A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of mechanical traction for sub-groups of patients with low back pain: study methods and rationale

Julie M Fritz, Anne Thackeray, John D Childs, Gerard P Brennan, Julie M Fritz, Anne Thackeray, John D Childs, Gerard P Brennan

Abstract

Background: Patients with signs of nerve root irritation represent a sub-group of those with low back pain who are at increased risk of persistent symptoms and progression to costly and invasive management strategies including surgery. A period of non-surgical management is recommended for most patients, but there is little evidence to guide non-surgical decision-making. We conducted a preliminary study examining the effectiveness of a treatment protocol of mechanical traction with extension-oriented activities for patients with low back pain and signs of nerve root irritation. The results suggested this approach may be effective, particularly in a more specific sub-group of patients. The aim of this study will be to examine the effectiveness of treatment that includes traction for patients with low back pain and signs of nerve root irritation, and within the pre-defined sub-group.

Methods/design: The study will recruit 120 patients with low back pain and signs of nerve root irritation. Patients will be randomized to receive an extension-oriented treatment approach, with or without the addition of mechanical traction. Randomization will be stratified based on the presence of the pre-defined sub-grouping criteria. All patients will receive 12 physical therapy treatment sessions over 6 weeks. Follow-up assessments will occur after 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. The primary outcome will be disability measured with a modified Oswestry questionnaire. Secondary outcomes will include self-reports of low back and leg pain intensity, quality of life, global rating of improvement, additional healthcare utilization, and work absence. Statistical analysis will be based on intention to treat principles and will use linear mixed model analysis to compare treatment groups, and examine the interaction between treatment and sub-grouping status.

Discussion: This trial will provide a methodologically rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of using traction for patients with low back pain and signs of nerve root irritation, and will examine the validity of a pre-defined sub-grouping hypothesis. The results will provide evidence to inform non-surgical decision-making for these patients.

Trial registration: This trial has been registered with http://ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00942227.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison of patients receiving an Extension-Oriented Treatment Approach (EOTA) with or without traction in the preliminary randomized trial [29]. A significant treatment effect favoring traction was evident after 2 weeks, but not after 6 weeks.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of patients receiving an Extension-Oriented Treatment Approach (EOTA) with or without traction based on status on the sub-grouping (SG) criteria for traction in the preliminary randomized trial [29]. A significant 3-way interaction between treatment, sub-grouping status, and time was evident after 2 and 6 weeks.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Participant flow through the study.

References

    1. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI. Back pain prevalence and visit rates: estimates from U.S. national surveys, 2002. Spine. 2006;31:2724–2727. doi: 10.1097/.
    1. Abenhaim L, Rossignol M, Gobeille D, Bonvalot Y, Fines P, Scott S. The prognostic consequences in the making of the initial medical diagnosis of work-related back injuries. Spine. 1995;20:791–795. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199504000-00010.
    1. Tubach F, Beaute J, Leclerc A. Natural history and prognostic indicators of sciatica. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:174–179. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00257-9.
    1. Stafford MA, Peng P, Hill DA. Sciatica: a review of history, epidemiology, pathogenesis and the role of epidural steroid injection in management. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99:461–473. doi: 10.1093/bja/aem238.
    1. Konstantinou K, Dunn KM. Sciatica: review of epidemiological studies and prevalence estimates. Spine. 2008;33:2464–2472. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318183a4a2.
    1. Balague F, Nordin M, Sheikhzadeh A, Echegoyen AC, Brisby H, Hoogewoud HM, Fredman P, Skovron ML. Recovery of severe sciatica. Spine. 1999;24:2516–2524. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199912010-00014.
    1. Selim AJ, Ren XS, Fincke G, Deyo RA, Rogers W, Miller D, Linzer M, Kazis L. The importance of radiating leg pain in assessing health outcomes among patients with low back pain. Results from the Veteran Health Study. Spine. 1998;23:470–474. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199802150-00013.
    1. Engel CC, von Korff M, Katon WJ. Back pain in primary care: predictors of high health-care costs. Pain. 1996;65:197–204. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(95)00164-6.
    1. Peul WC, Hout WB van den, Brand R, Thomeer RT, Koes BW. Prolonged conservative care versus early surgery in patients with sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation: two year results of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;336:1355–1358. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a143.
    1. Andersson GB, Brown MD, Dvorak J, Herzog RJ, Kambin P, Malter A, McCulloch JA, Saal JA, Spratt KF, Weinstein JN. Consensus summary of the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Spine. 1996;21(suppl):s75–s78.
    1. Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE. Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of sciatica secondary to a lumbar disc herniation: 10 year results from the Maine lumbar spine study. Spine. 2005;30:927–934. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000158954.68522.2a.
    1. Cummins J, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Hanscom B, Abdu WA, Birkmeyer NJ, Herkowitz H, Weinstein J. Descriptive epidemiology and prior healthcare utilization of patients in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial's (SPORT) three observational cohorts: disc herniation spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2006;31:806–814. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000207473.09030.0d.
    1. Luijsterburg PA, Verhagen AP, Ostelo RW, Hoogen HJ van den, Peul WC, Avezaat CJ, Koes BW. Physical therapy plus general practitioners' care versus general practitioners' care alone for sciatica: a randomised clinical trial with a 12-month follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:509–517. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0569-6.
    1. Luijsterburg PA, Lamers LM, Verhagen AP, Ostelo RW, Hoogen HJ van den, Peul WC, Avezaat CJ, Koes BW. Cost-effectiveness of physical therapy and general practitioner care for sciatica. Spine. 2007;32:1942–1948. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31813162f9.
    1. Jewell DV, Riddle DL. Interventions that increase or decrease the likelihood of a meaningful improvement in physical health in patients with sciatica. Phys Ther. 2005;85:1139–1150.
    1. Luijsterburg PA, Verhagen AP, Ostelo RW, van Os TA, Peul WC, Koes BW. Effectiveness of conservative treatments for the lumbosacral radicular syndrome: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2007;16:881–899. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0367-1.
    1. Vroomen PCAJ, de Krom MC, Slofstra PD, Knottnerus JA. Conservative treatment of sciatica: a systematic review. J Spinal Dis. 2000;13:463–469. doi: 10.1097/00002517-200012000-00001.
    1. Crisp EJ, Cyriax JH, Christie BG. Discussion on the treatment of backache by traction. Proc R Soc Med. 1955;48:805–814.
    1. Chou R, Huffman LH. Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:492–504.
    1. Clarke J, van Tulder M, Blomberg S, de Vet H, Heijden G van der, Bronfort G. Traction for low back pain with or without sciatica: an updated systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration. Spine. 2006;31:1591–1599. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000222043.09835.72.
    1. van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Seitsalo S, Malmivaara A. Outcome of invasive treatment modalities on back pain and sciatica: an evidence-based review. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(suppl):S82–S92. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-1049-5.
    1. Foster NE, Thompson KA, Baxter GD, Allen JM. Management of nonspecific low back pain by physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland. A descriptive questionnaire of current clinical practice. Spine. 1999;24:1332–1342. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199907010-00011.
    1. Gracey JH, McDonough SM, Baxter GD. Physiotherapy management of low back pain. Spine. 2002;27:406–411. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200202150-00017.
    1. Mikhail C, Korner-Bitensky N, Rossignoi M, Dumas JP. Physical therapists' use of interventions with high evidence of effectiveness in the management of a hypothetical typical patient with acute low back pain. Phys Ther. 2005;85:1151–1167.
    1. Poitras S, Blais R, Swaine B, Rossignol M. Management of work-related low back pain: a population-based survey of physical therapists. Phys Ther. 2005;85:1168–1181.
    1. Gay RE, Brault JS. Evidence-based management of chronic low back pain with traction therapy. Spine J. 2008;8:234–242. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.025.
    1. Krause M, Refshauge KM, Dessen M, Boland R. Lumbar spine traction: evaluation of effects and recommended application for treatment. Man Ther. 2000;5:72–81. doi: 10.1054/math.2000.0235.
    1. Harte AA, Gracey JH, Baxter GD. Current use of lumbar traction in the management of low back pain: results of a survey of physiotherapists in the United Kingdom. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1164–1169. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.11.040.
    1. Fritz JM, Lindsay W, Matheson JW, Brennan GP, Hunter SJ, Moffitt SD, Swalberg A, Rodriquez B. Is there a subgroup of patients with low back pain likely to benefit from mechanical traction?: Results of a randomized clinical trial and subgrouping analysis. Spine. 2007;32:E793–E800. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815d001a.
    1. Saunders HD, Ryan RS. Evaluation Treatment and Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders. Vol. 1. Chaska, MN: The Saunders Group, Inc.; 2004. Spinal traction; pp. 301–325.
    1. Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modified Oswestry disability questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale. Phys Ther. 2001;81:776–788.
    1. Hancock MJ, Herbert RD, Maher CG. A guide to interpretation of studies investgating subgroups of responders to physical therapy interventions. Phys Ther. 2009;89:698–704.
    1. Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA. 1997;277(6):488–494. doi: 10.1001/jama.277.6.488.
    1. Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ. A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain. 1993;52:157–168. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90127-B.
    1. Sullivan MJ, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:524–532. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.524.
    1. Bombardier C. Outcome assessment in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine. 2000;25(24):3100–3103. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00003.
    1. Frost H, Lamb SE, Stewart-Brown S. Responsiveness of a patient specific outcome measure compared With the Oswestry disability index v2.1 and Roland and Morris disability questionnaire for patients with subacute and chronic low back pain. Spine. 2008;33:2450–2457. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818916fd.
    1. Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN. Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS and the SF-36. Spine. 2003;28:607–615. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200303150-00017.
    1. Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine. 2005;30:1331–1335. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29.
    1. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.
    1. EuroQol Group. EuroQol-A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.
    1. Maitland GD, Hengeveld E, Banks K. Vertebral Manipulation. 6. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann; 2000.
    1. Caigne B, Vinck E, Beernaert A. How common are side effects of spinal manipulation and can these side effects be predicted? Man Ther. 2004;9:151–156. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2004.03.001.
    1. Borm GF, Fransen J, Lemmens WAJG. A simple sample size formula for analysis of covariance in randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:1234–1238. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.02.006.
    1. Brookes ST, Whitely E, Egger M, Smith GD, Mulheran PA, Peters TJ. Subgroup analyses in randomised trials: risks of subgroup specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:229–236. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.08.009.
    1. Lee KJ, Thompson SG. Clustering by health professional in individually randomised trials. BMJ. 2005;330:142–144. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7483.142.
    1. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:78–84.
    1. Fritz JM, Delitto A, Vignovic M, Busse RG. Inter-rater reliability of judgments of the centralization phenomenon and status change during movement testing in patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:57–61.
    1. Hudgins WR. The crossed straight leg raising test: a diagnostic sign of herniated disc. J Occup Med. 1979;21:407–408.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren