Advertisement

Symptomatic Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Confirmed Lumbar Disk Herniation Patients: A Comparative Effectiveness Prospective Observational Study of 2 Age- and Sex-Matched Cohorts Treated With Either High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Spinal Manipulative Therapy or Imaging-Guided Lumbar Nerve Root Injections

      Abstract

      Objectives

      The purpose of this study was to compare self-reported pain and “improvement” of patients with symptomatic, magnetic resonance imaging–confirmed, lumbar disk herniations treated with either high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) or nerve root injections (NRI).

      Methods

      This prospective cohort comparative effectiveness study included 102 age- and sex-matched patients treated with either NRI or SMT. Numerical rating scale (NRS) pain data were collected before treatment. One month after treatment, current NRS pain levels and overall improvement assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale were recorded. The proportion of patients, “improved” or “worse,” was calculated for each treatment. Comparison of pretreatment and 1-month NRS scores used the paired t test. Numerical rating scale and NRS change scores for the 2 groups were compared using the unpaired t test. The groups were also compared for “improvement” using the χ2 test. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Average direct procedure costs for each treatment were calculated.

      Results

      No significant differences for self-reported pain or improvement were found between the 2 groups. “Improvement” was reported in 76.5% of SMT patients and in 62.7% of the NRI group. Both groups reported significantly reduced NRS scores at 1 month (P = .0001). Average cost for treatment with SMT was Swiss Francs 533.77 (US $558.75) and Swiss Francs 697 (US $729.61) for NRI.

      Conclusions

      Most SMT and NRI patients with radicular low back pain and magnetic resonance imaging–confirmed disk herniation matching symptomatic presentation reported significant and clinically relevant reduction in self-reported pain level and increased global perception of improvement. There were no significant differences in outcomes between NRI and SMT. When considering direct procedure costs, the average cost of SMT was slightly less expensive.

      Key Indexing Terms

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • van Tulder M
        • Koes B
        • Bombardier C
        Low back pain.
        Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2002; 16: 761-775
        • Heliovaara M
        • Impivaara O
        • Sievers K
        • et al.
        Lumbar disc syndrome in Finland.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 1987; 41: 251-258
        • Heliovaara M
        • Makela M
        • Knekt P
        • Impivaara O
        • Aromaa A
        Determinants of sciatica and low back pain.
        Spine. 1991; 16: 608-614
        • Boden SD
        • Davis DO
        • Dina TS
        • Patronas NJ
        • Wiesel SW
        Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990; 72: 403-408
        • Weber H
        • Holme I
        • Amlie E
        The natural course of acute sciatica with nerve root symptoms in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating the effect of piroxicam.
        Spine. 1983; 18: 1433-1438
        • Eckel T
        • Bartynski W
        Epidural steroid injections and selective nerve root blocks.
        Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009; 12: 11-21
        • Manchikanti L
        • Boswell MV
        • Singh V
        • et al.
        Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain.
        Pain Physician. 2009; 12: 699-802
        • Peterson C
        • Hodler J
        Evidence-based radiology (part 1): is there sufficient research to support the use of therapeutic injections for the spine and sacroiliac joints?.
        Skeletal Radiol. 2010; 39: 5-9
        • Roberts S
        • Willick S
        • Rho M
        • Rittenberg J
        Efficacy of lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections: a systematic review.
        PMR. 2009; 1: 657-668
        • Abdi S
        • Datta S
        • Trescot A
        • et al.
        Epidural steroids in the management of chronic spinal pain: a systematic review.
        Pain Physician. 2007; 10: 185-212
        • Datta S
        • Everett C
        • Trescot A
        • et al.
        An updated systematic review of the diagnostic utility of selective nerve root blocks.
        Pain Physician. 2007; 10: 113-128
        • Assendelft WJJ
        • Morton SC
        • Yu EI
        • Suttorp MJ
        • Shekelle PG
        Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain: a meta-analysis of effectiveness relative to other therapies.
        Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138: 871-881
        • Oiphant D
        Safety of spinal manipulation in the treatment of lumbar disc herniations: a systematic review and risk assessment.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004; 27: 197-210
        • Santilli V
        • Beghi E
        • Finucci S
        Chiropractic manipulation in the treatment of acute back pain and sciatica with disc protrusion: a randomized double-blind clinical trial of active and simulated spinal manipulations.
        Spine J. 2006; 6: 131-137
        • Luijsterburg P
        • Verhagen A
        • Ostelo RW
        • van Os TA
        • Peul WC
        • Koes BW
        Effectiveness of conservative treatments for the lumbosacral radicular syndrome: a systematic review.
        Eur Spine J. 2007; 16: 881-899
        • Lawrence DJ
        • Meeker W
        • Branson R
        • et al.
        Chiropractic management of low back pain and low back-related leg complaints: a literature synthesis.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008; 31: 659-674
        • Leininger B
        • Bronfort G
        • Evans R
        • Reiter T
        Spinal manipulation or mobilization for radiculopathy: a systematic review.
        Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2011; 22: 105-125
        • McMorland G
        • Suter E
        • Casha S
        • du Plessis SJ
        • Hurlbert RJ
        Manipulation or microdiskectomy for sciatica? A prospective randomized clinical study.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010; 33: 576-584
        • Lisi AJ
        • Holmes EJ
        • Ammendolia C
        High-velocity low amplitude spinal manipulation for symptomatic lumbar disk disease: a systematic review of the literature.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005; 28: 429-442
        • Peterson CK
        • Bolton J
        • Humphreys BK
        Predictors of improvement in patients with acute and chronic low back pain undergoing chiropractic treatment.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2012; 35: 525-533
        • Peul WC
        • van Houwelingen HC
        • van den Hout WB
        • et al.
        Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica.
        N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 2245-2256
        • Tinetti ME
        • Studenski SA
        Comparative effectiveness research and patients with multiple chronic conditions.
        N Engl J Med. 2011; 364: 2478-2481
        • Fischer D
        • Stewart AL
        • Bloch DA
        • Lorig K
        • Laurent D
        • Holman H
        Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome measure.
        JAMA. 1999; 282: 1157-1162
        • Ostelo RW
        • Deyo RA
        • Stratford P
        • et al.
        Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain.
        Spine. 2008; 33: 90-94
        • Hurst H
        • Bolton J
        Assessing the clinical significance of change scores recorded on subjective outcome measures.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004; 27: 26-35
        • Newell D
        • Bolton JE
        Responsiveness of the Bournemouth questionnaire in determining minimal clinically important change in subgroups of low back pain patients.
        Spine. 2010; 35: 1801-1806
        • Iversen T
        • Solberg TK
        • Romner B
        • et al.
        Effect of caudal epidural steroid or saline injection in chronic lumbar radiculopathy: multicentre, blinded, randomized controlled trial.
        BMJ. 2011; 343: d5278https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5278
        • Bussières A
        • Taylor J
        • Peterson C
        Diagnostic imaging practice guidelines for musculoskeletal complaint in adults—an evidence-based approach: part 3: spine disorders.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008; 31: 3-60
        • Power JR
        • Mishra G
        • Young AF
        Differences in mail and telephone responses to self-rated health: use of multiple imputation in correcting for response bias.
        Aust N Z J Public Health. 2005; 29: 149-154
        • Pallant J
        SPSS Survival Manual. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York2012