Comment on Nathan et al.: lumbar paraspinal compartment syndrome

Abstract

1. S-T Nathan and his colleagues state that a PubMed search was conducted with the title query, lumbar paraspinal compartment syndrome, which found ten articles. However, only six articles were found besides Nathan’s paper [1] when we performed the same search on September 19, 2012. 2. Was the search for articles thorough? First, two electronic databases (the PubMed and OVID Medical databases) were searched by the authors. But a PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane database search was done using the search strategy recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. Second, S-T Nathan and his colleagues only searched medical subject headings, keywords and the title “lumbar paraspinal compartment syndrome”. Based on the above considerations, we think that the search for articles was not thorough. A search strategy report plays an important role in systematic reviews. Sampson et al. [2] considered that critical appraisal is impossible if the search strategy is not thoroughly reported in systematic review. 3. One author selected high yield abstracts and obtained full articles in Nathan’s review. According to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [3], in order to reduce the bias, it is most important that the final selection and extraction of studies into the review are undertaken by more than one author. 4. The conclusion of the article showed that the basic trend is to surgically decompress the compartment to avoid long-term functional sequelae in other muscular compartments of the body. We suggest nonoperative treatment options are the first line of management for compartment syndrome. Diebal et al. [4] also suggested that an effective nonoperative management approach could eliminate these potential postsurgical complications for compartment syndrome.