Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 18 October 2008

Abstract

We performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to investigate the effectiveness of surgical fusion for the treatment of chronic low back pain compared to non-surgical intervention. Several electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Science Citation Index) were searched from 1966 to 2005. The meta-analysis comparison was based on the mean difference in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) change from baseline to the specified follow-up of patients undergoing surgical versus non-surgical treatment. Of the 58 articles identified, three studies were eligible for primary analysis and one study for sensitivity analysis, with a total of 634 patients. The pooled mean difference in ODI between the surgical and non-surgical groups was in favour of surgery (mean difference of ODI: 4.13, 95%CI: −0.82 to 9.08, p = 0.10, I2 = 44.4%). Surgical treatment was associated with a 16% pooled rate of early complication (95%CI: 12–20, I2 = 0%). Surgical fusion for chronic low back pain favoured a marginal improvement in the ODI compared to non-surgical intervention. This difference in ODI was not statistically significant and is of minimal clinical importance. Surgery was found to be associated with a significant risk of complications. Therefore, the cumulative evidence at the present time does not support routine surgical fusion for the treatment of chronic low back pain.

Résumé

Méta-analyse randomisée pour étudier la réalité de la fusion chirurgicale pour lombalgies chroniques comparée à l’évolution sans chirurgie. Plusieurs fichiers électroniques (Medline, Embase, Cinahl et Science citation index) ont été étudié de 1996 à 2005. La comparaison était basée sur les modifications de l’index d’Owestry (ODI) après traitement chirurgical ou non chirurgical. Trois études sur 58 articles étaient utilisables pour une première analyse et une étude pour une analyse fine, avec un total de 634 patients. Les différences de l’index mesuré étaient en faveur de la chirugie (différence moyenne de l’index ODI: 4,13; IC de 95%: −0,82 à 9,08; p = 0,10; I2 = 44,4%). Le traitement chirurgical s’accompagnait de 16% de complications précoces (IC de 95%:12–20%, I2 = 0%). La fusion chirugicale pour lombalgies chroniques améliore de façon non significative l’index de Oswestry par rapport au traitement non chirurgical et elle a un risque plus grand de complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andersson GB (1999) Epidemiological features of chronic low pain. Lancet 354:581–585

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Andersson HI, Ejlertsson G, Leden I, Rosenberg C (1993) Chronic pain in a geographically defined general population: studies of differences in age, gender, social class and pain localization. Clin J Pain 9:174–182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brox JI, Sørensen R, Friis A, Nygaard Ø, Indahl A, Keller A, Ingebrigtsen T, Eriksen HR, Holm I, Koller AK, Riise R, Reikerås O (2003) Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine 28:1913–1921

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Loeser JD, Bush T, Waddell G (1994) An international comparison of back surgery rates. Spine 19:1201–1206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Christensen FB, Bünger C (2004) Stabilisation surgery for chronic low back pain: indications, surgical procedures, and outcome. Scand J Rheumatol 33:210–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Deyo RA, Gray DT, Krueter W, Mirza S, Martin BI (2005) United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine 30:1441–1445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ekman P, Möller H, Hedlund R (2005) The long-term effect of posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a randomized controlled study. Spine J 5:36–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J, Yu LM, Baker K, Collins R (for the Spine Stabilisation Trial Group) (2005) Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial. Br Med J 330:1233–1239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB (2000) The oswestry disability index. Spine 25:2940–2953

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2001) 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain. A multicenter randomised controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 26:2521–2534

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques. A prospective multicenter randomised study from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 27:1131–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Jonsson D, Nordwall A (2004) Cost-effectiveness of lumbar fusion and nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain in the Swedish Spine Study: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 29:421–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gibson JNA, Grant C, Waddell G (1999) The Cochrane review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Spine 24:1819–1832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Herkowitz H (1995) Lumbar spine fusions in the treatment of degenerative conditions: current indications and recommendations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 3:123–135

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J 327:557–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. Br Med J 323:42–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kanwaldeep S, Herkowitz HN (1997) Spinal instrumentation in the management of degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop 335:39–53

    Google Scholar 

  19. Keller A, Brox JI, Gunderson R, Holm I, Friis A, Reikerås O (2003) Trunk muscle strength, cross-sectional area, and density in patients with chronic low back pain randomized to lumbar fusion or cognitive intervention and exercises. Spine 29:3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Meade TW, Dyer S, Browne W, Townsend J, Frank AO (1990) Low back pain: comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment. Br Med J 300:1431–1437

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Meta-analysis of change scores of the Cochrane Handbook (Section: 8.6.4.2). http://cochrane.dk/cochrane/handbook/8_analysing_and_presenting_results/8.6_summarising_effects_across_studies.htm

  22. McAfee PC, Lee GA, Fedder IL, Cunningham BW (2002) Anterior BAK instrumentation and fusion: complete versus partial discectomy. Clin Orthop 394:55–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moher D, Cook JD, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 354:1896–1900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Möller H, Hedlund R (2000) Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. A prospective randomized study: Part 1. Spine 25:1711–1715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Möller H, Sundin A, Hedlund R (2000) Symptoms, signs, and functional disability in adult spondylolisthesis. Spine 25:683–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nachemson A (1985) Recent advances in the treatment of low back pain. Int Orthop 9:1–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rivero-Arias O, Campbell H, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J for the Spine Stabilisation Trial Group (2005) Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 330:1239–1243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, Fogg AJB (1999) Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine 24:1805–1812

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP, Hansen ES, Fruensgaard S, Bünger CE (1997) 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomised clinical study. Spine 22:2813–2822

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. van Tulder MW, Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, Bouter LM (1997) Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for Spinal Disorders. Spine 22:2323–2330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK

    T. Ibrahim

  2. Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    I. M. Tleyjeh

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Infirmary Square, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK

    O. Gabbar

Authors
  1. T. Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. M. Tleyjeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. O. Gabbar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Ibrahim.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0665-1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ibrahim, T., Tleyjeh, I.M. & Gabbar, O. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. International Orthopaedics (SICO 32, 107–113 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0269-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0269-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation