Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 5 of 5
Results per page:

Background. Osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain (CLBP > 12 weeks duration) are two of the most common and costly chronic musculoskeletal conditions globally. Healthcare service demands mean that group-based multiple condition interventions are of increasing clinical interest and a priority for research, but no reviews have evaluated the effectiveness of group-based physiotherapy-led self-management interventions (GPSMI) for both conditions concurrently. Rapid review methodologies are an increasingly valid means of expediting knowledge dissemination and are particularly useful for addressing focused research questions. Methods. The electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from the earliest date possible to August 26. th. 2013. Structured group-based interventions that aimed to promote self-management and that were delivered by health-care professionals (including at least one physiotherapist) involving adults with OA and/or CLBP were eligible for inclusion. The screening and selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Results. 22 studies were found (10 OA, 12 CLBP). The most commonly assessed outcomes were pain, disability, quality of life and physical function. No significant difference was found between the effectiveness of GPSMI and individual physiotherapy or usual general practitioner care for any outcome. Conclusion. GPSMI is as clinically effective as individual physiotherapy, but the best methods of measuring clinical effectiveness warrant further investigation. Further research is also needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of GPSMI and its implications. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This review was conducted as part of Health Research Award HRA_HSR/2012/24 from the Health Research Board of Ireland


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 96-B, Issue SUPP_4 | Pages 24 - 24
1 Feb 2014
Jacobs W Peul W Rubinstein S Koes B van Tulder M
Full Access

Purposes of the study and background. The objective of this overview was to evaluate the available evidence from systematic reviews on the effectiveness of surgical interventions for sciatica due to disc herniation. The last search was conducted in 2011. Since then new reviews have been published or existing reviews have been updated. Summary of the methods used and results. A comprehensive search was performed in multiple databases including Cochrane database of systematic reviews (CDSR), Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Pubmed. Included are Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews on sciatica due to disc herniation published in peer-reviewed journals. We evaluated surgery versus conservative care and different surgical techniques compared to one another. The methodological quality of the systematic reviews was evaluated using AMSTAR by two independent reviewers. Nine, mostly high quality, systematic reviews on surgical interventions for disc herniation were included. Four reviews compared surgery with conservative treatment and concluded consistently that surgery has only short term benefits while the long term results showed no difference in effect. Four reviews compared open discectomy with micro(endo)scopic discectomy and found no significant and/or clinically relevant differences. The quality of evidence on alternative minimal invasive techniques (laser discectomy, automated percutaneous discectomy, and nucleoplasty or coblation) is consistently low in four recent reviews. Conclusion. Although the quality of the reviews was quite acceptable, the quality of the included studies was mostly poor. The choice between surgical techniques and surgery and conservative intervention should be based on surgeon and patient preferences, among other things


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXVI | Pages 75 - 75
1 Jun 2012
Thakar C Brown C Rolton D Nnadi C
Full Access

Study Purpose. A systematic review of the current literature to address the debate of the optimal surgical approach for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Method. All studies comparing anterior open instrumented surgery with posterior instrumented surgery in patients with AIS, written in English and published up until February 2010 were included. Electronic databases searched included Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane database using “AIS” and “surgery” as key words. Outcome measures considered to be important were specifically identified in each paper included: Blood loss (ml); operation time (mins); hospital stay (days); curve correction (sagittal and coronal); number of fused levels; pulmonary function, and complications. Results. Twenty one relevant papers were identified from a possible 399. Nine of these studies were performed prospectively with four involving more than one centre. The average total number of patients in each study was 246 with a mean pre-operative curve Cobb angle of 47 degrees in those patients treated via anterior surgical instrumentation and 52 degrees with posterior surgery. Three papers showed significant reduction in blood loss with anterior surgery while four studies observed a reduction in operative time and length of hospital stay with posterior surgery. Eleven papers analysed curve correction specifically and while comparable correction was achievable with both approaches the number of fusion levels was significantly fewer with anterior fixation in all. Three of the four studies evaluating lung function demonstrated that patients undergoing posterior fusion had better measures of pulmonary function than the anterior group. No significant difference was observed between the two approaches with regards to complications. Conclusion. Both surgical approaches have their merits and disadvantages. Our study has not demonstrated one approach to be overall superior. Approach selection should be based on the advantages offered by each approach to the individual patient and the surgeon's own experience in spinal deformity correction


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 5, Issue 4 | Pages 145 - 152
1 Apr 2016
Bodalia PN Balaji V Kaila R Wilson L

Objectives. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the safety and efficacy of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) compared with bone graft when used specifically for revision spinal fusion surgery secondary to pseudarthrosis. Methods. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched using defined search terms. The primary outcome measure was spinal fusion, assessed as success or failure in accordance with radiograph, MRI or CT scan review at 24-month follow-up. The secondary outcome measure was time to fusion. Results. A total of six studies (three prospective and three retrospective) reporting on the use of BMP2 met the inclusion criteria (203 patients). Of these, four provided a comparison of BMP2 and bone graft whereas the other two solely investigated the use of BMP2. The primary outcome was seen in 92.3% (108/117) of patients following surgery with BMP2. Although none of the studies showed superiority of BMP2 to bone graft for fusion, its use was associated with a statistically quicker time to achieving fusion. BMP2 did not appear to increase the risk of complication. Conclusion. The use of BMP2 is both safe and effective within the revision setting, ideally in cases where bone graft is unavailable or undesirable. Further research is required to define its optimum role. Cite this article: Mr P. Bodalia. Effectiveness and safety of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for adults with lumbar spine pseudarthrosis following spinal fusion surgery: A systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:145–152. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000418


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 94-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1442 - 1447
1 Nov 2012
Sharma H Lee SWJ Cole AA

Spinal stenosis and disc herniation are the two most frequent causes of lumbosacral nerve root compression. This can result in muscle weakness and present with or without pain. The difficulty when managing patients with these conditions is knowing when surgery is better than non-operative treatment: the evidence is controversial. Younger patients with a lesser degree of weakness for a shorter period of time have been shown to respond better to surgical treatment than older patients with greater weakness for longer. However, they also constitute a group that fares better without surgery. The main indication for surgical treatment in the management of patients with lumbosacral nerve root compression should be pain rather than weakness.