Clinician approaches to spinal manipulation for persistent spinal pain after lumbar surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Robert J Trager, Clinton J Daniels, Kevin W Meyer, Amber C Stout, Jeffery A Dusek
{"title":"Clinician approaches to spinal manipulation for persistent spinal pain after lumbar surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data.","authors":"Robert J Trager,&nbsp;Clinton J Daniels,&nbsp;Kevin W Meyer,&nbsp;Amber C Stout,&nbsp;Jeffery A Dusek","doi":"10.1186/s12998-023-00481-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This review aimed to identify variables influencing clinicians' application of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for persistent spine pain after lumbar surgery (PSPS-2). We hypothesized markers of reduced clinical/surgical complexity would be associated with greater odds of applying SMT to the lumbar region, use of manual-thrust lumbar SMT, and SMT within 1-year post-surgery as primary outcomes; and chiropractors would have increased odds of using lumbar manual-thrust-SMT compared to other practitioners.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Per our published protocol, observational studies describing adults receiving SMT for PSPS-2 were included. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, OVID, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched from inception to January 6, 2022. Individual patient data (IPD) were requested from contact authors when needed for selection criteria. Data extraction and a customized risk-of-bias rubric were completed in duplicate. Odds ratios (ORs) for primary outcomes were calculated using binary logistic regressions, with covariates including age, sex, symptom distribution, provider, motion segments, spinal implant, and surgery-to-SMT interval.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>71 articles were included describing 103 patients (mean age 52 ± 15, 55% male). The most common surgeries were laminectomy (40%), fusion (34%), and discectomy (29%). Lumbar SMT was used in 85% of patients; and of these patients was non-manual-thrust in 59%, manual-thrust in 33%, and unclear in 8%. Clinicians were most often chiropractors (68%). SMT was used > 1-year post-surgery in 66% of cases. While no primary outcomes reached significance, non-reduced motion segments approached significance for predicting use of lumbar-manual-thrust SMT (OR 9.07 [0.97-84.64], P = 0.053). Chiropractors were significantly more likely to use lumbar-manual-thrust SMT (OR 32.26 [3.17-327.98], P = 0.003). A sensitivity analysis omitting high risk-of-bias cases (missing ≥ 25% IPD) revealed similar results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clinicians using SMT for PSPS-2 most often apply non-manual-thrust SMT to the lumbar spine, while chiropractors are more likely to use lumbar-manual-thrust SMT relative to other providers. As non-manual-thrust SMT may be gentler, the proclivity towards this technique suggests providers are cautious when applying SMT after lumbar surgery. Unmeasured variables such as patient or clinician preferences, or limited sample size may have influenced our findings. Large observational studies and/or international surveys are needed for an improved understanding of SMT use for PSPS-2. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42021250039).</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9999664/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-023-00481-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: This review aimed to identify variables influencing clinicians' application of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for persistent spine pain after lumbar surgery (PSPS-2). We hypothesized markers of reduced clinical/surgical complexity would be associated with greater odds of applying SMT to the lumbar region, use of manual-thrust lumbar SMT, and SMT within 1-year post-surgery as primary outcomes; and chiropractors would have increased odds of using lumbar manual-thrust-SMT compared to other practitioners.

Methods: Per our published protocol, observational studies describing adults receiving SMT for PSPS-2 were included. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, OVID, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched from inception to January 6, 2022. Individual patient data (IPD) were requested from contact authors when needed for selection criteria. Data extraction and a customized risk-of-bias rubric were completed in duplicate. Odds ratios (ORs) for primary outcomes were calculated using binary logistic regressions, with covariates including age, sex, symptom distribution, provider, motion segments, spinal implant, and surgery-to-SMT interval.

Results: 71 articles were included describing 103 patients (mean age 52 ± 15, 55% male). The most common surgeries were laminectomy (40%), fusion (34%), and discectomy (29%). Lumbar SMT was used in 85% of patients; and of these patients was non-manual-thrust in 59%, manual-thrust in 33%, and unclear in 8%. Clinicians were most often chiropractors (68%). SMT was used > 1-year post-surgery in 66% of cases. While no primary outcomes reached significance, non-reduced motion segments approached significance for predicting use of lumbar-manual-thrust SMT (OR 9.07 [0.97-84.64], P = 0.053). Chiropractors were significantly more likely to use lumbar-manual-thrust SMT (OR 32.26 [3.17-327.98], P = 0.003). A sensitivity analysis omitting high risk-of-bias cases (missing ≥ 25% IPD) revealed similar results.

Conclusions: Clinicians using SMT for PSPS-2 most often apply non-manual-thrust SMT to the lumbar spine, while chiropractors are more likely to use lumbar-manual-thrust SMT relative to other providers. As non-manual-thrust SMT may be gentler, the proclivity towards this technique suggests providers are cautious when applying SMT after lumbar surgery. Unmeasured variables such as patient or clinician preferences, or limited sample size may have influenced our findings. Large observational studies and/or international surveys are needed for an improved understanding of SMT use for PSPS-2. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42021250039).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

腰椎手术后持续脊柱疼痛的临床方法:单个患者数据的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:本综述旨在确定影响临床医生应用脊柱推拿疗法(SMT)治疗腰椎手术后持续性脊柱疼痛(PSPS-2)的变量。我们假设临床/手术复杂性降低的标记物与腰椎区域应用SMT、使用手动腰椎SMT和术后1年内SMT作为主要结果的可能性较大有关;与其他从业人员相比,脊医使用腰椎手推- smt的几率会增加。方法:根据我们发表的方案,描述成人接受SMT治疗PSPS-2的观察性研究被纳入。PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, OVID, PEDro和Index to Chiropractic Literature从创立到2022年1月6日进行了检索。当需要作为选择标准时,从联系作者处索取个体患者数据(IPD)。数据提取和定制的风险偏差表一式两份完成。使用二元逻辑回归计算主要结局的优势比(ORs),协变量包括年龄、性别、症状分布、提供者、运动节段、脊柱植入物和手术至smt间隔。结果:纳入71篇文章,共103例患者(平均年龄52±15岁,55%为男性)。最常见的手术是椎板切除术(40%)、融合术(34%)和椎间盘切除术(29%)。85%的患者使用腰椎SMT;在这些患者中,59%为非手推,33%为手推,8%为不清楚。临床医生通常是指压治疗师(68%)。66%的病例在术后1年以上使用SMT。虽然没有主要结果达到显著性,但非复位运动节段在预测腰-手-推力SMT使用方面接近显著性(OR 9.07 [0.97-84.64], P = 0.053)。脊医更倾向于使用腰-手-推力式SMT (OR 32.26 [3.17-327.98], P = 0.003)。忽略高偏倚风险病例(缺失≥25% IPD)的敏感性分析显示了类似的结果。结论:使用SMT治疗PSPS-2的临床医生通常对腰椎进行非手推式SMT,而相对于其他提供者,脊医更可能使用腰手推式SMT。由于非手动推力式SMT可能更温和,对这种技术的倾向表明提供者在腰椎手术后应用SMT时要谨慎。无法测量的变量,如患者或临床医生的偏好,或有限的样本量可能会影响我们的研究结果。为了更好地了解PSPS-2的SMT使用情况,需要进行大型观察性研究和/或国际调查。系统评价注册号PROSPERO (CRD42021250039)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信