Back Pain: Anonymous00369

Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, Casey D, Cross JT, Shekelle P, Owens DK, Anonymous00367, Anonymous00368, Anonymous00369. · Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #17909209 links to  free full text

Abstract: RECOMMENDATION 1: Clinicians should conduct a focused history and physical examination to help place patients with low back pain into 1 of 3 broad categories: nonspecific low back pain, back pain potentially associated with radiculopathy or spinal stenosis, or back pain potentially associated with another specific spinal cause. The history should include assessment of psychosocial risk factors, which predict risk for chronic disabling back pain (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: Clinicians should not routinely obtain imaging or other diagnostic tests in patients with nonspecific low back pain (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: Clinicians should perform diagnostic imaging and testing for patients with low back pain when severe or progressive neurologic deficits are present or when serious underlying conditions are suspected on the basis of history and physical examination (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4: Clinicians should evaluate patients with persistent low back pain and signs or symptoms of radiculopathy or spinal stenosis with magnetic resonance imaging (preferred) or computed tomography only if they are potential candidates for surgery or epidural steroid injection (for suspected radiculopathy) (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 5: Clinicians should provide patients with evidence-based information on low back pain with regard to their expected course, advise patients to remain active, and provide information about effective self-care options (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 6: For patients with low back pain, clinicians should consider the use of medications with proven benefits in conjunction with back care information and self-care. Clinicians should assess severity of baseline pain and functional deficits, potential benefits, risks, and relative lack of long-term efficacy and safety data before initiating therapy (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). For most patients, first-line medication options are acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. RECOMMENDATION 7: For patients who do not improve with self-care options, clinicians should consider the addition of nonpharmacologic therapy with proven benefits-for acute low back pain, spinal manipulation; for chronic or subacute low back pain, intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise therapy, acupuncture, massage therapy, spinal manipulation, yoga, cognitive-behavioral therapy, or progressive relaxation (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Brealey S, Burton K, Coulton S, Farrin A, Garratt A, Harvey E, Letley L, Martin J, Klaber MJ, Russell I, Torgerson D, Underwood M, Vickers M, Whyte K, Williams M, Anonymous00369. · Institute of Community Health Sciences, Barts and the London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, Mile End, London, UK. · BMC Health Serv Res. · Pubmed #12892566 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Low back pain has major health and social implications. Although there have been many randomised controlled trials of manipulation and exercise for the management of low back pain, the role of these two treatments in its routine management remains unclear. A previous trial comparing private chiropractic treatment with National Health Service (NHS) outpatient treatment, which found a benefit from chiropractic treatment, has been criticised because it did not take treatment location into account. There are data to suggest that general exercise programmes may have beneficial effects on low back pain. The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) has funded this major trial of physical treatments for back pain, based in primary care. It aims to establish if, when added to best care in general practice, a defined package of spinal manipulation and a defined programme of exercise classes (Back to Fitness) improve participant-assessed outcomes. Additionally the trial compares outcomes between participants receiving the spinal manipulation in NHS premises and in private premises. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial using a 3 x 2 factorial design. METHODS: We sought to randomise 1350 participants with simple low back pain of at least one month's duration. These came from 14 locations across the UK, each with a cluster of 10-15 general practices that were members of the MRC General Practice Research Framework (GPRF). All practices were trained in the active management of low back pain. Participants were randomised to this form of general practice care only, or this general practice care plus manipulation, or this general practice care plus exercise, or this general practice care plus manipulation followed by exercise. Those randomised to manipulation were further randomised to receive treatment in either NHS or private premises. Follow up was by postal questionnaire one, three and 12 months after randomisation. The primary analysis will consider the main treatment effects before interactions between the two treatment packages. Economic analysis will estimate the cost per unit of health utility gained by adding either or both of the treatment packages to general practice care.

Vale L, Grant A, McCormack K, Scott NW, Anonymous00369. · Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, UK. · Int J Technol Assess Health Care. · Pubmed #15209179 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic methods of inguinal hernia repair compared with open flat mesh and open non-mesh repair. METHODS: Data on the effectiveness of these alternatives came from three systematic reviews comparing: (i) laparoscopic methods with open flat mesh or non-mesh methods; (ii) open flat mesh with open non-mesh repair; and (iii) methods that used synthetic mesh to repair the hernia defect with those that did not. Data on costs were obtained from the authors of economic evaluations previously conducted alongside trials included in the reviews. A Markov model was used to model cost-effectiveness for a five-year period after the initial operation. The outcomes of the model were presented using a balance sheet approach and as cost per hernia recurrence avoided and cost per extra day at usual activities. RESULTS: Open flat mesh was the most cost-effective method of preventing recurrences. Laparoscopic repair provided a shorter period of convalescence and less long-term pain compared with open flat mesh but was more costly. The mean incremental cost per additional day back at usual activities compared with open flat mesh was Euro 38 and Euro 80 for totally extraperitoneal and transabdominal preperitoneal repair, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair is not cost-effective compared with open flat mesh repair in terms of cost per recurrence avoided. Decisions about the use of laparoscopic repair depend on whether the benefits (reduced pain and earlier return to usual activities) outweigh the extra costs and intraoperative risks. On the evidence presented here, these extra costs are unlikely to be offset by the short-term benefits of laparoscopic repair.