Nagy Mekhail, Sam Eldabe, Erin Templeton, Shrif Costandi, Richard Rosenquist
{"title":"Pain Management Interventions for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Nagy Mekhail, Sam Eldabe, Erin Templeton, Shrif Costandi, Richard Rosenquist","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Determine the relative effectiveness and safety profiles of percutaneous and minimally invasive interventions for chronic low back pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was performed for randomized controlled trials published in the past 20 years reporting on radiofrequency ablation of the basivertebral, disk annulus and facet nerve structures, steroid injection of the disk, facet joint, and medial branch, biological therapies, and multifidus muscle stimulation. Outcomes evaluated included Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, quality of life (SF-36 and EQ-5D) scores, and serious adverse event (SAE) rates. Basivertebral nerve (BVN) ablation was chosen as the subject of comparison to all other therapies using a random-effects meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-seven studies were included. BVN ablation was found to provide statistically significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores for 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-up ( P ≤0.05). Biological therapy and multifidus muscle stimulation were the only 2 treatments with both VAS and ODI outcomes not significantly different from BVN ablation at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up. All outcomes found to be statistically significant represented inferior results to those of BVN ablation. Insufficient data precluded meaningful comparisons of SF-36 and EQ-5D scores. The SAE rates for all therapies and all reported time points were not significantly different from BVN ablation except for biological therapy and multifidus muscle stimulation at the 6-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>BVN ablation, biological therapy, and multifidus stimulation all provide significant, durable improvements in both pain and disability compared with other interventions, which provided only short-term pain relief. Studies on BVN ablation reported no SAEs, a significantly better result than for studies of biological therapy and multifidus stimulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":"39 7","pages":"349-364"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001116","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Determine the relative effectiveness and safety profiles of percutaneous and minimally invasive interventions for chronic low back pain.
Methods: A systematic search was performed for randomized controlled trials published in the past 20 years reporting on radiofrequency ablation of the basivertebral, disk annulus and facet nerve structures, steroid injection of the disk, facet joint, and medial branch, biological therapies, and multifidus muscle stimulation. Outcomes evaluated included Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, quality of life (SF-36 and EQ-5D) scores, and serious adverse event (SAE) rates. Basivertebral nerve (BVN) ablation was chosen as the subject of comparison to all other therapies using a random-effects meta-analysis.
Results: Twenty-seven studies were included. BVN ablation was found to provide statistically significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores for 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-up ( P ≤0.05). Biological therapy and multifidus muscle stimulation were the only 2 treatments with both VAS and ODI outcomes not significantly different from BVN ablation at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up. All outcomes found to be statistically significant represented inferior results to those of BVN ablation. Insufficient data precluded meaningful comparisons of SF-36 and EQ-5D scores. The SAE rates for all therapies and all reported time points were not significantly different from BVN ablation except for biological therapy and multifidus muscle stimulation at the 6-month follow-up.
Conclusions: BVN ablation, biological therapy, and multifidus stimulation all provide significant, durable improvements in both pain and disability compared with other interventions, which provided only short-term pain relief. Studies on BVN ablation reported no SAEs, a significantly better result than for studies of biological therapy and multifidus stimulation.
期刊介绍：
The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
