【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the effectiveness of surgical treatment for discogenic low back pain (DLBP) by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) combined with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF). Methods Between March 2006 and July 2009, 57 patients with single-level DLBP were treated by minimally invasive TLIF combined with UPSF, including 27 males and 30 females with an average age of 45.6 years (range, 38-61 years) and a disease duration of 3.8 years (range, 9 months to 11 years). The involved segments included L2，3 in 2 cases, L3，4 in 5 cases, L4，5 in 29 cases, and L5, S1 in 21 cases. The operative time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, hospitalization times, fusion rate, and complications were observed. The effectiveness were evaluated through Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue score (VAS), and the operative outcomes were compared in different groups classified according to various pressures of the contrast medium and sensitivities to discoblock after inducing consistent pain. Results The operation time, incision length, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and hospitalization times were (84.6 ± 37.4) minutes, (3.4 ± 0.6) cm, (132.5 ± 23.2) mL, (58.7 ± 21.4) mL, and (6.5 ± 0.8) days, respectively. All patients were followed up 2 years and 2 months to 5 years and 4 months (mean, 3.2 years). At last follow-up, ODI and VAS scores were significantly improved when compared with preoperative scores (P lt; 0.05). The effectiveness according to ODI were excellent in 27 cases, good in 22 cases, fair in 6 cases, and poor in 2 cases, with an excellent and good rate of 86.0%. All patients acquired b interbody fusion. At last follow-up according to ODI and VAS scores, better results were found in patients of low-pressure sensitive group and high-sensitive discoblock group (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion Minimally invasive TLIF combined with UPSF is reliable for DLBP with minimal surgical trauma, less paravertebral tissue injury, and fewer complications, but the indications for operation must be strictly followed. Patients being sensitive to low-pressure or high-sensitive to discoblock can achieve better surgical results.
Objective To evaluate the prel iminary cl inical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for patient with discogenic chronic low back pain (CLBP) and fail ing to respond to conservative treatment. Methods From June 2007 to May 2008, 52 patients with CLBP and fail ing to respond to conservative treatment were treated, including 15 males and 37 females aged 29-46 years old (average 38.2 years old). Those patients were diagnosed ith discogenic pain by low pressure discography. Duration of CLBP was 6-110 months with an average of 32.1 months. MRI exam revealed 108 “black intervertebral discs” low in signal on T2 image, including 3 discs of L2,3, 17 of L3,4, 48 of L4,5 and 40 of L5-S1. Pressure-controlled discography showed positive response, fluoroscopy or intraoperative CT confirmed annulus fibrosus tears of posterior intervertebral disc in 79 discs. PELD was performed. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was evaluated before operation, 1 month after operation and at the final follow-up. The cl inical outcome was determined by modified Macnab criteria at the final follow-up. Results The average operation time of each disc was 30.7 minutes (range 21-36 minutes), and the mean length of postoperative hospital stay was 3.7 days (range 2-5 days). No compl ications such as infection and the injury of blood vessels and nerves occurred. Transient paralysis of nerve occurred in 5 cases on operation day, and those symptoms were disappeared at the final follow-up visit without special treatment. Fifty-two cases were followed up for 3-15 months (average 7.3 months). VAS score before operation, 1 month after operation and at the final follow-up was (7.34 ± 1.52), (3.62 ± 0.92) and (1.57 ± 0.48) points, respectively, indicating there were significant differences compared with preoperative score (P lt; 0.01). According to the modified Macnab criteria, 11 cases were graded as excellent, 23 as good, 13 as fair, 5 as bad, and the excellent and good rate was 65.38%. Conclusion Prel iminary study suggests that PELD is safe and effective in treating patient with discogenic CLBP and fail ing to respond to conservative treatment.
ObjectiveTo review the present clinical evaluation of treatment for chronic low back pain. MethodsThe literature on the effectiveness evaluation method of chronic low back pain was reviewed and summarized. ResultsMany scoring systems are used to assess the treatment for chronic low back pain through the evaluation of pain and functional disability. The function evaluations are divided into general and disease-specific evaluations. Currently the most widely used evaluation systems are as follows: short-form 36 health survey scale (SF-36), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RDQ), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) low back pain scoring system, Quebec back pain disability scale (QBPDS), and Macnab criteria. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) are usually used to evaluate the pain degree. ConclusionThere are many effectiveness evaluation methods of chronic low back pain, but there is still a lack of more comprehensive, concise, and practical evaluation method. Further studies are required to develop it.
Objective To summarize the application progress of surface electromyography (sEMG) and surface electromygraphic biofeedback (sEMGBF) in low back pain (LBP). Methods The related literature about the application of sEMG and sEMGBF in diagnosis and therapy of LBP was summarized and analyzed. Results As a auxiliary diagnostic technique, lumbar muscle fatigue, lumbar muscle activity disorder, flexion-relaxation phenomenon, and asymmetry of the paravertebral muscle electromygraphic activity were found in patients with LBP by sEMG. For treatment, sEMG combined with sEMGBF technology to form sEMGBF training. sEMGBF training include sEMGBF training and sEMGBF stretching exercise. sEMGBF training can improve lumbar muscle activity disorder, recover muscle function, and relieve back pain. Conclusion sEMG can monitor the electromyographic signal and sEMGBF biofeedback information can relax or strengthen the muscle. It is very meaningful for diagnosis and therapy of LBP.
Objective To evaluate the clinical effects of surgical treatment for 30 patients with discogenic low back pain. Methods A total of 30 patients with 36 intervertebral discs were treated with posterior approach lumbar discectomy and interbody fusion with internal fixation by strict criteria. All patients were followed up for one year. The low back pain before and one year after surgery was evaluated by Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score. Results The patients’ JOA score increased from 14.6±2.3 (before operation) to 27.1±0.9 (one year after operation) (t=–26.936, P<0.001), while the patients’ VAS score decreased from 6.2±1.6 (before operation) to 1.4±0.9 (one year after operation) (t=16.335, P<0.001), and the differences were significant. Conclusion When the conservative treatment is invalid, the operation of posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion is an effective method for the patinets with discogenic low back pain.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy of exercise therapy for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) by network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsThe PubMed, EBSCO, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCT) on exercise for patients with CLBP from inception to May, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Then, NMA was performed by Stata 15.1 software.ResultsA total of 79 RCTs involving 5 782 CLBP patients were included. The effect of exercise therapy on pain in patients with CLBP were in the following rankings: yoga (SMD=−1.25, 95%CI −1.87 to −0.64, P<0.000 1), health Qigong/Taichi (SMD=−1.12, 95%CI −1.87 to −0.64, P=0.002), sling exercise (SMD=−1.07, 95%CI −1.64 to −0.50, P<0.000 1), Mackenzie therapy (SMD=−1.05, 95%CI −1.68 to −0.42, P=0.001), pilates (SMD=−0.96, 95%CI −1.74 to −1.78, P=0.016), multimodal training (SMD=−0.80, 95%CI −1.33 to −0.27, P=0.003) and stabilisation/motor control (SMD=−0.62, 95%CI −1.03 to −0.21, P=0.003). The effect of exercise therapy on function in patients with CLBP were in the following rankings: Mackenzie therapy (SMD=−0.62, 95%CI −1.03 to −0.21, P=0.003), and yoga (SMD=−0.88, 95%CI −1.51 to −0.25, P=0.007). Clusterank results showed that Mackenzie therapy, yoga, pilates, sling exercise and multimodal training were similar in improving pain and physical function in patients with CLBP.ConclusionsThe current study shows that yoga, Mackenzie therapy, pilates, sling exercise and multimodal training constitute the optimal group for improving CLBP symptoms. Health Qigong/Taichi is second only to yoga in improving pain in patients with CLBP, which has great promotional value.
ObjectiveTo explore the effect of dynamic neuromuscular stabilization technique for chronic non-specific low back pain. MethodsFrom July 2019 to June 2020, 60 patients with chronic non-specific low back pain who underwent rehabilitation at the outpatient clinic of Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital Affiliated to Zhejiang University School of Medicine were prospectively selected. All patients were divided into trial group and control group by random number table method. There were 30 cases in each group. The control group used rehabilitation education and core muscle strength training. The trial group used dynamic neuromuscular stabilization of chest and abdomen combined with breathing control training on the basis of the treatment plan of the control group. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Dability Index (ODI), abdominal pressure stability, xiphoid level thoracic mobility and axillary level thoracic mobility were compared between the two groups of patients. ResultsAll the 60 patients in this study completed the trial, and there was no recurrent case during treatment, after treatment or during follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in age, gender, height, weight, body mass index, or course of disease between the two groups (P>0.05). Taking VAS score as the dependent variable, the result of generalized estimating equations showed that the difference in VAS score between the trial group and the control group was statistically significant (χ2=4.132, P=0.042), and the VAS scores at 12 weeks of follow-up and at 8 weeks of treatment differed significantly from that before treatment (χ2=1618.814, P<0.001; χ2=1573.419, P<0.001); the between-group comparisons at different time points showed that the difference in VAS score between the two groups at 12 weeks of follow-up was statistically significant (P<0.001), and the remaining between-group differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05). Taking ODI score as the dependent variable, the result of generalized estimating equations showed that the difference in total ODI score between the two groups was statistically significant (χ2=11.063, P=0.001), and the ODI scores at 12 weeks of follow-up and at 8 weeks of treatment differed significantly from that before treatment (χ2=524.694, P<0.001; χ2=717.236, P<0.001); the between-group comparisons at different time points showed that there were statistically significant differences between the two groups at 8 weeks of treatment and at 12 weeks of follow-up (P<0.001). After treatment, the improvement of stability value of abdominal pressure [(−4.93±8.14) vs. (−1.33±4.78) mm Hg (1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)], the improvement of xiphoid level thoracic mobility [(1.87±0.62) vs. (1.52±0.70) cm] and the improvement of axillary level thoracic mobility [(1.78±0.62) vs. (0.92±0.45) cm] in the trial group were better than those in the control group (P<0.05).ConclusionThe dynamic neuromuscular stabilization technique can improve the dysfunction and relieve the symptoms of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain, and it is worthy of promotion.
Low back pain is a common disease. In 2020, the North American Spine Society (NASS) formulated an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of non-specific low back pain. The guidelines mainly addressed five aspects of non-specific low back pain: diagnosis, imaging examination, conservative treatment, interventional treatment, and surgical treatment. Based on an in-depth understanding of the guidelines, this article gives a brief explanation of the diagnosis and treatment of non-specific low back pain, so as to provide references for clinicians.
Objective To investigate the changes of low back pain (LBP) and spinal sagittal parameters in patients with unilateral Crowe type Ⅳ developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods The clinical data of 30 patients who met the selection criteria between October 2018 and March 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into LBP group (16 cases) and control group (14 cases) according to whether there was LBP before operation. There was no significant difference between the two groups of patients in gender, age, body mass index, affected sides, preoperative Harris score (P>0.05). Full-length lateral X-ray films of the spine were taken within 1 week before operation and at 1 year after operation, and the following imaging indicators were measured: sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL ), spinal tilt (ST), spine-sacral angle (SSA), sagittal vertebral axis (SVA). The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, lumbar Oswestry disability index (ODI), the Harris score of the hip joint before operation and at 1 year after operation, and the occurrence of postoperative complications were collected and analysed. Results In the LBP group, LBP was relieved to varying degrees at 1 year after operation, of which 13 patients (81.3%) had complete LBP remission; VAS score decreased from 4.9±2.3 preoperatively to 0.3±0.8, ODI decreased from 33.5±22.6 preoperatively to 1.3±2.9, the differences were all significant (t=7.372, P=0.000; t=5.499, P=0.000). There was no new chronic LBP in the control group during follow-up. The Harris scores of the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between the two groups at 1 year after operation (t=0.421, P=0.677). There was no significant difference in imaging indexes between the two groups before operation and the difference between pre- and post-operation (P>0.05). At 1 year after operation, ST and SVA in the LBP group, SSA in the control group, and SS in the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in the other indexes between the two groups before and after operation (P>0.05). Conclusion Unilateral Crowe type Ⅳ DDH patients with LBP before operation were all relieved of LBP after THA. The relief of LBP may be related to the improvement of spinal balance, but not to lumbar lordosis and its changes.
Objective To summarize the research progress of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of discogenic low back pain (DLBP). Methods The literature on the treatment of DLBP with PRP was extensively reviewed, and the classification, treatment mechanism, in vitro and in vivo experiments and clinical trial progress of PRP were summarized. Results According to the PRP composition, preparation methods, and physicochemical properties, there are five commonly used PRP classification systems at present. PRP is involved in delaying or reversing the progress of disc degeneration and pain control by promoting the regeneration of nucleus pulposus cells, increasing the synthesis of extracellular matrix, and regulating the internal microenvironment of degenerative intervertebral disc. Although several in vitro and in vivo studies have confirmed that PRP can promote disc regeneration and repair, significantly relieve pain, and even improve the mobility of DLBP patients. But the contrary conclusion has been reached in a few studies, and there are limitations to the application of PRP. ConclusionCurrent studies have confirmed the effectiveness and safety of PRP in the treatment of DLBP and intervertebral disc degeneration, as well as the advantages of PRP in terms of ease of extraction and preparation, low immunological rejection, high regenerative and repair capacity, and the ability to compensate for the shortcomings of traditional treatment modalities. However, relevant studies are still needed to further optimize PRP preparation methods, unify systematic classification guidelines, and clarify its long-term effectiveness.