Anticonvulsants in the treatment of low back pain and lumbar radicular pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of anticonvulsants (e.g., gabapentin, pregabalin) to treat low back pain has increased substantially in recent years despite limited supporting evidence. We aimed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of anticonvulsants in the treatment of low back pain and lumbar radicular pain compared with placebo. METHODS: A search was conducted in 5 databases for studies comparing an anticonvulsant to placebo in patients with nonspecific low back pain, sciatica or neurogenic claudication of any duration. The outcomes were self-reported pain, disability and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, and quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Data were pooled and treatment effects were quantified using mean differences for continuous and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: Nine trials compared topiramate, gabapentin or pregabalin to placebo in 859 unique participants. Fourteen of 15 comparisons found anticonvulsants were not effective to reduce pain or disability in low back pain or lumbar radicular pain; for example, there was high-quality evidence of no effect of gabapentinoids versus placebo on chronic low back pain in the short term (pooled mean difference [MD] -0.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.8 to 0.7) or for lumbar radicular pain in the immediate term (pooled MD -0.1, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.5). The lack of efficacy is accompanied by increased risk of adverse events from use of gabapentinoids, for which the level of evidence is high. INTERPRETATION: There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that anticonvulsants are ineffective for treatment of low back pain or lumbar radicular pain. There is high-quality evidence that gabapentinoids have a higher risk for adverse events. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42016046363.

Giant lumbar pseudomeningocele after revision lumbar laminectomy: a case report and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Incidental durotomy is a relatively common complication of spine surgery. Prevalence ranges from 3 to 5% in primary and 7 to 17% in revision procedures. Despite this relatively common occurrence the subsequent development of pseudomeningoceles following lumbar spine surgery is reported to be between 0.07 and 2%. Giant pseudomeningoceles (GP) are rare and therefore we report our experience with a case. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of an iatrogenic GP post revision lumbar surgery that extended 19 cm in length. The patient underwent revision L3-S1 laminectomy, laminotomy, excision of pseudomeningocele and successful direct dura repair. Postoperatively, a subcutaneous seroma persisted. This was managed with surgical exploration and prolonged drainage. This led to reduction of the seroma and symptomatic improvement for the patient. DISCUSSION: Incidental durotomy is a relatively common complication of spine surgery and if the durotomy is not addressed at the time of an operation a pseudomeningocele may develop. A pragmatic approach for GP is to individualise management based upon symptoms. Although GP are rare, prevention is likely the best approach. We outlined a structured approach to the management of an incidental dural leak that formed the largest reported pseudomeningocele reported to date.

Clinimetric Testing of the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is a self-report measure of 15 items. Previous studies have used the LSIQ as a measure of clinical instability; however, a comprehensive evaluation of its clinimetric properties has not been conducted. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the LSIQ in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP). METHODS: In this clinical measurement study, the authors included patients with nonspecific LBP presenting to primary care clinicians in Australia. Rasch analysis was conducted to assess item hierarchy, targeting, unidimensionality, person fit, internal consistency, and differential item functioning. The researchers assessed test-retest reliability of total scores and individual item scores, as well as convergent and divergent validity. RESULTS: A total of 107 participants with LBP (60 men and 47 women) were recruited. The results were variable. The LSIQ appeared to constitute a unidimensional measure, targeted the sample well, and showed adequate test-retest reliability. However, the scale had poor internal consistency, did not appear to function as an interval-level measure, and had unclear construct validity. Although no items appeared to be redundant, several items were biased by factors other than the proposed construct of the measure. CONCLUSION: The LSIQ does not seem to be ready to be implemented in clinical practice and may require theoretical reconsideration. Although the LSIQ provided satisfactory estimates for some clinimetric features, the authors do not consider the instrument to be useful as an interval-level measure but rather as an index. Future studies are needed to investigate whether the LSIQ could measure clinical instability or some other construct. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(12):915-922. Epub 22 Jun 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7866.

Operation Sumatra Assist: surgery for survivors of the tsunami disaster in Indonesia.

The tsunami of 26 December 2004 was one of the deadliest natural disasters recorded, with the Indonesian province of Aceh being the most devastated region. As part of the Australian Government's response to the disaster, the Australian Defence Force deployed personnel from the Sydney-based 1st Health Support Battalion to Banda Aceh, the capital of the province. This unit joined with medical personnel from the New Zealand Defence Force to form the ANZAC field hospital. The mission of this unit as part of Operation Sumatra Assist was to provide medical and surgical care to the people of Aceh during the critical stages of rebuilding of the tsunami-devastated region. Surgical teams of the ANZAC field hospital were some of the first to provide definitive surgical care to the critically injured survivors of the disaster. During the first 4 weeks of the deployment, 173 surgical procedures were carried out for 71 patients in this facility. Thirty patients underwent 119 procedures (69% of total) for injuries sustained in the tsunami. Most of these patients required debridements, dressing changes and wound management procedures for the management of severe soft tissue infections. Three amputations were carried out. The remaining 41 patients underwent 54 procedures (31%) for emergent surgical conditions unrelated to the disaster.

TOPS: Trial Of Prevention Strategies for low back pain in patients recently recovered from low back pain-study rationale and protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is the health condition that carries the greatest disability burden worldwide; however, there is only modest support for interventions to prevent LBP. The aim of this trial is to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of group-based exercise and educational classes compared with a minimal intervention control in preventing recurrence of LBP in people who have recently recovered from an episode of LBP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: TOPS will be a pragmatic comparative effectiveness randomised clinical trial with a parallel economic evaluation combining three separate cohorts (TOPS Workers, TOPS Primary Care, TOPS Defence) with the same methodology. 1482 participants who have recently recovered from LBP will be randomised to either a comprehensive exercise and education programme or a minimal intervention control. Participants will be followed up for a minimum of 1 year. The primary outcome will be days till recurrence of LBP. Effectiveness will be assessed using survival analysis. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed from the societal perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (ref: 2015/728) and prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ref: 12615000939594). We will also obtain ethics approval from the Australian Defence Force HREC. The results of this study will be submitted for publication in a prominent journal and widely publicised in the general media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR) 12615000939594.