Lumbar fusion versus nonoperative management for treatment of discogenic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Mohamad Bydon, Rafael De La Garza-Ramos, Mohamed Macki, Abdul Baker, Aaron K. Gokaslan, Ali Bydon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

33 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objective: To evaluate the current evidence comparing lumbar fusion to nonoperative management for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: Discogenic low back pain is a common and sometimes disabling condition. When the condition becomes chronic and intractable, spinal fusion may play a role. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the PubMed and CENTRAL databases. We included RCTs that compared lumbar fusion to nonoperative management for the treatment of adult patients with chronic discogenic low back pain. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the improvement in back pain based on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Results: Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria. A total of 707 patients were divided into lumbar fusion (n=523) and conservative management (n=134). Although inclusion/exclusion criteria were relatively similar across studies, surgical techniques and conservative management protocols varied. The pooled mean difference in ODI (final ODI-initial ODI) between the nonoperative and lumbar fusion groups across all studies was -7.39 points (95% confidence interval: -20.26, 5.47) in favor of lumbar fusion, but this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.26). Conclusions: Despite the significant improvement in ODI in the lumbar fusion groups in 3 studies, pooled data revealed no significant difference when compared with the nonoperative group. Although there was an overall improvement of 7.39 points in the ODI in favor of lumbar fusion, it is unclear that this change in ODI would lead to a clinically significant difference. Prospective randomized trials comparing a specific surgical technique versus a structured physical therapy program may improve evidence quality. Until then, either operative intervention by lumbar fusion or nonoperative management and physical therapy remain 2 acceptable treatment methods for intractable low back pain.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)297-304
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques
Volume27
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Low Back Pain
Meta-Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Therapeutics
Spinal Fusion
Back Pain
PubMed
Databases
Confidence Intervals
Conservative Treatment

Keywords

  • chronic low back pain
  • discogenic back pain
  • lumbar fusion
  • metaanalysis
  • randomized controlled trial
  • systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Lumbar fusion versus nonoperative management for treatment of discogenic low back pain : A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. / Bydon, Mohamad; De La Garza-Ramos, Rafael; Macki, Mohamed; Baker, Abdul; Gokaslan, Aaron K.; Bydon, Ali.

In: Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques, Vol. 27, No. 5, 2014, p. 297-304.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bydon, Mohamad ; De La Garza-Ramos, Rafael ; Macki, Mohamed ; Baker, Abdul ; Gokaslan, Aaron K. ; Bydon, Ali. / Lumbar fusion versus nonoperative management for treatment of discogenic low back pain : A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. In: Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques. 2014 ; Vol. 27, No. 5. pp. 297-304.
@article{f776829c675c442e8d9fc0058522f441,
title = "Lumbar fusion versus nonoperative management for treatment of discogenic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials",
abstract = "Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objective: To evaluate the current evidence comparing lumbar fusion to nonoperative management for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: Discogenic low back pain is a common and sometimes disabling condition. When the condition becomes chronic and intractable, spinal fusion may play a role. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the PubMed and CENTRAL databases. We included RCTs that compared lumbar fusion to nonoperative management for the treatment of adult patients with chronic discogenic low back pain. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the improvement in back pain based on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Results: Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria. A total of 707 patients were divided into lumbar fusion (n=523) and conservative management (n=134). Although inclusion/exclusion criteria were relatively similar across studies, surgical techniques and conservative management protocols varied. The pooled mean difference in ODI (final ODI-initial ODI) between the nonoperative and lumbar fusion groups across all studies was -7.39 points (95{\%} confidence interval: -20.26, 5.47) in favor of lumbar fusion, but this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.26). Conclusions: Despite the significant improvement in ODI in the lumbar fusion groups in 3 studies, pooled data revealed no significant difference when compared with the nonoperative group. Although there was an overall improvement of 7.39 points in the ODI in favor of lumbar fusion, it is unclear that this change in ODI would lead to a clinically significant difference. Prospective randomized trials comparing a specific surgical technique versus a structured physical therapy program may improve evidence quality. Until then, either operative intervention by lumbar fusion or nonoperative management and physical therapy remain 2 acceptable treatment methods for intractable low back pain.",
keywords = "chronic low back pain, discogenic back pain, lumbar fusion, metaanalysis, randomized controlled trial, systematic review",
author = "Mohamad Bydon and {De La Garza-Ramos}, Rafael and Mohamed Macki and Abdul Baker and Gokaslan, {Aaron K.} and Ali Bydon",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1097/BSD.0000000000000072",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "297--304",
journal = "Journal of Spinal Disorders",
issn = "1536-0652",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lumbar fusion versus nonoperative management for treatment of discogenic low back pain

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AU - Bydon, Mohamad

AU - De La Garza-Ramos, Rafael

AU - Macki, Mohamed

AU - Baker, Abdul

AU - Gokaslan, Aaron K.

AU - Bydon, Ali

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objective: To evaluate the current evidence comparing lumbar fusion to nonoperative management for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: Discogenic low back pain is a common and sometimes disabling condition. When the condition becomes chronic and intractable, spinal fusion may play a role. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the PubMed and CENTRAL databases. We included RCTs that compared lumbar fusion to nonoperative management for the treatment of adult patients with chronic discogenic low back pain. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the improvement in back pain based on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Results: Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria. A total of 707 patients were divided into lumbar fusion (n=523) and conservative management (n=134). Although inclusion/exclusion criteria were relatively similar across studies, surgical techniques and conservative management protocols varied. The pooled mean difference in ODI (final ODI-initial ODI) between the nonoperative and lumbar fusion groups across all studies was -7.39 points (95% confidence interval: -20.26, 5.47) in favor of lumbar fusion, but this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.26). Conclusions: Despite the significant improvement in ODI in the lumbar fusion groups in 3 studies, pooled data revealed no significant difference when compared with the nonoperative group. Although there was an overall improvement of 7.39 points in the ODI in favor of lumbar fusion, it is unclear that this change in ODI would lead to a clinically significant difference. Prospective randomized trials comparing a specific surgical technique versus a structured physical therapy program may improve evidence quality. Until then, either operative intervention by lumbar fusion or nonoperative management and physical therapy remain 2 acceptable treatment methods for intractable low back pain.

AB - Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objective: To evaluate the current evidence comparing lumbar fusion to nonoperative management for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: Discogenic low back pain is a common and sometimes disabling condition. When the condition becomes chronic and intractable, spinal fusion may play a role. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the PubMed and CENTRAL databases. We included RCTs that compared lumbar fusion to nonoperative management for the treatment of adult patients with chronic discogenic low back pain. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the improvement in back pain based on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Results: Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria. A total of 707 patients were divided into lumbar fusion (n=523) and conservative management (n=134). Although inclusion/exclusion criteria were relatively similar across studies, surgical techniques and conservative management protocols varied. The pooled mean difference in ODI (final ODI-initial ODI) between the nonoperative and lumbar fusion groups across all studies was -7.39 points (95% confidence interval: -20.26, 5.47) in favor of lumbar fusion, but this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.26). Conclusions: Despite the significant improvement in ODI in the lumbar fusion groups in 3 studies, pooled data revealed no significant difference when compared with the nonoperative group. Although there was an overall improvement of 7.39 points in the ODI in favor of lumbar fusion, it is unclear that this change in ODI would lead to a clinically significant difference. Prospective randomized trials comparing a specific surgical technique versus a structured physical therapy program may improve evidence quality. Until then, either operative intervention by lumbar fusion or nonoperative management and physical therapy remain 2 acceptable treatment methods for intractable low back pain.

KW - chronic low back pain

KW - discogenic back pain

KW - lumbar fusion

KW - metaanalysis

KW - randomized controlled trial

KW - systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84903819824&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84903819824&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000072

DO - 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000072

M3 - Article

C2 - 24346052

AN - SCOPUS:84903819824

VL - 27

SP - 297

EP - 304

JO - Journal of Spinal Disorders

JF - Journal of Spinal Disorders

SN - 1536-0652

IS - 5

ER -