Is nonoperative treatment effective for acute Achilles tendon rupture?

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 07/11/2022 - 09:23
Display Headline
Is nonoperative treatment effective for acute Achilles tendon rupture?

Evidence summary

Surgical repair: Re-injury risk goes down, complications risk goes up

A 2021 network meta-analysis including 38 RCTs (N = 2480) reported outcomes in patients ages 18 and older with acute Achilles tendon rupture (AATR) and 3 or more months of follow-up.1 A significant increase in re-rupture rate was shown in patients who underwent nonoperative vs open repair (risk ratio [RR] = 2.41; 95% CI, 1.12-5.18). There was a significant decrease in wound-related complications in nonoperative vs open-repair patients (RR = 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.88). There was also a significant difference in incidence of sural nerve injury in nonoperative vs open repair (RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.94). There were no significant differences in return to sport between open repair and nonoperative repair (RR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.22-1.77). Insufficient data were reported to calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) for these outcomes.

Additionally, the authors looked at traditional standard rehabilitation and accelerated functional rehabilitation in both the operative and the nonoperative setting. The type of rehabilitation program did not have a significant impact on complications of re-rupture, wound, or sural nerve injury.

The included studies had an overall low risk of publication bias based on Begg’s funnel plot test (Pr > |z| = 0.86). The highest risk was performance bias, as neither the participants nor personnel were blinded to treatment in 71% of the studies.

 

Functional outcomes are similar for surgical vs nonoperative repair

In a 2019 meta-analysis of 9 RCTs (N = 822), adults ages 18 and older with AATR and a minimum of 12 months’ follow-up were randomized to either operative or nonoperative repair. There was a decreased rate of rupture with surgical repair and an associated increased rate of complications (ie, superficial wound infections and nerve injury). However, there was no significant difference in Physical Activity Scale (PAS) score between the 2 groups (mean difference, –0.05; 95% CI, –0.37 to 0.27).2 With surgical intervention, the NNT for Achilles tendon re-rupture was 15, and the NNH for superficial wound infection and nerve injury, respectively, were 22 and 28. Limitations of the study included different operative techniques and rehab protocols, which may have affected the results of the included studies.

Large data sets with consistent results show that nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture is an excellent option.

A third meta-analysis consisted of 10 RCTs and 19 observational studies (N = 15,862) with patients ages 16 years and older treated operatively vs nonoperatively. Function and return-to-activity rates in both the short term (≤ 1 year) and long term (> 1 year) were evaluated using the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS).3 Surgical management was associated with decreased re-rupture rates but increased complication rates. However, when the analysis was limited to studies using accelerated functional rehabilitation programs, there was no significant difference in re-rupture rate (RR = 0.26 to 1.37; P = .23). Only 1 observational study found a statistically significant difference in short-term functional outcomes favoring operative management, and no studies found a significant difference in long-term functional outcomes. These functional outcomes were not pooled for statistical analysis due to high interrater variability of the ATRS.

An RCT showed equal “customer satisfaction”

One RCT randomized 61 patients to either surgical or nonsurgical management and followed them for a mean of 15.7 years.4 Patient-reported outcomes of function, symptoms, and impact on daily life were measured using various surveys. There was no statistically significant difference in the function and impact on daily life after treatment according to the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment or the ATRS (P = .289 and .313, respectively). When assessed using the Net Promoter Score (a single-question metric used in consumer industry to assess whether an individual would recommend the product to others), there was no statistical significance for the patients to recommend one treatment over another: 79% of operatively managed patients vs 87% of nonoperatively managed patients would recommend their treatment to others (P = .225).

Recommendations from others

The American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons consensus statement finds no difference between operative and nonoperative management with regard to complications, functional outcome, and return to activity long term, when looking at available Level 1 evidence.5 They do acknowledge that although some Level III studies suggest operative intervention will return high-­functioning patients to full activity sooner, there should be discussion regarding the risks and complications of both operative and nonoperative management. Patients with increased risk factors for postoperative complications (diabetes, obesity, cigarette smoking) should have special considerations regarding the decision to operate.

Editor’s takeaway

Large data sets with consistent results show that nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture is an excellent option. However, we cannot say if it is better or worse than operative treatment, because both options have advantages and disadvantages. One must weigh the alternatives with individual patient preferences and circumstances.

References

1. Shi F, Wu S, Cai W, et al. Multiple comparisons of the efficacy and safety for six treatments in acute Achilles tendon rupture patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;27:468-479. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2020.07.004

2. Reda Y, Farouk A, Abdelmonem I, et al. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture. A systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;26:280-288. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2019.03.010

3. Ochen Y, Beks RB, van Heijl M, et al. Operative treatment versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019;364:k5120. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k5120

4. Maempel JF, Clement ND, Wickramasinghe NR, et al. Operative repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture does not give superior patient-reported outcomes to nonoperative management. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B:933-940. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.102b7.bjj-2019-0783.r3

5. Naldo J, Agnew P, Brucato M, et al. ACFAS clinical consensus statement: acute Achilles tendon pathology. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;60:93-101. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2020.02.006

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD (Drs. Silver and Fulleborn); Eglin AFB Family Medicine Residency, FL (Drs. Silver, Fulleborn, Feola, and Giblin)

DEPUTY EDITOR
Rick Guthmann, MD, MPH

Advocate Health Care Illinois Masonic Medical Center Program, Chicago

The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the US Air Force, the US Air Force Medical Service, the Defense Health Agency, the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the Department of Defense, or the US government.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 71(5)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
229-230
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD (Drs. Silver and Fulleborn); Eglin AFB Family Medicine Residency, FL (Drs. Silver, Fulleborn, Feola, and Giblin)

DEPUTY EDITOR
Rick Guthmann, MD, MPH

Advocate Health Care Illinois Masonic Medical Center Program, Chicago

The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the US Air Force, the US Air Force Medical Service, the Defense Health Agency, the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the Department of Defense, or the US government.

Author and Disclosure Information

Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD (Drs. Silver and Fulleborn); Eglin AFB Family Medicine Residency, FL (Drs. Silver, Fulleborn, Feola, and Giblin)

DEPUTY EDITOR
Rick Guthmann, MD, MPH

Advocate Health Care Illinois Masonic Medical Center Program, Chicago

The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the US Air Force, the US Air Force Medical Service, the Defense Health Agency, the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the Department of Defense, or the US government.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Evidence summary

Surgical repair: Re-injury risk goes down, complications risk goes up

A 2021 network meta-analysis including 38 RCTs (N = 2480) reported outcomes in patients ages 18 and older with acute Achilles tendon rupture (AATR) and 3 or more months of follow-up.1 A significant increase in re-rupture rate was shown in patients who underwent nonoperative vs open repair (risk ratio [RR] = 2.41; 95% CI, 1.12-5.18). There was a significant decrease in wound-related complications in nonoperative vs open-repair patients (RR = 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.88). There was also a significant difference in incidence of sural nerve injury in nonoperative vs open repair (RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.94). There were no significant differences in return to sport between open repair and nonoperative repair (RR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.22-1.77). Insufficient data were reported to calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) for these outcomes.

Additionally, the authors looked at traditional standard rehabilitation and accelerated functional rehabilitation in both the operative and the nonoperative setting. The type of rehabilitation program did not have a significant impact on complications of re-rupture, wound, or sural nerve injury.

The included studies had an overall low risk of publication bias based on Begg’s funnel plot test (Pr > |z| = 0.86). The highest risk was performance bias, as neither the participants nor personnel were blinded to treatment in 71% of the studies.

 

Functional outcomes are similar for surgical vs nonoperative repair

In a 2019 meta-analysis of 9 RCTs (N = 822), adults ages 18 and older with AATR and a minimum of 12 months’ follow-up were randomized to either operative or nonoperative repair. There was a decreased rate of rupture with surgical repair and an associated increased rate of complications (ie, superficial wound infections and nerve injury). However, there was no significant difference in Physical Activity Scale (PAS) score between the 2 groups (mean difference, –0.05; 95% CI, –0.37 to 0.27).2 With surgical intervention, the NNT for Achilles tendon re-rupture was 15, and the NNH for superficial wound infection and nerve injury, respectively, were 22 and 28. Limitations of the study included different operative techniques and rehab protocols, which may have affected the results of the included studies.

Large data sets with consistent results show that nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture is an excellent option.

A third meta-analysis consisted of 10 RCTs and 19 observational studies (N = 15,862) with patients ages 16 years and older treated operatively vs nonoperatively. Function and return-to-activity rates in both the short term (≤ 1 year) and long term (> 1 year) were evaluated using the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS).3 Surgical management was associated with decreased re-rupture rates but increased complication rates. However, when the analysis was limited to studies using accelerated functional rehabilitation programs, there was no significant difference in re-rupture rate (RR = 0.26 to 1.37; P = .23). Only 1 observational study found a statistically significant difference in short-term functional outcomes favoring operative management, and no studies found a significant difference in long-term functional outcomes. These functional outcomes were not pooled for statistical analysis due to high interrater variability of the ATRS.

An RCT showed equal “customer satisfaction”

One RCT randomized 61 patients to either surgical or nonsurgical management and followed them for a mean of 15.7 years.4 Patient-reported outcomes of function, symptoms, and impact on daily life were measured using various surveys. There was no statistically significant difference in the function and impact on daily life after treatment according to the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment or the ATRS (P = .289 and .313, respectively). When assessed using the Net Promoter Score (a single-question metric used in consumer industry to assess whether an individual would recommend the product to others), there was no statistical significance for the patients to recommend one treatment over another: 79% of operatively managed patients vs 87% of nonoperatively managed patients would recommend their treatment to others (P = .225).

Recommendations from others

The American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons consensus statement finds no difference between operative and nonoperative management with regard to complications, functional outcome, and return to activity long term, when looking at available Level 1 evidence.5 They do acknowledge that although some Level III studies suggest operative intervention will return high-­functioning patients to full activity sooner, there should be discussion regarding the risks and complications of both operative and nonoperative management. Patients with increased risk factors for postoperative complications (diabetes, obesity, cigarette smoking) should have special considerations regarding the decision to operate.

Editor’s takeaway

Large data sets with consistent results show that nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture is an excellent option. However, we cannot say if it is better or worse than operative treatment, because both options have advantages and disadvantages. One must weigh the alternatives with individual patient preferences and circumstances.

Evidence summary

Surgical repair: Re-injury risk goes down, complications risk goes up

A 2021 network meta-analysis including 38 RCTs (N = 2480) reported outcomes in patients ages 18 and older with acute Achilles tendon rupture (AATR) and 3 or more months of follow-up.1 A significant increase in re-rupture rate was shown in patients who underwent nonoperative vs open repair (risk ratio [RR] = 2.41; 95% CI, 1.12-5.18). There was a significant decrease in wound-related complications in nonoperative vs open-repair patients (RR = 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.88). There was also a significant difference in incidence of sural nerve injury in nonoperative vs open repair (RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.94). There were no significant differences in return to sport between open repair and nonoperative repair (RR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.22-1.77). Insufficient data were reported to calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) for these outcomes.

Additionally, the authors looked at traditional standard rehabilitation and accelerated functional rehabilitation in both the operative and the nonoperative setting. The type of rehabilitation program did not have a significant impact on complications of re-rupture, wound, or sural nerve injury.

The included studies had an overall low risk of publication bias based on Begg’s funnel plot test (Pr > |z| = 0.86). The highest risk was performance bias, as neither the participants nor personnel were blinded to treatment in 71% of the studies.

 

Functional outcomes are similar for surgical vs nonoperative repair

In a 2019 meta-analysis of 9 RCTs (N = 822), adults ages 18 and older with AATR and a minimum of 12 months’ follow-up were randomized to either operative or nonoperative repair. There was a decreased rate of rupture with surgical repair and an associated increased rate of complications (ie, superficial wound infections and nerve injury). However, there was no significant difference in Physical Activity Scale (PAS) score between the 2 groups (mean difference, –0.05; 95% CI, –0.37 to 0.27).2 With surgical intervention, the NNT for Achilles tendon re-rupture was 15, and the NNH for superficial wound infection and nerve injury, respectively, were 22 and 28. Limitations of the study included different operative techniques and rehab protocols, which may have affected the results of the included studies.

Large data sets with consistent results show that nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture is an excellent option.

A third meta-analysis consisted of 10 RCTs and 19 observational studies (N = 15,862) with patients ages 16 years and older treated operatively vs nonoperatively. Function and return-to-activity rates in both the short term (≤ 1 year) and long term (> 1 year) were evaluated using the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS).3 Surgical management was associated with decreased re-rupture rates but increased complication rates. However, when the analysis was limited to studies using accelerated functional rehabilitation programs, there was no significant difference in re-rupture rate (RR = 0.26 to 1.37; P = .23). Only 1 observational study found a statistically significant difference in short-term functional outcomes favoring operative management, and no studies found a significant difference in long-term functional outcomes. These functional outcomes were not pooled for statistical analysis due to high interrater variability of the ATRS.

An RCT showed equal “customer satisfaction”

One RCT randomized 61 patients to either surgical or nonsurgical management and followed them for a mean of 15.7 years.4 Patient-reported outcomes of function, symptoms, and impact on daily life were measured using various surveys. There was no statistically significant difference in the function and impact on daily life after treatment according to the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment or the ATRS (P = .289 and .313, respectively). When assessed using the Net Promoter Score (a single-question metric used in consumer industry to assess whether an individual would recommend the product to others), there was no statistical significance for the patients to recommend one treatment over another: 79% of operatively managed patients vs 87% of nonoperatively managed patients would recommend their treatment to others (P = .225).

Recommendations from others

The American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons consensus statement finds no difference between operative and nonoperative management with regard to complications, functional outcome, and return to activity long term, when looking at available Level 1 evidence.5 They do acknowledge that although some Level III studies suggest operative intervention will return high-­functioning patients to full activity sooner, there should be discussion regarding the risks and complications of both operative and nonoperative management. Patients with increased risk factors for postoperative complications (diabetes, obesity, cigarette smoking) should have special considerations regarding the decision to operate.

Editor’s takeaway

Large data sets with consistent results show that nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture is an excellent option. However, we cannot say if it is better or worse than operative treatment, because both options have advantages and disadvantages. One must weigh the alternatives with individual patient preferences and circumstances.

References

1. Shi F, Wu S, Cai W, et al. Multiple comparisons of the efficacy and safety for six treatments in acute Achilles tendon rupture patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;27:468-479. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2020.07.004

2. Reda Y, Farouk A, Abdelmonem I, et al. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture. A systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;26:280-288. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2019.03.010

3. Ochen Y, Beks RB, van Heijl M, et al. Operative treatment versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019;364:k5120. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k5120

4. Maempel JF, Clement ND, Wickramasinghe NR, et al. Operative repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture does not give superior patient-reported outcomes to nonoperative management. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B:933-940. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.102b7.bjj-2019-0783.r3

5. Naldo J, Agnew P, Brucato M, et al. ACFAS clinical consensus statement: acute Achilles tendon pathology. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;60:93-101. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2020.02.006

References

1. Shi F, Wu S, Cai W, et al. Multiple comparisons of the efficacy and safety for six treatments in acute Achilles tendon rupture patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;27:468-479. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2020.07.004

2. Reda Y, Farouk A, Abdelmonem I, et al. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture. A systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;26:280-288. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2019.03.010

3. Ochen Y, Beks RB, van Heijl M, et al. Operative treatment versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019;364:k5120. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k5120

4. Maempel JF, Clement ND, Wickramasinghe NR, et al. Operative repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture does not give superior patient-reported outcomes to nonoperative management. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B:933-940. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.102b7.bjj-2019-0783.r3

5. Naldo J, Agnew P, Brucato M, et al. ACFAS clinical consensus statement: acute Achilles tendon pathology. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;60:93-101. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2020.02.006

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 71(5)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 71(5)
Page Number
229-230
Page Number
229-230
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Is nonoperative treatment effective for acute Achilles tendon rupture?
Display Headline
Is nonoperative treatment effective for acute Achilles tendon rupture?
Sections
PURLs Copyright
Evidence-based answers from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network
Inside the Article

EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER:

YES. Nonoperative and open sur- gical interventions provide equal long-term functional outcomes of the affected Achilles tendon and ankle (strength of recommendation [SOR], A; based on 2 meta-analyses and a separate randomized controlled trial [RCT]). Although nonoperative management is associated with increased risk of re-rupture, it confers lower risk for complications including wound infection and nerve injury (SOR, A; based on meta-analysis and separate RCT).

Select individuals—high-performing athletes or those who otherwise require near-baseline strength and function of their Achilles tendon—would likely benefit from surgical intervention (SOR, A; based on meta-analysis and consensus recommendations).

Patients with comorbid conditions that would put them at greater risk for postoperative complications should be advised to consider nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture (SOR, C; based on consensus opinion).

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Is exercise therapy effective treatment for low back pain?

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 10/26/2021 - 07:50
Display Headline
Is exercise therapy effective treatment for low back pain?

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

General exercise offers benefit …at least for chronic LBP

A 2017 systematic review of 4 systematic reviews and 50 RCTs (122 total trials) evaluated general exercise vs usual care for acute (< 4 weeks), subacute (4 to 12 weeks), or chronic (≥ 12 weeks) LBP with or without radiculopathy in adults.1 Exercise was not consistently associated with decreased pain in acute or subacute LBP. For chronic LBP, 3 RCTs (n = 200) associated exercise with decreased pain (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –9.2 on a 0-100 point visual acuity scale; 95% CI, –16.0 to –2.4) and improved function (WMD = –12.4 on the Oswestry Disability Index; 95% CI, –23.0 to –1.7) at short-term follow-up (≤ 3 months). This effect was found to decrease at long-term (≥ 1 year) follow-up (WMD for pain = –4.9; 95% CI, –10.5 to 0.6 and WMD for function = –3.2; 95% CI, 6.0 to –0.4). In a meta-analysis of 10 studies (n = 1992) included in this systematic review, exercise was associated with a lower likelihood of work disability (odds ratio, 0.66; CI, 0.48 to 0.92) at 12 months.1

Yoga, Pilates, and motor control exercise: Your results may vary

Several reviews have explored the effects of specific exercise modalities on LBP. A 2017 meta-analysis of 9 RCTs in the United States, United Kingdom, and India of nonpregnant adults (≥ 18 years old) with chronic LBP (N = 810) found that yoga (any tradition of yoga with a physical component) vs no exercise demonstrated a statistically, but not clinically, significant decrease in pain at 3 to 4 months (mean difference [MD] = –4.6 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –7.0 to –2.1), 6 months (MD = –7.8; 95% CI, –13.4 to –2.3), and 12 months (MD = –5.4; 95% CI, –14.5 to –3.7). Clinically significant pain benefit was considered a change of 15 or more points.2

A 2015 meta-analysis of RCTs (10 trials; N = 510) comparing the effects of Pilates (a form of body conditioning involving isometric contractions and core exercises focusing on stability) vs minimal intervention on chronic (> 12 weeks) LBP in nonpregnant adults (≥ 16 years old) found low-quality evidence for decreased pain at short-term follow-up (≤ 3 months; MD = –14.1 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –18.9 to –9.2). There was moderate-quality evidence for decreased pain at intermediate follow-up (3-12 months; MD = –10.5; 95% CI, –18.5 to –2.6).3

A 2016 systematic review evaluated motor control exercise (MCE; a form of exercise that focuses on trunk muscle control and coordination) in adults (≥ 16 years old) with chronic LBP (≥ 12 weeks). There was low- to moderate-quality evidence that, compared to minimal intervention, MCE decreases pain at short-term (≤ 6 months; 4 RCTs; MD = –10.0 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –15.7 to –4.4), intermediate (6-12 months; 4 RCTs; MD = –12.6; 95% CI, –20.5 to –4.7), and long-term follow-up (> 12 months; 3 RCTs; MD = –13.0; 95% CI, –18.5 to –7.4). When comparing MCE to general exercise, there were no clinically significant differences in pain or disability at intermediate and long-term follow-up.4Common limitations included heterogeneity of intervention methodology, inability to blind results, inability to assess cointerventions, and in some cases, small sample sizes of trials.

Recommendations from others

The 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) clinical practice guideline on noninvasive treatments for LBP does not recommend exercise therapy in acute or subacute LBP; recommended therapies include superficial heat, massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation.5 The ACP recommends general exercise, yoga, tai chi, or MCE for chronic LBP, in addition to multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction, progressive relaxation, biofeedback, laser therapy, operant therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or spinal manipulation.

The 2017 US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense clinical practice guideline on treatment of LBP notes insufficient evidence for benefit of clinician-guided exercise therapy in acute LBP.6 For chronic LBP, clinician-directed exercise, yoga, tai chi, or Pilates is recommended.

Editor’s takeaway

Convincing evidence demonstrates that exercise modestly improves chronic LBP—but only modestly (4% to 15%), and not in acute LBP. This small magnitude of effect may disappoint expectations, but exercise remains among our better interventions for this common chronic problem. Few—if any—interventions have proven better, and exercise has beneficial side effects, a low cost, and widespread availability.

References

1. Chou R, Deyo R, Friedly J, et al. Nonpharmacologic therapies for low back pain: a systematic review for an American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:493-506. doi: 10.7326/M16-2459

2. Wieland LS, Skoetz N, Pilkington K, et al. Yoga treatment for chronic non-specific low back pain (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;1:CD010671. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010671.pub2

3. Yamato TP, Maher CG, Saragiotto BT, et al. Pilates for low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;7:CD010265. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010265.pub2

4. Saragiotto BT, Maher CG, Yamato TP, et. al. Motor control exercise for chronic non‐specific low‐back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;1:CD012004. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012004

5. Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, McLean RM, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:514-530. doi: 10.7326/M16-2367

6. Pangarkar SS, Kang DG, Sandbrink F, et al. VA/DoD clinical practice guideline: diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:2620-2629. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05086-4

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Christine Broszko, MD, FAAFP
Krystyna Golden, MD
Cody R. Holmes, MD
Stephanie Fulleborn, MD

Eglin Air Force Base Family Medicine Residency, FL

Carolyn Biglow, MLIS, CAS
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, PA

DEPUTY EDITOR
Richard Guthmann, MD, MPH

Advocate Illinois Masonic Family Medicine Residency

The opinions and assertions contained herein are those of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the US Air Force Medical Department, the Air Force at large, or the Department of Defense.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 70(8)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E2-E3
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Christine Broszko, MD, FAAFP
Krystyna Golden, MD
Cody R. Holmes, MD
Stephanie Fulleborn, MD

Eglin Air Force Base Family Medicine Residency, FL

Carolyn Biglow, MLIS, CAS
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, PA

DEPUTY EDITOR
Richard Guthmann, MD, MPH

Advocate Illinois Masonic Family Medicine Residency

The opinions and assertions contained herein are those of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the US Air Force Medical Department, the Air Force at large, or the Department of Defense.

Author and Disclosure Information

Christine Broszko, MD, FAAFP
Krystyna Golden, MD
Cody R. Holmes, MD
Stephanie Fulleborn, MD

Eglin Air Force Base Family Medicine Residency, FL

Carolyn Biglow, MLIS, CAS
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, PA

DEPUTY EDITOR
Richard Guthmann, MD, MPH

Advocate Illinois Masonic Family Medicine Residency

The opinions and assertions contained herein are those of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the US Air Force Medical Department, the Air Force at large, or the Department of Defense.

Article PDF
Article PDF

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

General exercise offers benefit …at least for chronic LBP

A 2017 systematic review of 4 systematic reviews and 50 RCTs (122 total trials) evaluated general exercise vs usual care for acute (< 4 weeks), subacute (4 to 12 weeks), or chronic (≥ 12 weeks) LBP with or without radiculopathy in adults.1 Exercise was not consistently associated with decreased pain in acute or subacute LBP. For chronic LBP, 3 RCTs (n = 200) associated exercise with decreased pain (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –9.2 on a 0-100 point visual acuity scale; 95% CI, –16.0 to –2.4) and improved function (WMD = –12.4 on the Oswestry Disability Index; 95% CI, –23.0 to –1.7) at short-term follow-up (≤ 3 months). This effect was found to decrease at long-term (≥ 1 year) follow-up (WMD for pain = –4.9; 95% CI, –10.5 to 0.6 and WMD for function = –3.2; 95% CI, 6.0 to –0.4). In a meta-analysis of 10 studies (n = 1992) included in this systematic review, exercise was associated with a lower likelihood of work disability (odds ratio, 0.66; CI, 0.48 to 0.92) at 12 months.1

Yoga, Pilates, and motor control exercise: Your results may vary

Several reviews have explored the effects of specific exercise modalities on LBP. A 2017 meta-analysis of 9 RCTs in the United States, United Kingdom, and India of nonpregnant adults (≥ 18 years old) with chronic LBP (N = 810) found that yoga (any tradition of yoga with a physical component) vs no exercise demonstrated a statistically, but not clinically, significant decrease in pain at 3 to 4 months (mean difference [MD] = –4.6 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –7.0 to –2.1), 6 months (MD = –7.8; 95% CI, –13.4 to –2.3), and 12 months (MD = –5.4; 95% CI, –14.5 to –3.7). Clinically significant pain benefit was considered a change of 15 or more points.2

A 2015 meta-analysis of RCTs (10 trials; N = 510) comparing the effects of Pilates (a form of body conditioning involving isometric contractions and core exercises focusing on stability) vs minimal intervention on chronic (> 12 weeks) LBP in nonpregnant adults (≥ 16 years old) found low-quality evidence for decreased pain at short-term follow-up (≤ 3 months; MD = –14.1 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –18.9 to –9.2). There was moderate-quality evidence for decreased pain at intermediate follow-up (3-12 months; MD = –10.5; 95% CI, –18.5 to –2.6).3

A 2016 systematic review evaluated motor control exercise (MCE; a form of exercise that focuses on trunk muscle control and coordination) in adults (≥ 16 years old) with chronic LBP (≥ 12 weeks). There was low- to moderate-quality evidence that, compared to minimal intervention, MCE decreases pain at short-term (≤ 6 months; 4 RCTs; MD = –10.0 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –15.7 to –4.4), intermediate (6-12 months; 4 RCTs; MD = –12.6; 95% CI, –20.5 to –4.7), and long-term follow-up (> 12 months; 3 RCTs; MD = –13.0; 95% CI, –18.5 to –7.4). When comparing MCE to general exercise, there were no clinically significant differences in pain or disability at intermediate and long-term follow-up.4Common limitations included heterogeneity of intervention methodology, inability to blind results, inability to assess cointerventions, and in some cases, small sample sizes of trials.

Recommendations from others

The 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) clinical practice guideline on noninvasive treatments for LBP does not recommend exercise therapy in acute or subacute LBP; recommended therapies include superficial heat, massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation.5 The ACP recommends general exercise, yoga, tai chi, or MCE for chronic LBP, in addition to multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction, progressive relaxation, biofeedback, laser therapy, operant therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or spinal manipulation.

The 2017 US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense clinical practice guideline on treatment of LBP notes insufficient evidence for benefit of clinician-guided exercise therapy in acute LBP.6 For chronic LBP, clinician-directed exercise, yoga, tai chi, or Pilates is recommended.

Editor’s takeaway

Convincing evidence demonstrates that exercise modestly improves chronic LBP—but only modestly (4% to 15%), and not in acute LBP. This small magnitude of effect may disappoint expectations, but exercise remains among our better interventions for this common chronic problem. Few—if any—interventions have proven better, and exercise has beneficial side effects, a low cost, and widespread availability.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

General exercise offers benefit …at least for chronic LBP

A 2017 systematic review of 4 systematic reviews and 50 RCTs (122 total trials) evaluated general exercise vs usual care for acute (< 4 weeks), subacute (4 to 12 weeks), or chronic (≥ 12 weeks) LBP with or without radiculopathy in adults.1 Exercise was not consistently associated with decreased pain in acute or subacute LBP. For chronic LBP, 3 RCTs (n = 200) associated exercise with decreased pain (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –9.2 on a 0-100 point visual acuity scale; 95% CI, –16.0 to –2.4) and improved function (WMD = –12.4 on the Oswestry Disability Index; 95% CI, –23.0 to –1.7) at short-term follow-up (≤ 3 months). This effect was found to decrease at long-term (≥ 1 year) follow-up (WMD for pain = –4.9; 95% CI, –10.5 to 0.6 and WMD for function = –3.2; 95% CI, 6.0 to –0.4). In a meta-analysis of 10 studies (n = 1992) included in this systematic review, exercise was associated with a lower likelihood of work disability (odds ratio, 0.66; CI, 0.48 to 0.92) at 12 months.1

Yoga, Pilates, and motor control exercise: Your results may vary

Several reviews have explored the effects of specific exercise modalities on LBP. A 2017 meta-analysis of 9 RCTs in the United States, United Kingdom, and India of nonpregnant adults (≥ 18 years old) with chronic LBP (N = 810) found that yoga (any tradition of yoga with a physical component) vs no exercise demonstrated a statistically, but not clinically, significant decrease in pain at 3 to 4 months (mean difference [MD] = –4.6 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –7.0 to –2.1), 6 months (MD = –7.8; 95% CI, –13.4 to –2.3), and 12 months (MD = –5.4; 95% CI, –14.5 to –3.7). Clinically significant pain benefit was considered a change of 15 or more points.2

A 2015 meta-analysis of RCTs (10 trials; N = 510) comparing the effects of Pilates (a form of body conditioning involving isometric contractions and core exercises focusing on stability) vs minimal intervention on chronic (> 12 weeks) LBP in nonpregnant adults (≥ 16 years old) found low-quality evidence for decreased pain at short-term follow-up (≤ 3 months; MD = –14.1 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –18.9 to –9.2). There was moderate-quality evidence for decreased pain at intermediate follow-up (3-12 months; MD = –10.5; 95% CI, –18.5 to –2.6).3

A 2016 systematic review evaluated motor control exercise (MCE; a form of exercise that focuses on trunk muscle control and coordination) in adults (≥ 16 years old) with chronic LBP (≥ 12 weeks). There was low- to moderate-quality evidence that, compared to minimal intervention, MCE decreases pain at short-term (≤ 6 months; 4 RCTs; MD = –10.0 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –15.7 to –4.4), intermediate (6-12 months; 4 RCTs; MD = –12.6; 95% CI, –20.5 to –4.7), and long-term follow-up (> 12 months; 3 RCTs; MD = –13.0; 95% CI, –18.5 to –7.4). When comparing MCE to general exercise, there were no clinically significant differences in pain or disability at intermediate and long-term follow-up.4Common limitations included heterogeneity of intervention methodology, inability to blind results, inability to assess cointerventions, and in some cases, small sample sizes of trials.

Recommendations from others

The 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) clinical practice guideline on noninvasive treatments for LBP does not recommend exercise therapy in acute or subacute LBP; recommended therapies include superficial heat, massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation.5 The ACP recommends general exercise, yoga, tai chi, or MCE for chronic LBP, in addition to multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction, progressive relaxation, biofeedback, laser therapy, operant therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or spinal manipulation.

The 2017 US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense clinical practice guideline on treatment of LBP notes insufficient evidence for benefit of clinician-guided exercise therapy in acute LBP.6 For chronic LBP, clinician-directed exercise, yoga, tai chi, or Pilates is recommended.

Editor’s takeaway

Convincing evidence demonstrates that exercise modestly improves chronic LBP—but only modestly (4% to 15%), and not in acute LBP. This small magnitude of effect may disappoint expectations, but exercise remains among our better interventions for this common chronic problem. Few—if any—interventions have proven better, and exercise has beneficial side effects, a low cost, and widespread availability.

References

1. Chou R, Deyo R, Friedly J, et al. Nonpharmacologic therapies for low back pain: a systematic review for an American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:493-506. doi: 10.7326/M16-2459

2. Wieland LS, Skoetz N, Pilkington K, et al. Yoga treatment for chronic non-specific low back pain (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;1:CD010671. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010671.pub2

3. Yamato TP, Maher CG, Saragiotto BT, et al. Pilates for low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;7:CD010265. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010265.pub2

4. Saragiotto BT, Maher CG, Yamato TP, et. al. Motor control exercise for chronic non‐specific low‐back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;1:CD012004. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012004

5. Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, McLean RM, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:514-530. doi: 10.7326/M16-2367

6. Pangarkar SS, Kang DG, Sandbrink F, et al. VA/DoD clinical practice guideline: diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:2620-2629. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05086-4

References

1. Chou R, Deyo R, Friedly J, et al. Nonpharmacologic therapies for low back pain: a systematic review for an American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:493-506. doi: 10.7326/M16-2459

2. Wieland LS, Skoetz N, Pilkington K, et al. Yoga treatment for chronic non-specific low back pain (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;1:CD010671. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010671.pub2

3. Yamato TP, Maher CG, Saragiotto BT, et al. Pilates for low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;7:CD010265. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010265.pub2

4. Saragiotto BT, Maher CG, Yamato TP, et. al. Motor control exercise for chronic non‐specific low‐back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;1:CD012004. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012004

5. Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, McLean RM, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:514-530. doi: 10.7326/M16-2367

6. Pangarkar SS, Kang DG, Sandbrink F, et al. VA/DoD clinical practice guideline: diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:2620-2629. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05086-4

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 70(8)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 70(8)
Page Number
E2-E3
Page Number
E2-E3
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Is exercise therapy effective treatment for low back pain?
Display Headline
Is exercise therapy effective treatment for low back pain?
Sections
PURLs Copyright
Evidence-based answers from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network
Inside the Article

EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER:

Yes, it is somewhat effective. Exercise therapy—including general exercise, yoga, Pilates, and motor control exercise—has been shown to modestly decrease pain in chronic low back pain (LBP); levels of benefit in short- (≤ 3 months) and long- (≥ 1 year) term follow-up range from 4% to 15% improvement (strength of recommendation [SOR] A, based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials [RCTs]).

Exercise therapy may improve function and decrease work disability in subacute and chronic LBP, respectively (SOR A, based on a meta-analysis of RCTs). Exercise therapy has not been associated with improvement in acute LBP (SOR A, based on a meta-analysis of RCTs).

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media