scholarly journals Lack of Superiority of Epidural Injections with Lidocaine with Steroids Compared to Without Steroids in Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 4S;23 (8;4S) ◽  
pp. S239-S270
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis

Background: Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been conducted to summarize the evidence for administration of local anesthetic (lidocaine) alone or with steroids, with discordant opinions, more in favor of equal effect with local anesthetic alone or with steroids. Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of lidocaine alone and lidocaine with steroids in managing spinal pain to assess superiority or equivalency. Study Design: A systematic review of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of lidocaine alone compared with addition of steroids to lidocaine in managing spinal pain secondary to multiple causes (disc herniation, radiculitis, discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post-surgery syndrome). Methods: This systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) for literature search, Cochrane review criteria, and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) to assess the methodologic quality assessment and qualitative analysis utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and quantitative analysis utilizing conventional and single-arm meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through December 2019. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Outcome Measures: A hard endpoint for the primary outcome was defined as the proportion of patients with 50% pain relief and improvement in function. Secondary outcome measures, or soft endpoints, were pain relief and/or improvement in function. Effectiveness was determined as short-term if it was less than 6 months. Improvement that lasted longer than 6 months, was defined as long-term. Results: Based on search criteria, 15 manuscripts were identified and considered for inclusion for qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis with conventional meta-analysis, and single-arm meta-analysis. The results showed Level II, moderate evidence, for short-term and long-term improvement in pain and function with the application of epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroid in managing spinal pain of multiple origins. Limitations: Despite 15 RCTs, evidence may still be considered as less than optimal and further studies are recommended. Conclusion: Overall, the present meta-analysis shows moderate (Level II) evidence for epidural injections with lidocaine with or without steroids in managing spinal pain secondary to disc herniation, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, and post-surgery syndrome based on relevant, high-quality RCTs. Results were similar for lidocaine, with or without steroids. Key Words: Chronic spinal pain, epidural injections, local anesthetic, lidocaine, steroids, active control trials, placebo effect

scholarly journals Efficacy of Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain: A Best Evidence Synthesis

2015 ◽  
Vol 6;18 (6;11) ◽  
pp. E939-E1004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan David Kaye
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Interlaminar Approach ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: Epidural injections have been used since 1901 in managing low back pain and sciatica. Spinal pain, disability, health, and economic impact continue to increase, despite numerous modalities of interventions available in managing chronic spinal pain. Thus far, systematic reviews performed to assess the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain have yielded conflicting results. Objective: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain. Study Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain. Methods: In this systematic review, randomized trials with a placebo control or an active-control design were included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Best evidence synthesis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to V). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed for a period starting in 1966 through August 2015; Cochrane reviews; and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Results: A total of 52 trials met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not feasible. The evidence in managing lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis is Level II for long-term improvement either with caudal, interlaminar, or transforaminal epidural injections with no significant difference among the approaches. The evidence is Level II for long-term management of cervical disc herniation with interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence is Level II to III in managing thoracic disc herniation with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with Level III evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for lumbar spinal stenosis. The evidence is Level II for cervical spinal stenosis management with an interlaminar approach The evidence is Level II for axial or discogenic pain without facet arthropathy or disc herniation treated with caudal or lumbar interlaminar injections in the lumbar region; whereas it is Level II in the cervical region treated with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence for post lumbar surgery syndrome is Level II with caudal epidural injections and for post cervical surgery syndrome it is Level II with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. Limitations: Even though this is a large systematic review with inclusion of a large number of randomized controlled trials, the paucity of high quality randomized trials literature continues to confound the evidence. Conclusion: This systematic review, with an assessment of the quality of manuscripts and outcome parameters, shows the efficacy of epidural injections in managing a multitude of chronic spinal conditions. Key words: Chronic pain, spinal pain, epidural injections, local anesthetic, steroids, interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections

scholarly journals New meniscal tears after ACL injury: what is the risk? A systematic review protocol

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 386-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guri Ranum Ekås ◽  
Clare Ardern ◽  
Hege Grindem ◽  
Lars Engebretsen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis

BackgroundSecondary meniscal tears after ACL injuries increase the risk of knee osteoarthritis. The current literature on secondary meniscal injuries after ACL injury is not consistent and may have methodological shortcomings. This protocol describes the methods of a systematic review investigating the rate of secondary meniscal injuries in children and adults after treatment (operative or non-operative) for ACL injury.MethodsWe will search electronic databases (Embase, Ovid Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), SPORTDiscus, PEDro and Google Scholar) from database inception. Extracted data will include demographic data, methodology, intervention details and patient outcomes. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa checklist for cohort studies. Article screening, eligibility assessment, risk of bias assessment and data extraction will be performed in duplicate by independent reviewers. A proportion meta-analysis will be performed if studies are homogeneous (I2<75%). If meta-analysis is precluded, data will be synthesised descriptively using best-evidence synthesis. The strength of recommendations and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation working group methodology.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol is written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 22 March 2016.Trial registration numberCRD42016036788.

scholarly journals https://painphysicianjournal.com/current

2020 ◽  
Vol 4;23 (7;4) ◽  
pp. 335-348
Author(s):  
Nicholas Van Halm-Lutterodt
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Functional Status ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Neck Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Chronic neck pain is reportedly considered the fourth leading cause of disability. Cervical interlaminar epidural injections are among the commonly administered nonsurgical interventions for managing chronic neck pain, secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis, spinal stenosis, or chronic neck pain of discogenic origin. Objectives: To systematically review the differences in the effectiveness of cervical epidural injections with local anesthetics with or without steroids for the management of chronic neck pain. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids was performed, including a search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for all years up to May 2019. Meta-analysis was done for pain relief based on the Numeric Rating Scale, functional status based on the Neck Disability Index, and opioid intake dosage. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 370 patients were divided into 2 groups: the experimental group received cervical epidural injection with steroid and local anesthetic, and the control group received injection with local anesthetic only. Regrading pain relief, no significant difference was observed between both groups (weighted mean difference [WMD], –0.006; 95% confidence interval (CI), –0.275 to 0.263; P = 0.963; I2 = 0.0% at 12 months). There was also no significant difference in the improvement of the functional status (WMD, 0.159; 95% CI, –1.231 to 1.549; P = 0.823; I2 = 9.8% at 12 months). Similarly, there was no significant difference in opioid dosage (WMD, –0.093; 95% CI, –5.952 to 5.766; P = 0.975; I2 = 0.0% at 12 months). Limitations: Only a few studies on this premise were found in the literature. There was also a lack of heterogeneity of the included RCT studies. Conclusions: The addition of steroids to anesthetic injectates was not associated with better pain and functional score outcomes compared with anesthetic injectate alone in patients with chronic neck pain. Key words: Chronic neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, cervical disc disease, spinal stenosis, facet joint pathology, cervical epidural injections, steroid injections, local anesthetic injections, systematic review, meta-analysis, randomized control trial

scholarly journals Recalibrating the risk of hamstring strain injury (HSI): A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors for index and recurrent hamstring strain injury in sport

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (18) ◽  
pp. 1081-1088 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brady Green ◽  
Matthew N Bourne ◽  
Nicol van Dyk ◽  
Tania Pizzari
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Older Age ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Hamstring Strain ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis ◽  
History Of

ObjectiveTo systematically review risk factors for hamstring strain injury (HSI).DesignSystematic review update.Data sourcesDatabase searches: (1) inception to 2011 (original), and (2) 2011 to December 2018 (update). Citation tracking, manual reference and ahead of press searches.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies presenting prospective data evaluating factors associated with the risk of index and/or recurrent HSI.MethodSearch result screening and risk of bias assessment. A best evidence synthesis for each factor and meta-analysis, where possible, to determine the association with risk of HSI.ResultsThe 78 studies captured 8,319 total HSIs, including 967 recurrences, in 71,324 athletes. Older age (standardised mean difference=1.6, p=0.002), any history of HSI (risk ratio (RR)=2.7, p<0.001), a recent HSI (RR=4.8, p<0.001), previous anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury (RR=1.7, p=0.002) and previous calf strain injury (RR=1.5, p<0.001) were significant risk factors for HSI. From the best evidence synthesis, factors relating to sports performance and match play, running and hamstring strength were most consistently associated with HSI risk. The risk of recurrent HSI is best evaluated using clinical data and not the MRI characteristics of the index injury.Summary/conclusionOlder age and a history of HSI are the strongest risk factors for HSI. Future research may be directed towards exploring the interaction of risk factors and how these relationships fluctuate over time given the occurrence of index and recurrent HSI in sport is multifactorial.

scholarly journals Musculoskeletal pain and sedentary behaviour in occupational and non-occupational settings: a systematic review with meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Q. S. Dzakpasu ◽  
Alison Carver ◽  
Christian J. Brakenridge ◽  
Flavia Cicuttini ◽  
Donna M. Urquhart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Shoulder Pain ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Insufficient Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Experimental Intervention ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Cross Sectional Studies ◽  
Full Day

Abstract Background Sedentary behaviour (SB; time spent sitting) is associated with musculoskeletal pain (MSP) conditions; however, no prior systematic review has examined these associations according to SB domains. We synthesised evidence on occupational and non-occupational SB and MSP conditions. Methods Guided by a PRISMA protocol, eight databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus, and AMED) and three grey literature sources (Google Scholar, WorldChat, and Trove) were searched (January 1, 2000, to March 17, 2021) for original quantitative studies of adults ≥ 18 years. Clinical-condition studies were excluded. Studies’ risk of bias was assessed using the QualSyst checklist. For meta-analyses, random effect inverse-variance pooled effect size was estimated; otherwise, best-evidence synthesis was used for narrative review. Results Of 178 potentially-eligible studies, 79 were included [24 general population; 55 occupational (incuding15 experimental/intervention)]; 56 studies were of high quality, with scores > 0.75. Data for 26 were meta-synthesised. For cross-sectional studies of non-occupational SB, meta-analysis showed full-day SB to be associated with low back pain [LBP – OR = 1.19(1.03 – 1.38)]. Narrative synthesis found full-day SB associations with knee pain, arthritis, and general MSP, but the evidence was insufficient on associations with neck/shoulder pain, hip pain, and upper extremities pain. Evidence of prospective associations of full-day SB with MSP conditions was insufficient. Also, there was insufficient evidence on both cross-sectional and prospective associations between leisure-time SB and MSP conditions. For occupational SB, cross-sectional studies meta-analysed indicated associations of self-reported workplace sitting with LBP [OR = 1.47(1.12 – 1.92)] and neck/shoulder pain [OR = 1.73(1.46 – 2.03)], but not with extremities pain [OR = 1.17(0.65 – 2.11)]. Best-evidence synthesis identified inconsistent findings on cross-sectional association and a probable negative prospective association of device-measured workplace sitting with LBP-intensity in tradespeople. There was cross-sectional evidence on the association of computer time with neck/shoulder pain, but insufficient evidence for LBP and general MSP. Experimental/intervention evidence indicated reduced LBP, neck/shoulder pain, and general MSP with reducing workplace sitting. Conclusions We found cross-sectional associations of occupational and non-occupational SB with MSP conditions, with occupational SB associations being occupation dependent, however, reverse causality bias cannot be ruled out. While prospective evidence was inconclusive, reducing workplace sitting was associated with reduced MSP conditions. Future studies should emphasise prospective analyses and examining potential interactions with chronic diseases. Protocol registration PROSPERO ID #CRD42020166412 (Amended to limit the scope)

Living systematic reviews: A novel mechanism for improving efficiency and quality of evidence synthesis in oncology.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 241-241
Author(s):  
Irbaz Bin Riaz ◽  
Rabbia Siddiqi ◽  
Noureen Asghar ◽  
Elizabeth Jane Cathcart-Rake ◽  
Vitaly Herasevich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Principle Investigator

241 Background: In a rapidly moving field, such as cancer immunotherapy, where immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are used across 14 different tumor types, patients may receive suboptimal treatment or even be harmed if information on toxicity is not readily translated for use in clinical practice. Every single systematic review and meta-analysis which attempted to summarize toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) quickly became outdated. A living systematic review, which is defined as a systematic review that is continually updated to incorporate relevant new evidence as it becomes available, is necessary in this situation. Methods: The process of creating a living systematic review started with the creation of a comprehensive search designed by a librarian experienced in systematic reviews in collaboration with the study’s principle investigator. Search was constantly updated every 3 months and evidence is synthesized in a series of steps (microtasks) using a combination of human and augmented intelligence. A complete infrastructure is being developed and it includes automated cumulative meta-analysis and an online reporting platform which will constantly update information for clinicians and patients in a live manner. Results: We screened 6746 studies during Sep 2018-March 2019 and identified 6746 studies and we were able to successfully maintain up-to-date toxicity estimates for immune mediated adverse events over this period while maintaining the rigor of a conventional systematic review. Eventually, we will integrate the steps of LSR into one, user-friendly, semi-automated format which can independently provide accurate estimates and feed into and support a living guidelines platform through shared Application Programing Interface (APIs). Conclusions: LSRs are feasible, efficient, and when fully developed can reduce redundancy and waste in medical research, improve the quality of evidence, reduce human effort and support living and dynamic guidelines to facilitate truly informed shared decision making.

scholarly journals Epidural Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines

2021 ◽  
Vol S1;24 (1;S1) ◽  
pp. S27-S208
Keyword(s):  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conservative Management ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Level Ii

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is the most prevalent chronic disease with employment of multiple modes of interventional techniques including epidural interventions. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines have been published. The recent review of the utilization patterns and expenditures show that there has been a decline in utilization of epidural injections with decrease in inflation adjusted costs from 2009 to 2018. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) published guidelines for interventional techniques in 2013, and guidelines for facet joint interventions in 2020. Consequently, these guidelines have been prepared to update previously existing guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing therapeutic epidural procedures, including caudal, interlaminar in lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spinal regions, transforaminal in lumbar spine, and percutaneous adhesiolysis in the lumbar spine. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objective and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of epidural interventions was viewed with best evidence synthesis of available literature and recommendations were provided. RESULTS: In preparation of the guidelines, extensive literature review was performed. In addition to review of multiple manuscripts in reference to utilization, expenditures, anatomical and pathophysiological considerations, pharmacological and harmful effects of drugs and procedures, for evidence synthesis we have included 47 systematic reviews and 43 RCTs covering all epidural interventions to meet the objectives. The evidence recommendations are as follows: Disc herniation: Based on relevant, high-quality fluoroscopically guided epidural injections, with or without steroids, and results of previous systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I for caudal epidural injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing disc herniation based on one high-quality, placebo-controlled RCT is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement in patients nonresponsive to conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. For thoracic disc herniation, based on one relevant, high-quality RCT of thoracic epidural with fluoroscopic guidance, with or without steroids, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness. Spinal stenosis: The evidence based on one high-quality RCT in each category the evidence is Level III to II for fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation and Level II for fluoroscopically guided lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness. The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections is Level IV to III with moderate recommendation with fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for long-term improvement. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in lumbar stenosis based on relevant, moderate to high quality RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. Axial discogenic pain: The evidence for axial discogenic pain without facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain in the lumbar and cervical spine with fluoroscopically guided caudal, lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, based on one relevant high quality RCT in each category is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement, with or without steroids. Post-surgery syndrome: The evidence for lumbar and cervical post-surgery syndrome based on one relevant, high-quality RCT with fluoroscopic guidance for caudal and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, with or without steroids, is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement. For percutaneous adhesiolysis, based on multiple moderate to high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I with strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of high-quality studies for some techniques and various conditions including spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, and discogenic pain. CONCLUSIONS: These epidural intervention guidelines including percutaneous adhesiolysis were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment and determination of level of evidence with strength of recommendations. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, epidural procedures, caudal epidural, lumbar interlaminar epidural, cervical interlaminar epidural, thoracic interlaminar epidural, lumbar transforaminal epidural, percutaneous adhesiolysis DISCLAIMER: These guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a “standard of care.” There was no external funding in the preparation of this manuscript.

scholarly journals What are Systematic Reviews?

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Jack Nunn ◽  
Steven Chang
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Environmental Interventions

Systematic reviews are a type of review that uses repeatable analytical methods to collect secondary data and analyse it. Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis which formulate research questions that are broad or narrow in scope, and identify and synthesize data that directly relate to the systematic review question. While some people might associate ‘systematic review’ with 'meta-analysis', there are multiple kinds of review which can be defined as ‘systematic’ which do not involve a meta-analysis. Some systematic reviews critically appraise research studies, and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively. Systematic reviews are often designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current evidence relevant to a research question. For example, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are an important way of informing evidence-based medicine, and a review of existing studies is often quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new study. While systematic reviews are often applied in the biomedical or healthcare context, they can be used in other areas where an assessment of a precisely defined subject would be helpful. Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions, social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations. An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is highly recommended for professionals involved in the delivery of health care, public health and public policy.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in Managing Chronic Central Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (22;6) ◽  
pp. E523-E550
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Background: Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is a condition affecting a growing number of individuals resulting in significant disability and pain, leading to a multitude of interventions ranging from simple over the counter medication to opioids, and, finally, to complex surgical fusions. After failure of conservative treatment with drug therapy, physical therapy, and other conservative modalities including epidural injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis with targeted delivery of drugs into the epidural space can be offered in lumbar central spinal stenosis prior to minimally invasive surgical options or complex surgical fusions. To date there has been only one systematic review which has assessed the role of percutaneous adhesiolysis in treating central spinal stenosis, compared to post lumbar surgery syndrome which has multiple systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Study Design: A systematic review of RCTs and observational studies assessing the role of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar central spinal stenosis. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing central lumbar spinal stenosis, utilizing currently available literature. Methods: This systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for literature search, Cochrane review criteria, Interventional Pain Management techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPMQRB), and Interventional Pain Management Techniques – Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) to assess methodologic quality assessment and qualitative analysis utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through June 2019. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of the best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome or hard endpoint was defined as the proportion of patients with 50% pain relief and improvement in functionality, whereas the secondary outcome measures or soft endpoints were pain relief and/or improvement in functionality. Short-term effectiveness was defined as improvement of 6 months or less, whereas long-term effectiveness was defined as more than 6 months. Results: Based on search criteria, 9 manuscripts were identified and considered for inclusion with final inclusion of 2 RCTs and 4 observational studies in this systematic review and 5 studies for single arm meta-analysis. The results showed Level II evidence for short-term and long-term improvement in pain and function with application of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing central lumbar spinal stenosis. Limitations: There was a significant paucity of evidence assessing the role of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar central spinal stenosis, leading to Level II or moderate evidence.Conclusion: Overall, the present analysis shows Level II (moderate) evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar central spinal stenosis based on relevant high quality RCTs and observational studies. Key Words: Lumbar central spinal stenosis, percutaneous adhesiolysis, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, neuroplasty

scholarly journals 144 Is proximal stability a risk factor for knee injuries in athletic populations? A systematic review with meta-analysis and best-evidence synthesis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lionel Chia ◽  
Danilo De Oliveira Silva ◽  
Marnee McKay ◽  
Justin Sullivan ◽  
Fabio Mıcolis de Azevedo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Factor ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Knee Injuries ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document