Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Nonsurgical Treatment Methods in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common reason for spine surgery in older US adults. There is an evidence gap about nonsurgical LSS treatment options. Objective: To explore the comparative clinical effectiveness of 3 nonsurgical interventions for patients with LSS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three-arm randomized clinical trial of 3 years' duration (November 2013 to June 2016). Analysis began in August 2016. All interventions were delivered during 6 weeks with follow-up at 2 months and 6 months at an outpatient research clinic. Patients older than 60 years with LSS were recruited from the general public. Eligibility required anatomical evidence of central canal and/or lateral recess stenosis (magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography) and clinical symptoms associated with LSS (neurogenic claudication; less symptoms with flexion). Analysis was intention to treat. Interventions: Medical care, group exercise, and manual therapy/individualized exercise. Medical care consisted of medications and/or epidural injections provided by a physiatrist. Group exercise classes were supervised by fitness instructors in senior community centers. Manual therapy/individualized exercise consisted of spinal mobilization, stretches, and strength training provided by chiropractors and physical therapists. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were between-group differences at 2 months in self-reported symptoms and physical function measured by the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire (score range, 12-55) and a measure of walking capacity using the self-paced walking test (meters walked for 0 to 30 minutes). Results: A total of 259 participants (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [7.8] years; 137 women [52.9%]) were allocated to medical care (88 [34.0%]), group exercise (84 [32.4%]), or manual therapy/individualized exercise (87 [33.6%]). Adjusted between-group analyses at 2 months showed manual therapy/individualized exercise had greater improvement of symptoms and physical function compared with medical care (-2.0; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.4) or group exercise (-2.4; 95% CI, -4.1 to -0.8). Manual therapy/individualized exercise had a greater proportion of responders (≥30% improvement) in symptoms and physical function (20%) and walking capacity (65.3%) at 2 months compared with medical care (7.6% and 48.7%, respectively) or group exercise (3.0% and 46.2%, respectively). At 6 months, there were no between-group differences in mean outcome scores or responder rates. Conclusions and Relevance: A combination of manual therapy/individualized exercise provides greater short-term improvement in symptoms and physical function and walking capacity than medical care or group exercises, although all 3 interventions were associated with improvements in long-term walking capacity. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01943435.

Primary spine care services: responding to runaway costs and disappointing outcomes in spine care.

Efforts are underway to reform our health care system to improve efficiency, outcomes, patient satisfaction and costs. In no field is this more critical than that of spine- related disorders, where escalating costs combined with decreasing clinical benefits for patients has reached a breaking point. Traditionally, practitioners have grouped together based on their specialty (orthopedics, otolaryn- gology, etc.). There has been a recent movement to restructure health care delivery into a patient-centered model that teams professionals based on their ability to serve specific patient needs. This article introduces a new service line - primary spine care services - led by a new type of professional - the primary spine practitioner (PSP). This new practitioner type requires a refined and focused skill set and ideally functions within an integrated spine care pathway. The challenges and opportunities presented by primary spine care services are discussed. This service line has already been implemented in a variety of settings.

Neck and back pain specific outcome assessment questionnaires in the Spanish language: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Accurate measurement of functional improvement in clinical practice is becoming increasingly recognized as essential in demonstrating whether patients are deriving meaningful benefit from care. Several simple questionnaires have been developed for this purpose. The majority of these have been developed in English. In North America, there is a growing need for clinical tools, including outcome assessment tools that are available in the Spanish language. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding spine-specific outcome assessment questionnaires that are available in Spanish and to examine the evidence on their clinical utility. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and MANTIS databases were searched for any studies on the topic of outcome assessment questionnaires in the Spanish language. Relevant articles were reviewed, and the data on reliability, validity, time to completion, and any other properties of the questionnaire was extracted. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 287 articles, of which 10 were deemed relevant. With regard to neck pain, data were found regarding Spanish translations of the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Core Outcome Measure for neck pain. With regard to low back pain, data were found regarding Spanish translations of the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), and the North American Spine Society-American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Several reliable and valid outcome assessment questionnaires are available in the Spanish language. All were originally developed in English. It appears from the data reviewed that the most useful instruments are the NDI for neck pain patients and the ODI and RMQ for low back pain patients. The current trend is for the development of culturally adapted versions of these questionnaires that are specific to a particular country or region.

Interventional therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline from the American Pain Society.

STUDY DESIGN: Clinical practice guideline. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based recommendations on use of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies, surgeries, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain of any duration, with or without leg pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Management of patients with persistent and disabling low back pain remains a clinical challenge. A number of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies and surgery are available and their use is increasing, but in some cases their utility remains uncertain or controversial. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has also been proposed as a potentially effective noninvasive intervention for persistent and disabling low back pain. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel was convened by the American Pain Society. Its recommendations were based on a systematic review that focused on evidence from randomized controlled trials. Recommendations were graded using methods adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. RESULTS: Investigators reviewed 3348 abstracts. A total of 161 randomized trials were deemed relevant to the recommendations in this guideline. The panel developed a total of 8 recommendations. CONCLUSION: Recommendations on use of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation are presented. Due to important trade-offs between potential benefits, harms, costs, and burdens of alternative therapies, shared decision-making is an important component of a number of the recommendations.