Treatment of chronic low back pain – new approaches on the horizon

Chronic low back pain is a debilitating condition that impacts millions of individuals around the world, and also has an enormous economic impact. The impact of chronic pain does not only involve physical health, but can also play a detrimental role in a patient's mental health. Consequently, it is critical to approach these patients with multimodal management. Initially, a treatment plan which includes medications, psychotherapy, physical therapy, and invasive interventions can be utilized for chronic back pain. However, many patients experience refractory low back pain to these initial treatments, which can result in non-resolving chronic pain. As a result, many new interventions have been developed in recent years to treat refractory low back pain, including non-invasive transcranial magnetic stimulation. In recent years, there has been some limited and preliminary evidence for the treatment of chronic low back pain with transcranial magnetic stimulation, as further investigation on this intervention is warranted. After reviewing analytically high impact studies, our objective is to provide a narrative review of the treatment of chronic low back pain with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). We performed a comprehensive database search on PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo, Web of Science, and CINAHL for literature that pertains to the treatment of chronic low back pain with transcranial magnetic stimulation using these terms: "Chronic Low Back Pain and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation", "Low Back Pain and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation", "Chronic Back Pain and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation", "Chronic Low Back Pain and TMS", "Low Back Pain and TMS", and "Chronic Back Pain and TMS". We aim to provide a narrative review of the role of rTMS in CLBP. Initial search results from September to November 2021 using the above-mentioned search criteria included 458 articles, of which 164 duplicates were removed and 280 were further excluded by a three-person (CO, NM and RA) screening process. Articles were further filtered based on various exclusion and inclusion criteria. The resulting 6 studies are discussed. The studies reviewed suggest the potential benefit in chronic lower back pain symptoms after various rTMS protocols and sites of stimulation. However, the included studies are not without issues in design for example: not randomized, not blinded, or have small sample size. This review highlights the need for scaled, better controlled research studies and standardization of treatment protocols to determine if rTMS for chronic lower back pain will be accepted as a standard treatment option for patients with chronic lower back pain symptoms.

Managing Nontraumatic Acute Back Pain

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

Chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain is frustrating to treat. Percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopy are techniques which can treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain.Percutaneous adhesiolysis is performed by placing the catheter into the tissue plane at the ventrolateral aspect of the foramen so that medications can be injected. Adhesiolysis is used both for pain caused by scarring which is not resistant to catheter placement and other sources of pain, including inflammation in the absence of scarring.Mechanical lysis of scars with a catheter may or may not be necessary for percutaneous adhesiolysis to be effective. Spinal endoscopy allows direct visualization of the epidural space and has the possibility to use laser energy to treat pathology. A systematic review of the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis to treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. To evaluate and update the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis to treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. The available literature on percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in treating persistent low back and leg pain was reviewed. The quality of each article used in this analysis was assessed. The level of evidence was classified on a 5-point scale from strong, based upon multiple randomized controlled trials to weak, based upon consensus, as developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and modified by ASIPP. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2015, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Pain relief of at least 50% and functional improvement of at least 40% were the primary outcome measures. Short-term efficacy was defined as improvement of 6 months or less; whereas, long-term efficacy was defined more than 6 months. For this systematic review, 45 studies were identified. Of these, for percutaneous adhesiolysis there were 7 randomized controlled trials and 3 observational studies which met the inclusion criteria. For spinal endoscopy, there was one randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies. Based upon 7 randomized controlled trials showing efficacy, with no negative trials, there is Level I or strong evidence of the efficacy of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. Based upon one high-quality randomized controlled trial, there is Level II to III evidence supporting the use of spinal endoscopy in treating chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. The evidence is Level I or strong that percutaneous adhesiolysis is efficacious in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. Percutaneous adhesiolysis may be considered as a first-line treatment for chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. The evidence is Level II to III that spinal endoscopy is effective in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, post lumbar surgery syndrome, epidural scarring, adhesiolysis, endoscopy, radicular pain.

Treatment for chronic low back pain in primary care has a poor-quality outcome. There is evidence that multimodal therapy is the most successful approach to its management. We tried to evaluate whether giving primary care physicians evidence-based recommendations on therapy of chronic back pain or directly implementing a multimodal program would improve the outcome of patients with low back pain treated in primary care. In the first phase, physicians were asked to document the course of patients suffering from low back pain of at least 4 weeks' duration with no decrease in intensity, noting pain intensity before and after 6 months of conventional, nonsurgical treatments. In the present, second, phase of the study, recommendations issued by the Medicines Committee of the German Medical Profession and the U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research for the management of back pain were presented to doctors in printed form and at conferences. In parallel with this, a multimodal program for the treatment of chronic low back pain (4 h/day for 20 days: medical training therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, physiotherapy, and patient education) was organized in a private health-oriented sports center in cooperation with three private physiotherapy practices, and a psychologist and a pain specialist from the outpatient pain clinic at the University Hospital in Erlangen. We examined how physicians changed the therapy and how effective it was, the latter as reflected in the mean sum value of the percent pre- to posttreatment changes in pain intensity, how much pain interfered with daily living, depressivity, and quality of life. Data after interventions were compared with baseline data from the first phase. Data relating to 36 patients following treatment by 14 primary care physicians who had been given information about therapy recommendations and to 51 patients who had participated in the multimodal therapy program were compared with baseline data recorded in 157 patients. Recommendations changed neither the therapy preferred by primary care physicians nor the quality of outcome of conventional treatment. In contrast, the multimodal program of therapy for chronic low back pain improved the outcome significantly more than conventional therapy (mean improvement in general outcome score 22 vs. 7%, respectively, compared with baseline data; P<0.001). Giving primary care physicians information on the therapy recommended for treatment of low back pain does not lead to any change in physicians' preferred therapy. Multimodal programs for treatment of chronic low back pain should be organized locally, with existing health care providers joining forces to improve the quality of outcome in chronic low back pain managed in primary care.

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.

The purpose of this review is to critically appraise the literature for evidence supporting the health care resource utilization and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) compared with conventional therapies (CTs) for chronic low back and leg pain. The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine databases were searched for studies published from January 2008 through October 2018, using the following MeSH terms: "spinal cord stimulation," "chronic pain," "back pain," "patient readmission," "economics," and "costs and cost analysis." Additional sources were added based on bibliographies and consultation with experts. The following data were extracted and analyzed: demographic information, study design, objectives, sample sizes, outcome measures, SCS indications, complications, costs, readmissions, and resource utilization data. Of 204 studies screened, 11 studies met inclusion criteria, representing 31,439 SCS patients and 299,182 CT patients. The mean age was 53.5 years for SCS and 55.6 years for CT. In eight of 11 studies, SCS was associated with favorable outcomes and found to be more cost-effective than CT for chronic low back pain. Compared with CT, SCS resulted in shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates and health care costs at 90 days. SCS was associated with significant improvement in health-related quality of life, health status, and quality-adjusted life-years. For the treatment of chronic low back and leg pain, the majority of studies are of fair quality, with level 3 or 4 evidence in support of SCS as potentially more cost-effective than CT, with less resource expenditure but higher complication rates. SCS therapy may yet play a role in mitigating the financial burden associated with chronic low back and leg 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...

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.

A multidisciplinary approach including drug and non-drug methods is recommended for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP). Kinesiotherapy, psychological methods, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to be highly effective for CLBP. All of the listed methods contribute to significant relief and relief of pain, increase the patient’s social and physical activity, and improve the emotional state. Psychological methods help patients cope with catastrophizing pain, increase daily activities, and reduce the likelihood of disease recurrence. Results from clinical studies and systematic reviews demonstrate the effectiveness of psychological techniques such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness therapy (mindfulness) in the treatment of CLBP. Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) is a promising new psychological method that was created on the basis of CPT. Clinical studies have been conducted confirming the efficacy of CFT in CLBP. CFT is aimed at regular therapeutic exercises, normalization of motor activity with avoidance of excessive physical and static exertion, avoidance of sedentary lifestyle and normalization of sleep, which is often disturbed in chronic back pain. In practice, patients with CLBP often have low adherence to increased physical activity during the day, to therapeutic exercises. In most cases, this is due to the fact that in the first days of increased physical activity there is an increase in pain. Patients mistakenly fear further progression of pain and disease. Prescribing NSAIDs usually results in pain reduction as early as the first days of administration, so patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain have an increased desire to engage in physical activity and therapeutic exercises. The choice of a particular NSAID medication is made individually, taking into account the co-morbidities and the risk of possible side effects. We discuss the use of nimesulide in CLBP.

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.

P64. Intradiscal injection of autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate improves low back pain at one year

High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation for Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain and Leg Pain in Patients With FBSS, 12-Month Results: A Prospective Pilot Study

Dear Editor, Discogenic pain affects approximately 45% of patients suffering from chronic low back pain, and it is caused by chemical and mechanical changes of the intervertebral disc [1]. Many different minimally invasive techniques have been used for the treatment of this condition, with various results. We report the combination of intradiscal pulsed radiofrequency combined to gelified ethanol application for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain. Pulsed radiofrequency mechanism of action has been well discussed [2,3]. Gelified ethanol is an implantable medical device in which an opaque agent in X-rays (the tungsten) was added [4,5]. The implant is administered within the affected intervertebral disc's nucleus pulposus, via a fine needle that is guided into the center of the disc, transdermally, under fluoroscopic guidance [4,5]. To our knowledge, this is the first report of the combination of the two methods via the same radiofrequency needle, for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain. The patients enrolled suffered from discogenic low back pain, refractory to conservative treatment and physiotherapy for at least 6 months, and reported concordant pain during provocative discography. Pain scores (numeric rating scale 0–10) and satisfaction rates (visual analogue scale 0–10, where 0: “worst” satisfaction and …

Recent advances in basic research on intervertebral disc have revealed the unique innervation pattern and the pathological changes related to generation of low back pain. In this presentation, we w...