Orthostatic Intolerance-Type Events Following Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Orthostatic intolerance (OI)-type events following hip and knee arthroplasty increase the risk of falls, hospital length of stay, and health-care costs. There is a limited understanding of the incidence of and risk factors for OI-type events in patients during the acute hospital stay. Our aim was to systematically review the incidence of and risk factors for OI-type events during the acute hospital stay following hip and knee arthroplasty. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that investigated the incidence of and risk factors for OI-type events was undertaken. A comprehensive search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL from their inception to October 2021. The methodological quality of identified studies was assessed using the modified version of the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (14,055 patients) were included. The incidence was 2% to 52% for an OI event, 1% to 46% for orthostatic hypotension, and 0% to 18% for syncope/vasovagal events. Two studies reported female sex, high peak pain levels (>5 out of 10) during mobilization, postoperative use of gabapentin, and the absence of postoperative intravenous dexamethasone as risk factors. There was no consensus on the definition and assessment of an OI-type event. CONCLUSIONS: OI-type events are common during the acute hospital stay following hip and knee arthroplasty, and 4 risk factors have been reported for OI-type events. High-quality prospective cohort studies are required to systematically and reliably determine the incidence of and risk factors for OI-type events. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Prognosis of a new episode of low-back pain in a community inception cohort.

BACKGROUND: Most studies investigating the prognosis of low back pain (LBP) enrol people presenting for care, rather than all people who have an episode of LBP. We aimed to describe the prognosis of an acute episode of LBP in a community inception cohort. METHODS: We used data from two previous studies investigating recurrence of LBP. Participants without current LBP were contacted monthly to assess if they had experienced a new episode of LBP. 366 participants reporting a new episode of LBP were included in the current study. The primary outcome was duration of the new episode of LBP. Secondary outcomes were average and worst pain during the episode and the proportion of participants seeking care. RESULTS: The median duration of the episode was 5 days (95% CI 3.99 to 6.02). The cumulative probability of recovery was 70.0% (95% CI 65.3 to 74.7) before 1 week, 86.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 89.6) before 3 weeks, 90.9% (95% CI 88.0 to 93.8) before 6 weeks, and 93.5% (95% CI 90.8 to 96.0) before 12 weeks. The mean average pain intensity was 3.7 (SD ± 1.5), and the mean worst pain intensity was 5.6 (SD ± 1.9). The proportion of patients who sought care was 39.5% (95% CI 33.9 to 46.4). CONCLUSIONS: This study found most episodes of LBP recover rapidly and more quickly than typically reported for clinical populations. The worst pain during the episode was typically moderate despite the rapid recovery for most people. Approximately 40% of the participants who experienced an episode of LBP sought care. SIGNIFICANCE: This study describes the prognosis of an acute episode of LBP in a community inception cohort. This study found the majority of episodes of LBP, in community-dwelling adults, recover rapidly (median of 5 days) and more quickly than typically reported for clinical populations. The community should be reassured about the favourable prognosis of acute LBP.

Walking, Cycling, and Swimming for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of walking/running, cycling, or swimming for treating or preventing nonspecific low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Intervention systematic review. LITERATURE SEARCH: Five databases were searched to April 2021. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials evaluating walking/running, cycling, or swimming to treat or prevent LBP were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Certainty of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: No trials assessed LBP prevention or addressed acute LBP. Nineteen trials (2362 participants) assessed treatment of chronic/recurrent LBP. Low-certainty evidence suggests that walking/running was less effective than alternate interventions in reducing pain in the short term (8 trials; SMD, 0.81; 95% CI: 0.28, 1.34) and medium term (5 trials; SMD, 0.80; 95% CI: 0.10, 1.49). High-certainty evidence suggests that walking/running was less effective than alternate interventions at reducing disability in the short term (8 trials; SMD, 0.22; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.38) and medium term (4 trials; SMD, 0.28; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.51). There was high-certainty evidence of a small effect in favor of walking/running compared to minimal/no intervention for reducing pain in the short term (10 trials; SMD, -0.23; 95% CI: -0.35, -0.10) and medium term (6 trials; SMD, -0.26; 95% CI: -0.40, -0.13) and disability in the short term (7 trials; SMD, -0.19; 95% CI: -0.33, -0.06). Scarcity of trials meant few conclusions could be drawn regarding cycling and swimming. CONCLUSION: Although less effective than alternate interventions, walking/running was slightly more effective than minimal/no intervention for treating chronic/recurrent LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):85-99. Epub 16 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10612.

Clinical Course of Pain and Function Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is widely considered a successful intervention for osteoarthritis and other degenerative knee diseases. This study addresses the need for a high-quality meta-analysis that outlines the clinical course of pain and function post-TKA. METHODS: The review included prospective cohort studies assessing pain or function of patients undergoing primary TKA at baseline (preoperatively) and at least 2 additional time points including one at least 12 months postoperatively. Two reviewers independently screened references, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. The time course of recovery of pain and function was modeled using fractional polynomial meta-regression. RESULTS: In total, 191 studies with 59,667 patients were included, most with low risk of bias. The variance-weighted mean pain score (/100, 0 = no pain) was 64.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 60.2-67.7) preoperatively, 24.1 (95% CI 20.3-27.9) at 3 months, 20.4 (95% CI 16.7-24.0) at 6 months, and 16.9 (95%CI 13.6-20.3) at 12 months, and remained low (10.1; 95% CI 4.8-15.4) at 10 years postoperatively. The variance-weighted mean function score (/100, 0 = worst function) was 47.1 (95% CI 45.7-48.4) preoperatively, 72.8 (95% CI 71.3-74.4) at 3 months, 76.3 (95% CI 74.7-77.8) at 6 months, and 78.1 (95%CI 76.4-79.7) at 12 months. Function scores were good (79.7; 95% CI 77.9-81.5) at 10 years postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing primary TKA can expect a large and rapid but incomplete recovery of pain and function in the first postoperative year. At 10 years, the gains in pain scores may still remain while there is an improvement in function.

Distribution and prevalence of musculoskeletal pain co-occurring with persistent low back pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Co-occurring musculoskeletal pain is common among people with persistent low back pain (LBP) and associated with more negative consequences than LBP alone. The distribution and prevalence of musculoskeletal pain co-occurring with persistent LBP has not been systematically described, which hence was the aim of this review. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus. We considered observational studies from clinical settings or based on cohorts of the general or working populations involving adults 18 years or older with persistent LBP (≥4 wks) and co-occurring musculoskeletal pain for eligibility. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out by independent reviewers. Results are presented according to study population, distribution and location(s) of co-occurring pain. RESULTS: Nineteen studies out of 5744 unique records met the inclusion criteria. Studies were from high-income countries in Europe, USA and Japan. A total of 34,492 people with persistent LBP were included in our evidence synthesis. Methods for assessing and categorizing co-occurring pain varied considerably between studies, but based on the available data from observational studies, we identified three main categories of co-occurring pain - these were axial pain (18 to 58%), extremity pain (6 to 50%), and multi-site musculoskeletal pain (10 to 89%). Persistent LBP with co-occurring pain was reported more often by females than males, and co-occurring pain was reported more often in patients with more disability. CONCLUSIONS: People with persistent LBP often report co-occurring neck pain, extremity pain or multi-site pain. Assessment of co-occurring pain alongside persistent LBP vary considerable between studies and there is a need for harmonisation of measurement methods to advance our understanding of how pain in different body regions occur alongside persistent LBP. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017068807 .

Prevention strategies to reduce future impact of low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of prevention strategies to reduce future impact of low back pain (LBP), where impact is measured by LBP intensity and associated disability. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro and The Cochrane (CENTRAL) databases from inception to 22 October 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating any intervention aiming to prevent future impact of LBP, reporting an outcome measure of LBP intensity and/or disability measured at least 3 months post-randomisation, and the intervention group must be compared with a group that received no intervention/placebo or minimal intervention. Trials restricting recruitment to participants with current LBP were excluded. RESULTS: 27 published reports of 25 different trials including a total of 8341 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The pooled results, from three RCTs (612 participants), found moderate-quality evidence that an exercise programme can prevent future LBP intensity (mean difference (MD) -4.50; 95% CI -7.26 to -1.74), and from 4 RCTs (471 participants) that an exercise and education programme can prevent future disability due to LBP (MD -6.28; 95% CI -9.51 to -3.06). It is uncertain whether prevention programmes improve future quality of life (QoL) and workability due to the overall low-quality and very low-quality available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides moderate-quality evidence that an exercise programme, and a programme combining exercise and education, are effective to reduce future LBP intensity and associated disability. It is uncertain whether prevention programmes can improve future QoL and workability. Further high-quality RCTs evaluating prevention programmes aiming to reduce future impact of LBP are needed.

An individualised self-management exercise and education program did not prevent recurrence of low back pain but may reduce care seeking: a randomised trial.

QUESTION: What is the effect of a McKenzie-based self-management exercise and education program on the risk of recurrence of low back pain (LBP) and on the impact of LBP? DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors and intention-to-treat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 262 adults recently recovered from an episode of LBP. INTERVENTION: The experimental group received a McKenzie-based self-management exercise and education program delivered over two individual sessions of 30 to 45 minutes with a physiotherapist, approximately 2 weeks apart. The control group received a single advice session over the phone. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to first recurrence of an episode of activity-limiting LBP. Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence of any LBP, time to a recurrence causing care seeking and a composite measure of pain and function ('impact of LBP'). Participants were followed-up monthly for ≥ 12 months. RESULTS: The estimated effect of the experimental intervention on the risk of recurrence of an episode of: activity-limiting LBP was HR 1.11 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.54), any LBP was HR 0.95 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.26), and LBP for which care was sought was HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.04). The quarterly estimates of the experimental intervention's effect on impact of LBP and their 95% CIs were all within 4 points above or below 0 (no effect) on this scale from 8 to 50. CONCLUSION: This study's best estimate is that a McKenzie-based self-management exercise and education program does not produce a worthwhile reduction in the risk of an activity-limiting episode of LBP; however, modestly reduced or moderately increased risk cannot be ruled out. It may markedly reduce the risk of an episode of LBP resulting in care seeking, but does not have any worthwhile effect on the impact of LBP over 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12616000926437.

Exercise programs may be effective in preventing a new episode of neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of interventions that aim to prevent a new episode of neck pain? DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials. PARTICIPANTS: People without neck pain at study entry. INTERVENTION: Any intervention aiming to prevent a future episode of neck pain. OUTCOME MEASURES: New episode of neck pain. RESULTS: Five trials including a total of 3852 individuals met the inclusion criteria. The pooled results from two randomised, controlled trials (500 participants) found moderate-quality evidence that exercise reduces the risk of a new episode of neck pain (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.86). One of the meta-analysed trials included some co-interventions with the exercise. There was low-quality evidence from three randomised, controlled trials (3352 participants) that ergonomic programs do not reduce the risk of a new neck pain episode (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.35). CONCLUSION: This review found moderate-quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of an exercise program for reducing the risk of a new episode of neck pain. There is a need for high-quality randomised, controlled trials evaluating interventions to prevent new episodes of neck pain. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017055174. [de Campos TF, Maher CG, Steffens D, Fuller JT, Hancock MJ (2018) Exercise programs may be effective in preventing a new episode of neck pain: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 159-165].

Prevalence and pattern of co-occurring musculoskeletal pain and its association with back-related disability among people with persistent low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with persistent low back pain commonly have a broad range of other health concerns including co-occurring musculoskeletal pain, which significantly affect their quality of life, symptom severity, and treatment outcomes. The purpose of this review is to get a better understanding of prevalence and patterns of co-occurring musculoskeletal pain complaints in those with persistent low back pain and its potential association with age, sex, and back-related disability as it might affect prognosis and management. METHODS: This systematic review protocol has been designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will perform a comprehensive search, with no date limit, in the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE and Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL, and Scopus for citation tracking, based on the following domains: back pain, co-occurring musculoskeletal pain, combined with a focus group that emphasizes study design. Appropriate papers will be screened against the eligibility criteria by three reviewers independently, data extracted by two independent author pairs and disagreement resolved by consensus meetings or other reviewers if required. Assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias will be conducted using a modified version of the Risk of Bias Tool for Prevalence Studies developed by Hoy and colleagues. The overall risk of bias will be determined for each included study based on the raters' consensus of the responses to the items in this tool. In case of sufficiently homogenous studies, meta-analysis will be performed. DISCUSSION: Given the lack of standard terms used to define co-occurring musculoskeletal pain, the search strategy will include the broader term "back pain," different terms for the "other co-occurring pain," and specific study designs combined with several exclusion terms. The results of this proposed review will identify the prevalence and patterns of co-occurring musculoskeletal pain among those with persistent low back pain, which is likely to inform clinical management, research, and policy in management of musculoskeletal disorders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017068807.

Effectiveness of McKenzie Method-Based Self-Management Approach for the Secondary Prevention of a Recurrence of Low Back Pain (SAFE Trial): Protocol for a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although many people recover quickly from an episode of low back pain (LBP), recurrence is very common. There is limited evidence on effective prevention strategies for recurrences of LBP. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a McKenzie method-based self-management approach in the secondary prevention of LBP. DESIGN: This will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Participants will be recruited from the community and primary care, with the intervention delivered in a number of physical therapist practices in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: The study will have 396 participants, all of whom are at least 18 years old. INTERVENTION: Participants will be randomly assigned to either the McKenzie method-based self-management approach group or a minimal intervention control group. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome will be days to first self-reported recurrence of an episode of activity-limiting LBP. The secondary outcomes will include: days to first self-reported recurrence of an episode of LBP, days to first self-reported recurrence of an episode of LBP leading to care seeking, and the impact of LBP over a 12-month period. All participants will be followed up monthly for a minimum of 12 months or until they have a recurrence of activity-limiting LBP. All participants will also be followed-up at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months to assess the impact of back pain, physical activity levels, study program adherence, credibility, and adverse events. LIMITATIONS: Participants and therapists will not be masked to the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this will be the first large, high-quality randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of a McKenzie method-based self-management approach for preventing recurrences of LBP. If this approach is found to be effective, it will offer a low-cost, simple method for reducing the personal and societal burdens of LBP.