Investigacion y dolor lumbar

Conditions: Chronic Low Back Pain

Curator: Michael Schneider DC PhD


Showing 1-10 of 10

Spinal manipulation and home exercise with advice for subacute and chronic back-related leg pain: a trial with adaptive allocation.

Bronfort, Gert; Hondras, Maria A; Schulz, Craig A; Evans, Roni L; Long, Cynthia R & Grimm, Richard
Annals of internal medicine
BACKGROUND: Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is often disabling and costly, and there is a paucity of research to guide its management. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus home exercise and advice (HEA) compared with HEA alone reduces leg pain in the short and long term in adults with BRLP. DESIGN: Controlled pragmatic trial with allocation by minimization conducted from 2007 to 2011. ( NCT00494065). SETTING: 2 research centers (Minnesota and Iowa). PATIENTS: Persons aged 21 years or older with BRLP for least 4 weeks. INTERVENTION: 12 weeks of SMT plus HEA or HEA alone. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was patient-rated BRLP at 12 and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes were self-reported low back pain, disability, global improvement, satisfaction, medication use, and general health status at 12 and 52 weeks. Blinded objective tests were done at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 192 enrolled patients, 191 (99\%) provided follow-up data at 12 weeks and 179 (93\%) at 52 weeks. For leg pain, SMT plus HEA had a clinically important advantage over HEA (difference, 10 percentage points [95\% CI, 2 to 19]; P=0.008) at 12 weeks but not at 52 weeks (difference, 7 percentage points [CI, -2 to 15]; P=0.146). Nearly all secondary outcomes improved more with SMT plus HEA at 12 weeks, but only global improvement, satisfaction, and medication use had sustained improvements at 52 weeks. No serious treatment-related adverse events or deaths occurred. LIMITATION: Patients and providers could not be blinded. CONCLUSION: For patients with BRLP, SMT plus HEA was more effective than HEA alone after 12 weeks, but the benefit was sustained only for some secondary outcomes at 52 weeks. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Get the paper here

Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for care of chronic low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Haas, Mitchell; Vavrek, Darcy; Peterson, David; Polissar, Nayak & Neradilek, Moni B
The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There have been no full-scale trials of the optimal number of visits for the care of any condition with spinal manipulation. PURPOSE: To identify the dose-response relationship between visits to a chiropractor for spinal manipulation and chronic low back pain (cLBP) outcomes and to determine the efficacy of manipulation by comparison with a light massage control. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Practice-based randomized controlled trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: Four hundred participants with cLBP. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary cLBP outcomes were the 100-point modified Von Korff pain intensity and functional disability scales evaluated at the 12- and 24-week primary end points. Secondary outcomes included days with pain and functional disability, pain unpleasantness, global perceived improvement, medication use, and general health status. METHODS: One hundred participants with cLBP were randomized to each of four dose levels of care: 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions of spinal manipulation from a chiropractor. Participants were treated three times per week for 6 weeks. At sessions when manipulation was not assigned, they received a focused light massage control. Covariate-adjusted linear dose effects and comparisons with the no-manipulation control group were evaluated at 6, 12, 18, 24, 39, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: For the primary outcomes, mean pain and disability improvement in the manipulation groups were 20 points by 12 weeks and sustainable to 52 weeks. Linear dose-response effects were small, reaching about two points per six manipulation sessions at 12 and 52 weeks for both variables (p<.025). At 12 weeks, the greatest differences from the no-manipulation control were found for 12 sessions (8.6 pain and 7.6 disability points, p<.025); at 24 weeks, differences were negligible; and at 52 weeks, the greatest group differences were seen for 18 visits (5.9 pain and 8.8 disability points, p<.025). CONCLUSIONS: The number of spinal manipulation visits had modest effects on cLBP outcomes above those of 18 hands-on visits to a chiropractor. Overall, 12 visits yielded the most favorable results but was not well distinguished from other dose levels.
Get the paper here

The efficacy of manual therapy and exercise for different stages of non-specific low back pain: an update of systematic reviews.

Hidalgo, Benjamin; Detrembleur, Christine; Hall, Toby; Mahaudens, Philippe & Nielens, Henri
The Journal of manual \& manipulative therapy
OBJECTIVE: to review and update the evidence for different forms of manual therapy (MT) for patients with different stages of non-specific low back pain (LBP). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane-Register-of-Controlled-Trials, PEDro, EMBASE. METHOD: A systematic review of MT with a literature search covering the period of January 2000 to April 2013 was conducted by two independent reviewers according to Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. A total of 360 studies were evaluated using qualitative criteria. Two stages of LBP were categorized; combined acute-subacute and chronic. Further sub-classification was made according to MT intervention: MT1 (manipulation); MT2 (mobilization and soft-tissue-techniques); and MT3 (MT1 combined with MT2). In each sub-category, MT could be combined or not with exercise or usual medical care (UMC). Consequently, quantitative evaluation criteria were applied to 56 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and hence 23 low-risk of bias RCTs were identified for review. Only studies providing new updated information (11/23 RCTs) are presented here. RESULTS: Acute-subacute LBP: STRONG-evidence in favour of MT1 when compared to sham for pain, function and health improvements in the short-term (1-3 months). MODERATE-evidence to support MT1 and MT3 combined with UMC in comparison to UMC alone for pain, function and health improvements in the short-term. Chronic LBP: MODERATE to STRONG-evidence in favour of MT1 in comparison to sham for pain, function and overall-health in the short-term. MODERATE-evidence in favour of MT3 combined with exercise or UMC in comparison to exercise and back-school was established for pain, function and quality-of-life in the short and long-term. LIMITED-evidence in favour of MT2 combined with exercise and UMC in comparison to UMC alone for pain and function from short to long-term. LIMITED-evidence of no effect for MT1 with extension-exercise compared to extension-exercise alone for pain in the short to long-term. CONCLUSION: This systematic review updates the evidence for MT with exercise or UMC for different stages of LBP and provides recommendations for future studies.
Get the paper here

Osteopathic manual treatment and ultrasound therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Licciardone, John C; Minotti, Dennis E; Gatchel, Robert J; Kearns, Cathleen M & Singh, Karan P
Annals of family medicine
PURPOSE: We studied the efficacy of osteopathic manual treatment (OMT) and ultrasound therapy (UST) for chronic low back pain.

METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial design was used to study OMT and UST for short-term relief of nonspecific chronic low back pain. The 455 patients were randomized to OMT (n = 230) or sham OMT (n = 225) main effects groups, and to UST (n = 233) or sham UST (n = 222) main effects groups. Six treatment sessions were provided over 8 weeks. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed to measure moderate and substantial improvements in low back pain at week 12 (30% or greater and 50% or greater pain reductions from baseline, respectively). Five secondary outcomes, safety, and treatment adherence were also assessed.

RESULTS: There was no statistical interaction between OMT and UST. Patients receiving OMT were more likely than patients receiving sham OMT to achieve moderate (response ratio [RR] = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.16-1.64; P <.001) and substantial (RR = 1.41, 95% CI, 1.13-1.76; P = .002) improvements in low back pain at week 12. These improvements met the Cochrane Back Review Group criterion for a medium effect size. Back-specific functioning, general health, work disability specific to low back pain, safety outcomes, and treatment adherence did not differ between patients receiving OMT and sham OMT. Nevertheless, patients in the OMT group were more likely to be very satisfied with their back care throughout the study (P <.001). Patients receiving OMT used prescription drugs for low back pain less frequently during the 12 weeks than did patients in the sham OMT group (use ratio = 0.66, 95% CI, 0.43-1.00; P = .048). Ultrasound therapy was not efficacious.

CONCLUSIONS: The OMT regimen met or exceeded the Cochrane Back Review Group criterion for a medium effect size in relieving chronic low back pain. It was safe, parsimonious, and well accepted by patients.

Get the paper here

Manual therapy followed by specific active exercises versus a placebo followed by specific active exercises on the improvement of functional disability in patients with chronic non specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Balthazard, Pierre; de Goumoens, Pierre; Rivier, Gilles; Demeulenaere, Philippe; Ballabeni, Pierluigi; Dériaz, Olivier
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
BACKGROUND: Recent clinical recommendations still propose active exercises (AE) for CNSLBP. However, acceptance of exercises by patients may be limited by pain-related manifestations. Current evidences suggest that manual therapy (MT) induces an immediate analgesic effect through neurophysiologic mechanisms at peripheral, spinal and cortical levels. The aim of this pilot study was first, to assess whether MT has an immediate analgesic effect, and second, to compare the lasting effect on functional disability of MT plus AE to sham therapy (ST) plus AE.

METHODS: Forty-two CNSLBP patients without co-morbidities, randomly distributed into 2 treatment groups, received either spinal manipulation/mobilization (first intervention) plus AE (MT group; n = 22), or detuned ultrasound (first intervention) plus AE (ST group; n = 20). Eight therapeutic sessions were delivered over 4 to 8 weeks. Immediate analgesic effect was obtained by measuring pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale) before and immediately after the first intervention of each therapeutic session. Pain intensity, disability (Oswestry Disability Index), fear-avoidance beliefs (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire), erector spinae and abdominal muscles endurance (Sorensen and Shirado tests) were assessed before treatment, after the 8th therapeutic session, and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups.

RESULTS: Thirty-seven subjects completed the study. MT intervention induced a better immediate analgesic effect that was independent from the therapeutic session (VAS mean difference between interventions: -0.8; 95% CI: -1.2 to -0.3). Independently from time after treatment, MT + AE induced lower disability (ODI mean group difference: -7.1; 95% CI: -12.8 to -1.5) and a trend to lower pain (VAS mean group difference: -1.2; 95% CI: -2.4 to -0.30). Six months after treatment, Shirado test was better for the ST group (Shirado mean group difference: -61.6; 95% CI: -117.5 to -5.7). Insufficient evidence for group differences was found in remaining outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the immediate analgesic effect of MT over ST. Followed by specific active exercises, it reduces significantly functional disability and tends to induce a larger decrease in pain intensity, compared to a control group. These results confirm the clinical relevance of MT as an appropriate treatment for CNSLBP. Its neurophysiologic mechanisms at cortical level should be investigated more thoroughly.



Get the paper here

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain: an update of a Cochrane review.

Rubinstein, Sidney M; van Middelkoop, Marienke; Assendelft, Willem J J; de Boer, Michiel R & van Tulder, Maurits W
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of interventions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for chronic low-back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SMT is one of the many therapies for the treatment of low-back pain, which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention. METHODS: Search methods. An experienced librarian searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple databases up to June 2009. Selection criteria. RCTs that examined manipulation or mobilization in adults with chronic low-back pain were included. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. Data collection and analysis. Two authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs (total participants = 6070), 9 of which had a low risk of bias. Approximately two-thirds of the included studies (N = 18) were not evaluated in the previous review. There is a high-quality evidence that SMT has a small, significant, but not clinically relevant, short-term effect on pain relief (mean difference -4.16, 95\% confidence interval -6.97 to -1.36) and functional status (standardized mean difference -0.22, 95\% confidence interval -0.36 to -0.07) in comparison with other interventions. There is varying quality of evidence that SMT has a significant short-term effect on pain relief and functional status when added to another intervention. There is a very low-quality evidence that SMT is not more effective than inert interventions or sham SMT for short-term pain relief or functional status. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. Determining cost-effectiveness of care has high priority.
Get the paper here

Supervised exercise, spinal manipulation, and home exercise for chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.

Bronfort, Gert; Maiers, Michele J; Evans, Roni L; Schulz, Craig A; Bracha, Yiscah; Svendsen, Kenneth H; Grimm, Richard H; Owens, Edward F; Garvey, Timothy A & Transfeldt, Ensor E
The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Several conservative therapies have been shown to be beneficial in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP), including different forms of exercise and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). The efficacy of less time-consuming and less costly self-care interventions, for example, home exercise, remains inconclusive in CLBP populations. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the relative efficacy of supervised exercise, spinal manipulation, and home exercise for the treatment of CLBP. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: An observer-blinded and mixed-method randomized clinical trial conducted in a university research clinic in Bloomington, MN, USA. PATIENT SAMPLE: Individuals, 18 to 65 years of age, who had a primary complaint of mechanical LBP of at least 6-week duration with or without radiating pain to the lower extremity were included in this trial. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-rated outcomes were pain, disability, general health status, medication use, global improvement, and satisfaction. Trunk muscle endurance and strength were assessed by blinded examiners, and qualitative interviews were performed at the end of the 12-week treatment phase. METHODS: This prospective randomized clinical trial examined the short- (12 weeks) and long-term (52 weeks) relative efficacy of high-dose, supervised low-tech trunk exercise, chiropractic SMT, and a short course of home exercise and self-care advice for the treatment of LBP of at least 6-week duration. The study was approved by local institutional review boards. RESULTS: A total of 301 individuals were included in this trial. For all three treatment groups, outcomes improved during the 12 weeks of treatment. Those who received supervised trunk exercise were most satisfied with care and experienced the greatest gains in trunk muscle endurance and strength, but they did not significantly differ from those receiving chiropractic spinal manipulation or home exercise in terms of pain and other patient-rated individual outcomes, in both the short- and long-term. CONCLUSIONS: For CLBP, supervised exercise was significantly better than chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise in terms of satisfaction with treatment and trunk muscle endurance and strength. Although the short- and long-term differences between groups in patient-rated pain, disability, improvement, general health status, and medication use consistently favored the supervised exercise group, the differences were relatively small and not statistically significant for these individual outcomes.
Get the paper here

The McKenzie method compared with manipulation when used adjunctive to information and advice in low back pain patients presenting with centralization or peripheralization: a randomized controlled trial.

Petersen, Tom; Larsen, Kristian; Nordsteen, Jan; Olsen, Steen; Fournier, Gilles & Jacobsen, Soren
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of the McKenzie method performed by certified therapists with spinal manipulation performed by chiropractors when used adjunctive to information and advice. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent guidelines recommend a structured exercise program tailored to the individual patient as well as manual therapy for the treatment of persistent low back pain. There is presently insufficient evidence to recommend the use of specific decision methods tailoring specific therapies to clinical subgroups of patients in primary care. METHODS: A total of 350 patients suffering from low back pain with a duration of more than 6 weeks who presented with centralization or peripheralization of symptoms with or without signs of nerve root involvement, were enrolled in the trial. Main outcome was number of patients with treatment success defined as a reduction of at least 5 points or an absolute score below 5 points on the Roland Morris Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were reduction in disability and pain, global perceived effect, general health, mental health, lost work time, and medical care utilization. RESULTS: Both treatment groups showed clinically meaningful improvements in this study. At 2 months follow-up, the McKenzie treatment was superior to manipulation with respect to the number of patients who reported success after treatment (71\% and 59\%, respectively) (odds ratio 0.58, 95\% confidence interval [CI] 0.36 to 0.91, P = 0.018). The number needed to treat with the McKenzie method was 7 (95\% CI 4 to 47). The McKenzie group showed improvement in level of disability compared to the manipulation group reaching a statistical significance at 2 and 12 months follow-up (mean difference 1.5, 95\% CI 0.2 to 2.8, P = 0.022 and 1.5, 95\% CI 0.2 to 2.9, P = 0.030, respectively). There was also a significant difference of 13\% in number of patients reporting global perceived effect at end of treatment (P = 0.016). None of the other secondary outcomes showed statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: In patients with low back pain for more than 6 weeks presenting with centralization or peripheralization of symptoms, we found the McKenzie method to be slightly more effective than manipulation when used adjunctive to information and advice.
Get the paper here

Complementary and alternative therapies for back pain II.

Furlan, Andrea D; Yazdi, Fatemeh; Tsertsvadze, Alexander; Gross, Anita; Van Tulder, Maurits; Santaguida, Lina; Cherkin, Dan; Gagnier, Joel; Ammendolia, Carlo; Ansari, Mohammed T; Ostermann, Thomas; Dryden, Trish; Doucette, Steve; Skidmore, Becky; Daniel, Raymond; Tsouros, Sophia; Weeks, Laura & Galipeau, James
Evidence report/technology assessment
BACKGROUND: Back and neck pain are important health problems with serious societal and economic implications. Conventional treatments have been shown to have limited benefit in improving patient outcomes. Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies offer additional options in the management of low back and neck pain. Many trials evaluating CAM therapies have poor quality and inconsistent results.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the efficacy, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and harms of acupuncture, spinal manipulation, mobilization, and massage techniques in management of back, neck, and/or thoracic pain.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched up to 2010; unpublished literature and reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. study selection: All records were screened by two independent reviewers. Primary reports of comparative efficacy, effectiveness, harms, and/or economic evaluations from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the CAM therapies in adults (age ≥ 18 years) with back, neck, or thoracic pain were eligible. Non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies (case-control, cohort, cross-sectional) comparing harms were also included. Reviews, case reports, editorials, commentaries or letters were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers using a predefined form extracted data on study, participants, treatments, and outcome characteristics.

RESULTS: 265 RCTs and 5 non-RCTs were included. Acupuncture for chronic nonspecific low back pain was associated with significantly lower pain intensity than placebo but only immediately post-treatment (VAS: -0.59, 95 percent CI: -0.93, -0.25). However, acupuncture was not different from placebo in post-treatment disability, pain medication intake, or global improvement in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Acupuncture did not differ from sham-acupuncture in reducing chronic non-specific neck pain immediately after treatment (VAS: 0.24, 95 percent CI: -1.20, 0.73). Acupuncture was superior to no treatment in improving pain intensity (VAS: -1.19, 95 percent CI: 95 percent CI: -2.17, -0.21), disability (PDI), functioning (HFAQ), well-being (SF-36), and range of mobility (extension, flexion), immediately after the treatment. In general, trials that applied sham-acupuncture tended to produce negative results (i.e., statistically non-significant) compared to trials that applied other types of placebo (e.g., TENS, medication, laser). Results regarding comparisons with other active treatments (pain medication, mobilization, laser therapy) were less consistent Acupuncture was more cost-effective compared to usual care or no treatment for patients with chronic back pain. For both low back and neck pain, manipulation was significantly better than placebo or no treatment in reducing pain immediately or short-term after the end of treatment. Manipulation was also better than acupuncture in improving pain and function in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Results from studies comparing manipulation to massage, medication, or physiotherapy were inconsistent, either in favor of manipulation or indicating no significant difference between the two treatments. Findings of studies regarding costs of manipulation relative to other therapies were inconsistent. Mobilization was superior to no treatment but not different from placebo in reducing low back pain or spinal flexibility after the treatment. Mobilization was better than physiotherapy in reducing low back pain (VAS: -0.50, 95 percent CI: -0.70, -0.30) and disability (Oswestry: -4.93, 95 percent CI: -5.91, -3.96). In subjects with acute or subacute neck pain, mobilization compared to placebo significantly reduced neck pain. Mobilization and placebo did not differ in subjects with chronic neck pain. Massage was superior to placebo or no treatment in reducing pain and disability only amongst subjects with acute/sub-acute low back pain. Massage was also significantly better than physical therapy in improving back pain (VAS: -2.11, 95 percent CI: -3.15, -1.07) or disability. For subjects with neck pain, massage was better than no treatment, placebo, or exercise in improving pain or disability, but not neck flexibility. Some evidence indicated higher costs for massage use compared to general practitioner care for low back pain. Reporting of harms in RCTs was poor and inconsistent. Subjects receiving CAM therapies reported soreness or bleeding on the site of application after acupuncture and worsening of pain after manipulation or massage. In two case-control studies cervical manipulation was shown to be significantly associated with vertebral artery dissection or vertebrobasilar vascular accident.

CONCLUSIONS: Evidence was of poor to moderate grade and most of it pertained to chronic nonspecific pain, making it difficult to draw more definitive conclusions regarding benefits and harms of CAM therapies in subjects with acute/subacute, mixed, or unknown duration of pain. The benefit of CAM treatments was mostly evident immediately or shortly after the end of the treatment and then faded with time. Very few studies reported long-term outcomes. There was insufficient data to explore subgroup effects. The trial results were inconsistent due probably to methodological and clinical diversity, thereby limiting the extent of quantitative synthesis and complicating interpretation of trial results. Strong efforts are warranted to improve the conduct methodology and reporting quality of primary studies of CAM therapies. Future well powered head to head comparisons of CAM treatments and trials comparing CAM to widely used active treatments that report on all clinically relevant outcomes are needed to draw better conclusions.

Get the paper here

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report.

Bronfort, Gert; Haas, Mitch; Evans, Roni; Leininger, Brent & Triano, Jay
Chiropractic \& osteopathy
The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.
Get the paper here