Acupunctura na dor lombar: Há evidência?

Managing Nontraumatic Acute Back Pain

ObjectivesTo investigate the efficacy of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for adults with low back pain compared with placebo.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials evaluating non-surgical and non-interventional treatments compared with placebo or...

The role of activity in the therapeutic management of back pain. Report of the International Paris Task Force on Back Pain.

Systematic review. The purpose of this review is to provide a critical appraisal of general and fusion-specific clinical practice guidelines on the treatment of chronic nonradicular low back pain and compare the quality and evidence base of fusion guidelines and select payer policies. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: The treatment of lumbar spondylosis associated with low back pain with lumbar arthrodesis, or fusion, has risen fourfold in the past two decades. Given the significant associated health care costs, there is an increase in clinical guidelines and payer policies influencing patient treatment options. Assessment of the medical necessity of a treatment, such as lumbar fusions, based on medical literature will frequently supersede the determination of the physician in the care of their patient. Concerns regarding the effectiveness and costs of the surgical treatment of spinal disorders presenting with low back pain has placed enormous scrutiny on the value of surgical treatments to our patients. As both clinical guidelines and payer policies have a major impact on the perceived effectiveness, or medical necessity, of lumbar fusions for the treatment of chronic nonradicular low back pain, a review of this topic was undertaken. An electronic literature search of PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment was performed to identify clinical practice guidelines on assessment and treatment of chronic nonradicular low back pain, including those on use of lumbar fusion, as well as relevant technology assessments. A Google search for publicly available private and public payer policies related to fusion was also performed. A hand search was used to identify specific studies cited for support of the recommendations made. A modified Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation instrument was used to provide a standardized assessment method for evaluating the quality of development of the evidence base and recommendations in guidelines and selected health policies. This was combined with appraisal of the evidence base supporting the recommendations. Three systematic reviews of general guidelines from a PubMed search yielding 94 citations were included. A convenience sample of five guidelines with recommendations on fusion was taken from 182 citations identified by the National Guideline Clearinghouse and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment searches. Two guidelines were developed by US professional societies, (neurosurgery and pain management), and three were European-based guidelines (Belgium, United Kingdom, and the European Cooperation in Science and Technology). The general guidelines were consistent with their recommendations for diagnosis, but inconsistent regarding recommendations for treatment. All guidelines and payer policies with recommendations on fusion included some set of the primary randomized controlled trials comparing fusion to other treatment options with the exception of one policy. However, no clear pattern with regard to the quality of development was identified based on the modified Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation tool. There were differences in specialty society recommendations. Three systematic reviews of evidence-based guidelines that provide general guidance for the assessment and treatment of chronic low back pain described consistent recommendations and guidance for the evaluation of chronic low back pain but inconsistent recommendations and guidance for treatment. Five evidence-based guidelines with recommendations on the use of fusion for the treatment of chronic low back pain were evaluated. There is some consistency across guidelines and policies that are government sponsored with regard to development process and critical evaluation of index studies as well as overall recommendations. There were differences in specialty society recommendations. There is heterogeneity in the medical payer policies reviewed possibly due to variations in the literature cited and transparency of the development process. A description of how recommendations are formulated and disclosure of any potential bias in policy development is important. Three-medical payer policies reviewed are of poor quality with one rated as good with respect to their development based on the modified Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation tool. Medical payer policies influence patient care by defining medical necessity for approving treatments, and should be held to the same standards for transparency and development as guidelines. The spine care community needs to develop (or update) high-quality treatment guidelines. The process should be transparent, methodologically rigorous, and consistent with the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation and Institute of Medicine recommendations. This effort should be collaborative across specialty/society groups and would benefit from patient and public input. Payer policies and treatment guidelines need to be transparent and based on the highest quality evidence available. Clinicians from specialty/society groups, guideline developers and policy makers should collaborate on their development. This process would also benefit from public and patient input.

Low back pain

Low back pain is defined as any pain that occurs between the last costal arch and the lower gluteal fold, and may have different intensities and durations, being considered chronic if it lasts for more than 12 weeks, becoming non-specific if its cause is not identified, compromising the quality of life of affected individuals. Currently, Strength Training (TF) has been included in the treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain, in order to improve the condition of people suffering from this condition. Thus, the objective of this research was to verify the impact of PT on the treatment of low back pain, highlighting the main aspects based on the inclusion of this practice in everyday life, showing the benefits arising from this method. For the present study, a review of scientific articles was carried out using the PubMed, Scielo and Google Scholar databases to complement information on low back pain and PD. Several evidences were found that positively contribute to the improvement of low back pain with the use of PT in pain conditions, increased functional capacity, improvement in activities of daily living (ADL), gain in muscular resistance, strength and hypertrophy, in addition to individuals showing themselves more active. It is concluded that TF proved to be effective in the treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain, improving its symptoms such as pain and disability, however, if applied by an unqualified professional and incorrectly, it can be harmful to health.

Back pain is the second leading cause of disability among American adults and is currently treated either with conservative therapy or interventional pain procedures. However, the question that remains is whether we, as physicians, have adequate therapeutic options to offer to the patients who suffer from chronic low back pain but fail both conservative therapy and interventional pain procedures before they consider surgical options such as discectomy, disc arthroplasty, or spinal fusion. The purpose of this article is to review the potential novel therapies that are on the horizon for the treatment of chronic low back pain. We discuss medications that are currently in use through different phases of clinical trials (I–III) for the treatment of low back pain. In this review, we discuss revisiting the concept of chemonucleolysis using chymopapain, as the first drug in an intradiscal injection to reduce herniated disc size, and newer intradiscal therapies, including collagenase, chondroitinase, matrix metalloproteinases, and ethanol gel. We also review an intravenous glial cell-derived neurotrophic growth factor called artemin, which may repair sensory nerves compressed by herniated discs. Another new drug in development for low back pain without radiculopathy is a subcutaneous monoclonal antibody acting as nerve growth factor called tanezumab. Finally, we discuss how platelet-rich plasma and stem cells are being studied for the treatment of low back pain. We believe that with these new therapeutic options, we can bridge the current gap between conservative/interventional procedures and surgeries in patients with chronic back pain.

Introduction The Pilates® method incorporates a number of the guidelines recommended for therapeutic exercises considered to be effective in the treatment of chronic lower back pain, such as the contraction of the transversus abdominis and multifidus muscles, associated with breathing, while taking into account the individual characteristics of patients. Objective To assess the effects of the Pilates® method on the treatment of lower back pain. Method This systematic review includes papers published from 2000 to 2010 in the BIREME, LILACS, MEDLINE and SciELO databases. The keywords used were spinal stabilization, Pilates®, and back pain and their equivalents in Portuguese. Results Imbalance among the trunk’s agonist-antagonist muscles and the ineffective activation of the transversus abdominis are risk factors for the onset of lower back pain that can be mitigated with the practice of Pilates®-based exercises. Conclusion The method has clinical effects similar to those obtained with traditional stabilization exercises and Back School exercises in the treatment of chronic lower back pain and are considered more satisfactory than conservative treatments.

Effect of education on non-specific neck and low back pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

THU0600 Value of Mesotherapy for Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Trial

The efficacy and safety of a homeopathic gel in the treatment of acute low back pain: a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind comparative clinical trial

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was performed. Exercise therapy is a widely used treatment for low back pain. To evaluate the effectiveness of exercise therapy for low back pain with regard to pain intensity, functional status, overall improvement, and return to work. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, PsycLIT, and reference lists of articles were searched. Randomized trials testing all types of exercise therapy for subjects with nonspecific low back pain with or without radiation into the legs were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Because trials were considered heterogeneous with regard to study populations, interventions, and outcomes, it was decided not to perform a meta-analysis, but to summarize the results using a rating system of four levels of evidence: strong, moderate, limited, or none. In this review, 39 trials were identified. There is strong evidence that exercise therapy is not more effective for acute low back pain than inactive or other active treatments with which it has been compared. There is conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of exercise therapy compared with inactive treatments for chronic low back pain. Exercise therapy was more effective than usual care by the general practitioner and just as effective as conventional physiotherapy for chronic low back pain. The evidence summarized in this systematic review does not indicate that specific exercises are effective for the treatment of acute low back pain. Exercises may be helpful for patients with chronic low back pain to increase return to normal daily activities and work.

An evidence map of yoga for low back pain

Tizanidine and aceclofenac individually have shown efficacy in the treatment of low back pain. The efficacy and tolerability of the combination have not yet been established. The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aceclofenac-tizanidine fixed dose combination against aceclofenac alone in patients with acute low back pain. This double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, comparative, multicentric, parallel group study enrolled 197 patients of either sex in the age range of 18-70 years with acute low back pain. The patients were randomized to receive either aceclofenac (100 mg)-tizanidine (2 mg) b.i.d or aceclofenac (100 mg) alone b.i.d for 7 days. The primary efficacy outcomes were pain intensity (on movement, at rest and at night; on VAS scale) and pain relief (on a 5-point verbal rating scale). The secondary efficacy outcomes measures included functional impairment (modified Schober's test and lateral body bending test) and patient's and investigator's global efficacy assessment. aceclofenac-tizanidine was significantly superior to aceclofenac for pain intensity (on movement, at rest and at night; P < 0.05) and pain relief (P = 0.00) on days 3 and 7. There was significant increase in spinal flexion in both the groups from baseline on days 3 and 7 with significant difference in favour of the combination group (P < 0.05). There were significantly more number of patients with excellent to good response for the aceclofenac-tizanidine treatment as compared to aceclofenac alone (P = 0.00). Both the treatments were well tolerated. In this study, aceclofenac-tizanidine combination was more effective than aceclofenac alone and had a favourable safety profile in the treatment of acute low back pain.

The aim of this research was to investigate the relative effectiveness of manipulation versus core rehabilitation in the treatment of acute mechanical low back pain in sedentary patients. Recent research has found that dysfunction of the primary core stabiliser muscles is linked with an increasing number of the general population suffering from low back pain; this is thought to be due to the fact that people in general are living more sedentary lifestyles. The Aims and Objectives of this study were to determine the relative effect of manipulation and core rehabilitation in sedentary patients suffering from acute mechanical low back pain in terms of subjective findings, objective findings and to determine any correlations between these findings Thirty-two participants, with acute low back pain participated in the study. They received treatment over a period of three weeks, two treatments in the first week, two treatments in the second week and a follow up seven days later. Group A received a spinal manipulation while Group B received core rehabilitation exercises. Readings were taken at three time points, namely visit one, three and five before the treatment, they included the following readings: Numerical Pain Rating Scale, Algometer, Roland Morris Low Back Pain and Disability Questionnaire, Biofeedback Stabiliser and the Surface EMG. The results showed that there was no differential (p&lt;0.05) treatment effect between the two Groups, and that both Groups showed a clinical improvement in their low back pain. In conclusion, it appears that even though both these treatment protocols have very different mechanisms of action, both can be effective treatment protocols and that core rehabilitation exercises when properly performed are as effective as manipulation in the treatment of acute low back pain.