PainScience.com Sensible advice for aches, pains & injuries
 
 
bibliography * The PainScience Bibliography contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers and others sources, like a specialized blog. This page is about a single scientific paper in the bibliography, Jacobs 2013.

Overview of reviews of surgery for low back pain

updated
Jacobs WC, Rubinstein SM, Willems PC, Moojen WA, Pellisé F, Oner CF, Peul WC, van Tulder MW. The evidence on surgical interventions for low back disorders, an overview of systematic reviews. Eur Spine J. 2013 May. PubMed #23681497.
Tags: treatment, mind, surgery, back pain, pain problems, spine

PainSci summary of Jacobs 2013?This page is one of thousands in the PainScience.com bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided at the bottom of the page, as often as possible. ★★★☆☆?3-star ratings are for typical studies with no more (or less) than the usual common problems. Ratings are a highly subjective opinion, and subject to revision at any time. If you think this paper has been incorrectly rated, please let me know.

From the conclusion to this review of studies (and other reviews) of surgeries for back pain: “Although the quality of the reviews was quite acceptable, the quality of the included studies was poor.” So back surgeries have never really been studied properly … but the reviews are quality! Hmm. I’m pretty sure that’s terrible news.

original abstractAbstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.

PURPOSE: Many systematic reviews have been published on surgical interventions for low back disorders. The objective of this overview was to evaluate the available evidence from systematic reviews on the effectiveness of surgical interventions for disc herniation, spondylolisthesis, stenosis, and degenerative disc disease (DDD). An earlier version of this review was published in 2006 and since then, many new, better quality reviews have been published.

METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (CDSR), database of reviews of effectiveness (DARE) and Pubmed. Two reviewers independently performed the selection of studies, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. Included are Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals. The following conditions were included: disc herniation, spondylolisthesis, and DDD with or without spinal stenosis. The following comparisons were evaluated: (1) surgery vs. conservative care, and (2) different surgical techniques compared to one another. The methodological quality of the systematic reviews was evaluated using AMSTAR. We report (pooled) analyses from the individual reviews.

RESULTS: Thirteen systematic reviews on surgical interventions for low back disorders were included for disc herniation (n = 6), spondylolisthesis (n = 2), spinal stenosis (n = 4), and DDD (n = 4). Nine (69 %) were of high quality. Five reviews provided a meta-analysis of which two showed a significant difference. For the treatment of spinal stenosis, intervertebral process devices showed more favorable results compared to conservative treatment on the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire [mean difference (MD) 23.2 95 % CI 18.5-27.8]. For degenerative spondylolisthesis, fusion showed more favorable results compared to decompression for a mixed aggregation of clinical outcome measures (RR 1.40 95 % CI 1.04-1.89) and fusion rate favored instrumented fusion over non-instrumented fusion (RR 1.37 95 % CI 1.07-1.75).

CONCLUSIONS: For most of the comparisons, the included reviews were not significant and/or clinically relevant differences between interventions were identified. Although the quality of the reviews was quite acceptable, the quality of the included studies was poor. Future studies are likely to influence our assessment of these interventions.

related content

One article on PainScience.com cites Jacobs 2013 as a source:


This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights: