Study design: Systematic review. 

Objective: To systematically assess benefits and harms of surgery for nonradicular back pain with common degenerative changes, radiculopathy with herniated lumbar disc, and symptomatic spinal stenosis. 

Summary of background data: Although back surgery rates continue to increase, there is uncertainty or controversy about utility of back surgery for various conditions. 

Methods: Electronic database searches on Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases were conducted through July 2008 to identify randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of the above therapies. All relevant studies were methodologically assessed by 2 independent reviewers using criteria developed by the Cochrane Back Review Group (for trials) and Oxman (for systematic reviews). A qualitative synthesis of results was performed using methods adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force. 

Results: For nonradicular low back pain with common degenerative changes, we found fair evidence that fusion is no better than intensive rehabilitation with a cognitive-behavioral emphasis for improvement in pain or function, but slightly to moderately superior to standard (nonintensive) nonsurgical therapy. Less than half of patients experience optimal outcomes (defined as no more than sporadic pain, slight restriction of function, and occasional analgesics) following fusion. Clinical benefits of instrumented versus noninstrumented fusion are unclear. For radiculopathy with herniated lumbar disc, we found good evidence that standard open discectomy and microdiscectomy are moderately superior to nonsurgical therapy for improvement in pain and function through 2 to 3 months. For symptomatic spinal stenosis with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis, we found good evidence that decompressive surgery is moderately superior to nonsurgical therapy through 1 to 2 years. For both conditions, patients on average experience improvement either with or without surgery, and benefits associated with surgery decrease with long-term follow-up in some trials. Although there is fair evidence that artificial disc replacement is similarly effective compared to fusion for single level degenerative disc disease and that an interspinous spacer device is superior to nonsurgical therapy for 1- or 2-level spinal stenosis with symptoms relieved with forward flexion, insufficient evidence exists to judge long-term benefits or harms. 

Conclusion: Surgery for radiculopathy with herniated lumbar disc and symptomatic spinal stenosis is associated with short-term benefits compared to nonsurgical therapy, though benefits diminish with long-term follow-up in some trials. For nonradicular back pain with common degenerative changes, fusion is no more effective than intensive rehabilitation, but associated with small to moderate benefits compared to standard nonsurgical therapy.

Surgery for Low Back Pain: A Review of the Evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Study Design. Systematic review. Objective. To systematically assess benefits and harms of nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back and radicular pain. Summary of Background Data. Although use of certain interventional therapies is common or increasing, there is also uncertainty or controversy about their efficacy. Methods. Electronic database searches on Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases were conducted through July 2008 to identify randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of local injections, botulinum toxin injection, prolotherapy, epidural steroid injection, facet joint injection, therapeutic medial branch block, sacroiliac joint injection, intradiscal steroid injection, chemonucleolysis, radiofrequency denervation, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, percutaneous intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation, Coblation nucleoplasty, and spinal cord stimulation. All relevant studies were methodologically assessed by 2 independent reviewers using criteria developed by the Cochrane Back Review Group (for trials) and by Oxman (for systematic reviews). A qualitative synthesis of results was performed using methods adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force. Results. For sciatica or prolapsed lumbar disc with radiculopathy, we found good evidence that chemonucleolysis is moderately superior to placebo injection but inferior to surgery, and fair evidence that epidural steroid injection is moderately effective for short-term (but not long-term) symptom relief. We found fair evidence that spinal cord stimulation is moderately effective for failed back surgery syndrome with persistent radiculopathy, though device-related complications are common. We found good or fair evidence that prolotherapy, facet joint injection, intradiscal steroid injection, and percutaneous intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation are not effective. Insufficient evidence exists to reliably evaluate other interventional therapies. Conclusion. Few nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back pain have been shown to be effective in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society clinical practice guideline.

Study Design. A Cochrane review of randomized controlled trials. Objectives. To collate the scientific evidence on surgical management for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Summary of Background Data. Surgical investigations and interventions account for as much as one third of the health care costs for spinal disorders, but the scientific evidence for most procedures still is unclear. Methods. A highly sensitive search strategy identified all published randomized controlled trials. Cochrane methodology was used for meta-analysis of the results. Results. Twenty-six randomized controlled trials of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and 14 trials of surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis were identified. Methodologic weaknesses were found in many of the trials. Only one trial directly compared discectomy and conservative management. Meta-analyses showed that surgical discectomy produces better clinical outcomes than chemonucleolysis, which is better than placebo. Three trials showed no difference in clinical outcomes between microdiscectomy and standard discectomy, but in three other studies, both produced better results than percutaneous discectomy. Three trials showed that inserting an interposition membrane after discectomy does not significantly reduce scar formation or alter clinical outcomes. Five heterogeneous trials on spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis permit very limited conclusions. There were nine trials of instrumented versus noninstrumented fusion: Meta-analysis showed that instrumentation may facilitate fusion but does not improve clinical outcomes. Conclusions. There is now strong evidence on the relative effectiveness of surgical discectomy versus chemonucleolysis versus placebo. There is considerable evidence on the clinical effectiveness of discectomy for carefully selected patients with sciatica caused by lumbar disc prolapse that fails to resolve with conservative management. There is no scientific evidence on the effectiveness of any form of surgical decompression or fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylosis compared with natural history, placebo, or conservative management. The Cochrane reviews will be updated continuously as other trials become available.

The Cochrane review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective randomized study involving 280 consecutive cases of lumbar disc herniation managed either by an endoscopic discectomy alone or an endoscopic discectomy combined with an intradiscal injection of a low dose (1000 U) of chymopapain. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcome, complications, and reherniations of both techniques. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite a low complication rate, posterolateral endoscopic nucleotomy has made a lengthy evolution because of an assumed limited indication. Chemonucleolysis, however, proven to be safe and effective, has not continued to be accepted by the majority in the spinal community as microdiscectomy is considered to be more reliable. METHOD: A total of 280 consecutive patients with a primary herniated, including sequestrated, lumbar disc with predominant leg pain, was randomized. A clinical follow-up was performed at 3 months, and at 1 and 2 years after the index operation with an extensive questionnaire, including the visual analog scale for pain and the MacNab criteria. The cohort integrity at 3 months was 100%, at 1 year 96%, and at 2 years 92%. RESULTS: At the 3-month evaluation, only minor complications were registered. At 1-year postoperatively, group 1 (endoscopy alone) had a recurrence rate of 6.9% compared to group 2 (the combination therapy), with a recurrence rate of 1.6%, which was a statistically significant difference in favor of the combination therapy (P = 0045). At the 2-year follow-up, group 1 reported that 85.4% had an excellent or good result, 6.9% a fair result, and 7.7% were not satisfied. At the 2-year follow-up, group 2 reported that 93.3% had an excellent or good result, 2.5% a fair result, and 4.2% were not satisfied. This outcome was statistically significant in favor of the group including chymopapain. There were no infections or patients with any form of permanent iatrogenic nerve damage, and no patients had a major complication. CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage of patient satisfaction could be obtained with a posterior lateral endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation, and a statistically significant improvement of the results was obtained when an intradiscal injection of 1000 U of chymopapain was added. There was a low recurrence rate with no major complications. The method can be applied in any type of lumbar disc herniation, including the L5-S1 level.

Transforaminal posterolateral endoscopic discectomy with or without the combination of a low-dose chymopapain: a prospective randomized study in 280 consecutive cases.

Study design An updated Cochrane Review. Objectives To assess the effects of surgical interventions for the treatment of lumbar disc prolapse. Summary of background data Disc prolapse accounts for 5% of low back disorders yet is one of the most common reasons for surgery. There is still little scientific evidence supporting some interventions. Methods Use of standard Cochrane review methods to analyze all randomized controlled trials published up to January 1, 2007. Results Forty randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 quasi-RCTs were identified. Many of the early trials were of some form of chemonucleolysis, whereas the majority of the later studies either compared different techniques of discectomy or the use of some form of membrane to reduce epidural scarring. Four trials directly compared discectomy with conservative management, and these give suggestive rather than conclusive results. However, other trials show that discectomy produces better clinical outcomes than chemonucleolysis, and that in turn is better than placebo. Microdiscectomy gives broadly comparable results to standard discectomy. Recent trials of an interposition gel covering the dura (5 trials) and of fat (4 trials) show that they can reduce scar formation, although there is limited evidence about the effect on clinical outcomes. There is insufficient evidence on other percutaneous discectomy techniques to draw firm conclusions. Three small RCTs of laser discectomy do not provide conclusive evidence on its efficacy. There are no published RCTs of coblation therapy or transforaminal endoscopic discectomy. Conclusion Surgical discectomy for carefully selected patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc prolapse provides faster relief from the acute attack than conservative management, although any positive or negative effects on the lifetime natural history of the underlying disc disease are still unclear. The evidence for other minimally invasive techniques remains unclear except for chemonucleolysis using chymopapain, which is no longer widely available.

Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse: updated Cochrane Review.

The role of chemonucleolysis as an alternative to disc surgery is still disputed. The authors conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial of chemonucleolysis and conventional disc surgery involving 92 patients with L4-5 or L5-S1 disc herniation who failed to respond to conservative treatment. There were 46 patients in each group, matched for demographic, clinical characteristics, and co-interventions. Independent examiners assessed patients before treatment, at 6 weeks after, 3 months after, and 1 year after treatment. A comprehensive method of outcome assessment involving physiological outcome, functional outcome, cost outcome, and psychological outcome was employed. Nine chemonucleolysis patients and one disc surgery patient required additional surgery for failure of initial treatment (P less than 0.02). The outcomes at 6 weeks and at 3 months were better in the surgical group, but at 1 year the differences were not significant. The authors conclude that chemonucleolysis as a minimally invasive technique produces inferior short-term results and offers no advantage over conventional discectomy.

/pdf/a-prospective-randomized-trial-of-chemonucleolysis-and-hapvfhbzlc.pdf

A prospective randomized trial of chemonucleolysis and conventional disc surgery in single level lumbar disc herniation

Throughout the ages, physicians have listened to sounds and felt vibrations from human joints in their attempts to diagnose pathology. They have used a wide vocabulary to describe these phenomena, but technology has been slow to provide recording and analytic equipment. Lately, accelerometers have been used with considerable success in a new noninvasive method now known as vibration arthrometry (formerly "arthrography"). The technique has been used in early detection of congenital dislocation of the hip and also in diagnosis of meniscal pathology. More recently, patellar vibration has been used to assess the mechanical properties of articular cartilage. Vibration arthrometry has also yielded new information on a possible damage mechanism associated with shock vibration that arises during cavitation of synovial fluid. Joint vibrations are therefore useful aids to diagnosis and may even be etiologic in orthopedic disease.

Vibration arthrometry. A preview.

A 25 year old Malaysian man who habitually elicited cracking sounds from many of his joints was investigated during a study of joint cracking. He had no symptoms or obvious abnormalities of his joints, but a radiograph of his right hand showed ligamentous ossification on the ulnar side of his third metacarpophalangeal joint and chondrocalcinosis in the first and fourth metacarpophalangeal joints (figure). There was no evidence of osteoarthrosis. Distraction of the articular surfaces during finger pulling lowers =_ the pressure of the synovial fluid. When the vapour pressure is reached the fluid evaporates, giving a cracking sound and forming an intra-articular bubble. Previous studies have reached conflicting conclusions about the radiological changes found in habitual finger cracking,' 2 but we suggest that excessive joint cracking may have caused the changes seen in this subject, who had no signs ofany other underlying disease. -P WATSON, A HAMILTON, R MOLLAN, department oforthopaedic surgery, Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast BT9 77B.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/299/6715/1566.1.full.pdf

A. Hamilton

Papers

A prospective randomized trial of chemonucleolysis and conventional disc surgery in single level lumbar disc herniation

Vibration arthrometry. A preview.

Habitual joint cracking and radiological damage.

Assessment of the patellofemoral articulation by vibration arthrometry