Article

Prolotherapy injections for chronic low-back pain

Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 02/2007; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004059.pub3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Prolotherapy involves repeated injections of irritant solutions to strengthen lumbosacral ligaments and reduce some types of chronic low-back pain; spinal manipulation and exercises are often used to enhance its effectiveness.
To determine the efficacy of prolotherapy in adults with chronic low-back pain.
We searched CENTRAL 2006, Issue 3 and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and AMED from their respective beginnings to October 2006, with no restrictions on language, and consulted content experts.
We included randomised (RCT) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (QRCT) that compared prolotherapy injections to control injections, alone or in combination with other treatments, which measured pain or disability before and after the intervention.
Two review authors independently selected the trials and assessed methodological quality. Intervention protocols varied from study to study, making meta-analysis impossible.
We identified five high quality studies with a total of 366 participants. All measured pain or disability levels at six months, and four measured the proportion of participants reporting a greater than 50% reduction in pain or disability scores. Three randomized controlled trials (206 participants) found that prolotherapy injections alone are no more effective than control injection for chronic low-back pain and disability. At six months, there was no difference between groups in mean pain or disability scores (2 RCTs; 184 participants) and no difference in proportions who reported over 50% improvement in pain or disability (3 RCTs; 206 participants). These trials could not be pooled due to clinical heterogeneity. Two RCTs (160 participants) found that prolotherapy injections, given with spinal manipulation, exercise, and other therapies, are more effective than control injections for chronic low-back pain and disability. At six months, one study reported a significant difference between groups in mean pain and disability scores, whereas the other study did not. Both studies reported a significant difference in the proportion of individuals who reported over 50% reduction in disability or pain. Co-interventions confounded interpretation of results and clinical heterogeneity in the trials prevented pooling.
There is conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of prolotherapy injections for patients with chronic low-back pain. When used alone, prolotherapy is not an effective treatment for chronic low-back pain. When combined with spinal manipulation, exercise, and other co-interventions, prolotherapy may improve chronic low-back pain and disability. Conclusions are confounded by clinical heterogeneity amongst studies and by the presence of co-interventions.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Chris Del Mar, Jul 06, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
154 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven to be very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing among available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.
    The Spine Journal 01/2008; 8(1):203-12. DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.021 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Alternative and Complementary Therapies 08/2004; 10(4):188-193. DOI:10.1089/1076280041580350