Coen J Itz1,2, Paul C Willems3, Dick J Zeilstra4, Frank J Huygen5. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Health Insurance Company VGZ Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Neurosurgery, Nedspine Ede and Bergman Clinics Naarden, Ede and Naarden, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Centre of Pain Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: When conservative therapies such as pain medication or exercise therapy fail, invasive treatment may be indicated for patients with lumbosacral spinal pain. The Dutch Society of Anesthesiologists, in collaboration with the Dutch Orthopedic Association and the Dutch Neurosurgical Society, has taken the initiative to develop the guideline "Spinal low back pain," which describes the evidence regarding diagnostics and invasive treatment of the most common spinal low back pain syndromes, that is, facet joint pain, sacroiliac joint pain, coccygodynia, pain originating from the intervertebral disk, and failed back surgery syndrome. METHODS: The aim of the guideline is to determine which invasive treatment intervention is preferred for each included pain syndrome when conservative treatment has failed. Diagnostic studies were evaluated using the EBRO criteria, and studies on therapies were evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. For the evaluation of invasive treatment options, the guideline committee decided that the outcome measures of pain, function, and quality of life were most important. RESULTS: The definition, epidemiology, pathophysiological mechanism, diagnostics, and recommendations for invasive therapy for each of the spinal back pain syndromes are reported. DISCUSSION: The guideline committee concluded that the categorization of low back pain into merely specific or nonspecific gives insufficient insight into the low back pain problem and does not adequately reflect which therapy is effective for the underlying disorder of a pain syndrome. Based on the guideline "Spinal low back pain," facet joint pain, pain of the sacroiliac joint, and disk pain will be part of a planned nationwide cost-effectiveness study.
OBJECTIVES: When conservative therapies such as pain medication or exercise therapy fail, invasive treatment may be indicated for patients with lumbosacral spinal pain. The Dutch Society of Anesthesiologists, in collaboration with the Dutch Orthopedic Association and the Dutch Neurosurgical Society, has taken the initiative to develop the guideline "Spinal low back pain," which describes the evidence regarding diagnostics and invasive treatment of the most common spinal low back pain syndromes, that is, facet joint pain, sacroiliac joint pain, coccygodynia, pain originating from the intervertebral disk, and failed back surgery syndrome. METHODS: The aim of the guideline is to determine which invasive treatment intervention is preferred for each included pain syndrome when conservative treatment has failed. Diagnostic studies were evaluated using the EBRO criteria, and studies on therapies were evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. For the evaluation of invasive treatment options, the guideline committee decided that the outcome measures of pain, function, and quality of life were most important. RESULTS: The definition, epidemiology, pathophysiological mechanism, diagnostics, and recommendations for invasive therapy for each of the spinal back pain syndromes are reported. DISCUSSION: The guideline committee concluded that the categorization of low back pain into merely specific or nonspecific gives insufficient insight into the low back pain problem and does not adequately reflect which therapy is effective for the underlying disorder of a pain syndrome. Based on the guideline "Spinal low back pain," facet joint pain, pain of the sacroiliac joint, and disk pain will be part of a planned nationwide cost-effectiveness study.
Authors: Morgan R Price; Zachary A Cupler; Cheryl Hawk; Edward M Bednarz; Sheryl A Walters; Clinton J Daniels Journal: Chiropr Man Therap Date: 2022-05-13
Authors: Alisa L Dutmer; Remko Soer; André P Wolff; Michiel F Reneman; Maarten H Coppes; Henrica R Schiphorst Preuper Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Pieter Bas de Witte; Christiaan J A van Bergen; Babette L de Geest; Floor Willeboordse; Joost H van Linge; Yvon M den Hartog; Magritha Margret M H P Foreman-van Drongelen; Renske M Pereboom; Simon G F Robben; Bart J Burger; M Adhiambo Witlox; Melinda M E H Witbreuk Journal: EFORT Open Rev Date: 2022-08-04
Authors: G Castellini; V Iannicelli; M Briguglio; D Corbetta; L M Sconfienza; G Banfi; S Gianola Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 2.655