scholarly journals Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain in Post Lumbar Surgery Syndrome and Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review

2012 ◽  
Vol 4;15 (4;8) ◽  
pp. E435-E462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Standiford Helm II

Background: Low back pain after either post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis in the absence of surgery is a vexing problem. Post lumbar surgery syndrome can occur in any age group, while low back and radicular pain from spinal stenosis is a disease of aging. As the population ages, the incidence of symptomatic spinal stenosis will increase. There are currently limited treatment options for either group. Further surgery is not uniformly effective in relieving pain after previous surgery. While therapies are being developed to treat pain due to spinal stenosis, no therapy other than adhesiolysis will treat pain due to scarring. Adhesiolysis was developed as a means of removing epidural scarring leading directly or indirectly to compression, inflammation, swelling, or a decreased nutritional supply of nerve roots. Adhesiolysis utilizes a number of modalities in the effort to break up epidural scarring, including the use of a wirebound catheter for mechanical adhesiolysis, placement of the catheter in the ventro-lateral aspect of the epidural space at the site of the exiting nerve root, and the use of high volumes of injectate, including local anesthetics and saline, either hypertonic or isotonic, along with steroids. Study Design: A systematic review of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. The severity of risks and adverse events associated with percutaneous adhesiolysis were also evaluated. Methods: The available literature on percutaneous adhesiolysis for the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited (or poor) based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief of at least 6 months. Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, change in psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid use or interventions. Results: For this systematic review, 15 studies were identified and selected for review. Of these, 5 randomized controlled trials and 2 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Applying the USPSTF criteria, these studies indicate that there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/or leg pain caused by post lumbar surgery syndrome and that there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/ or leg pain caused by spinal stenosis The incidence of complications from percutaneous adhesiolysis is low and the complications are generally minimal and self-limited. The procedure should be considered to be low risk for serious adverse events when performed by well-trained physicians. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature. Conclusion: In summary, there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/or leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. Key words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, leg pain, adhesiolysis, Racz procedure, post lumbar surgery syndrome, spinal stenosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 1759720X2110280
Author(s):  
Camille Daste ◽  
Stéphanie Laclau ◽  
Margaux Boisson ◽  
François Segretin ◽  
Antoine Feydy ◽  
...  

Objectives: We aim to evaluate the benefits and harms of intervertebral disc therapies (IDTs) in people with non-specific chronic low back pain (NScLBP). Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of IDTs versus placebo interventions, active comparators or usual care. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and CINHAL databases and conference abstracts were searched from inception to June 2020. Two independent investigators extracted data. The primary outcome was LBP intensity at short term (1 week–3 months), intermediate term (3–6 months) and long term (after 6 months). Results: Of 18 eligible trials (among 1396 citations), five assessed glucocorticoids (GCs) IDTs and were included in a quantitative synthesis; 13 assessed other products including etanercept ( n = 2), tocilizumab ( n = 1), methylene blue ( n = 2), ozone ( n = 2), chymopapaine ( n = 1), glycerol ( n = 1), stem cells ( n = 1), platelet-rich plasma ( n = 1) and recombinant human growth and differentiation factor-5 ( n = 2), and were included in a narrative synthesis. Standardized mean differences (95% CI) for GC IDTs for LBP intensity and activity limitations were −1.33 (−2.34; −0.32) and −0.76 (−1.85; 0.34) at short term, −2.22 (−5.34; 0.90) and −1.60 (−3.51; 0.32) at intermediate term and −1.11 (−2.91; 0.70) and −0.63 (−1.68; 0.42) at long term, respectively. Odds ratios (95% CI) for serious and minor adverse events with GC IDTs were 1.09 (0.25; 4.65) and 0.97 (0.49; 1.91). Conclusion: GC IDTs are associated with a reduction in LBP intensity at short term in people with NScLBP. Positive effects are not sustained. IDTs have no effect on activity limitations. Our conclusions are limited by high heterogeneity and a limited methodological quality across studies. Registration PROSPERO: CRD42019106336.


2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Kregel ◽  
Mira Meeus ◽  
Anneleen Malfliet ◽  
Mieke Dolphens ◽  
Lieven Danneels ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Karolina Walewicz

Background: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy (ESWT) has become a popular tool to treat musculoskeletal disorders and chronic low back pain. Aim of the study: To review the current scientific literature and assess the utility of ESWT in treating chronic low back pain. Methods: This systematic review was conducted from November 2019 to January 2020. Its purpose was to determine what the effectiveness is of the various forms of ESWT for the treatment of chronic low back pain. The critical review of the literature on the use of ESWT in chronic low back was made using the scientifically recognized medical databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Web of Science Core Collection. There was no restriction by date. Exclusion criteria were experimental, in vitro, animal, review, case reports, non-randomized clinical trials or studies with healthy participants. All articles written in languages other than English have also been excluded. Results: Six studies were included in the final analysis. According to the applied PEDro classification, the average scoring for the studies was 4.83, which indicates overall low quality of the presented reports. However, this result appeared closer to the moderate (acceptable) quality range (6-8 points) than to the unacceptable range (0-2 points). Conclusion: Based on the findings in the analyzed articles, ESWT promises to be an efficient and useful procedure in chronic low back pain treatment. Unfortunately, the level of evidence is relatively weak because there are a limited number of published studies related to ESWT and the final score in the PEDro classification was low. Together, these results indicate the need for further high quality randomized clinical trials.


2020 ◽  
Vol 127 (9) ◽  
pp. 1257-1270
Author(s):  
Mohammad Alwardat ◽  
Antonio Pisani ◽  
Mohammad Etoom ◽  
Roberta Carpenedo ◽  
Elisabetta Chinè ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document