twin Spine Study. The Twin Spine Study, which started in 1991, is a multidisciplinary, multinational research project with collaborators primarily in Canada, Finland, and the United States. The most significant investigations related to determinants of disc degeneration included occupational exposures, driving and whole-body vibration exposure, smoking exposure, anthropomorphic factors, heritability, and the identification of genotypes associated with disc degeneration. Among the most significant findings were a substantial influence of heredity on lumbar disc degeneration and the identification of the first gene forms associated with disc degeneration. Conversely, despite extraordinary discordance between twin siblings in occupational and leisure-time physical loading conditions throughout adulthood, surprisingly little effect on disc degeneration was observed. Studies on the effects of smoking on twins with large discordance in smoking exposure demonstrated an increase in disc degeneration associated with smoking, but this effect was small. No evidence was found to suggest that exposure to whole-body vibration through motorized vehicles leads to accelerated disc degeneration in these well-controlled studies. More recent results indicate that the effect of anthropometric factors, such as body weight and muscle strength on disc degeneration, although modest, appear in this work to be greater than those of occupational physical demands. In fact, some indications were found that routine loading may actually have some benefits to the disc. The once commonly held view that disc degeneration is primarily a result of aging and "wear and tear" from mechanical insults and injuries was not supported by this series of studies. Instead, disc degeneration appears to be determined in great part by genetic influences. Although environmental factors also play a role, it is not primarily through routine physical loading exposures (eg, heavy vs. light physical demands) as once suspected.
              Article 0 comments Cited 88 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Asian Spine J
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Asian Spine J
                Journal ID (publisher-id): ASJ
                Title: Asian Spine Journal
                Publisher: Korean Society of Spine Surgery
                ISSN (Print): 1976-1902
                ISSN (Electronic): 1976-7846
                Publication date (Print): August 2018
                Publication date (Electronic): 27 July 2018
                Volume: 12
                Issue: 4
                Pages: 754-764
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Spine, Wockhardt Hospital, Mumbai, India
                [2 ]“We Are Spine” Centre, Mumbai, India
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Kunal Shah “We Are Spine” Centre, Aarav Polyclinic, 101 Excel Arcade, Opposite Telephone Exchange, LBS Road, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai 400086, India Tel: +91-9930731911, Fax: +91-022-61784444, E-mail: orthokunal@ 123456yahoo.com
                Article
                Publisher ID: asj-2018-12-4-754
                DOI: 10.31616/asj.2018.12.4.754
                PMC ID: 6068423
                PubMed ID: 30060387
                SO-VID: cd7382b4-ddc3-41d9-9d4b-7f024417e672
                Copyright © Copyright © 2018 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery
                License:

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 26 November 2017
                Date revision received : 6 December 2017
                Date accepted : 17 December 2017
                Categories
                Subject: Review Article

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Orthopedics
                Keywords: low back pain,athletes,return to sport,treatment,pain management
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Orthopedics
                Keywords: low back pain, athletes, return to sport, treatment, pain management

                Comments

                Comment on this article