This systematic review determines the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for chronic low back pain (CLBP). We queried the PubMed, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases. All level I and II randomized controlled studies published in the English language investigating the efficacy of duloxetine for chronic low back pain were included. Five studies (832 duloxetine-treated patients, 667 placebo-treated patients, and 41 duloxetine and placebo crossover analysis patients) were analyzed. One study was level I evidence and four studies were level II evidence. All five studies reported statistically significant improvements in more than one back-pain-specific clinical outcome score with duloxetine versus placebo. Four studies found that duloxetine 60 mg daily leads to one or more statistically significant improvements versus placebo in Brief Pain Inventory Severity (BPI-S) scores. All five studies found no significant difference in serious adverse events (AEs) between the duloxetine and placebo groups. One study found a higher rate of total AEs among the duloxetine 120 mg group versus the placebo group; however, the same study did not find a significant difference in total AEs among duloxetine 20 mg and 60 mg groups versus placebo. Duloxetine is a safe and effective first-line option for the treatment of CLBP. Current studies demonstrate that 60 mg taken once daily has the highest efficacy for reducing pain and disability while minimizing minor adverse effects. Further randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are necessary to determine its long-term effects.

This systematic review compares clinical outcomes between platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy. A systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Pubmed, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases. All level I-III evidence comparative studies published in the English language investigating the clinical outcomes between PRP and corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy were included. Five studies (242 patients, 114 PRP, 128 corticosteroid) were analyzed. One randomized study was level I evidence, two randomized studies were level II, and two non-randomized studies were level III. Final follow-up ranged from six weeks to six months. Four studies found that both PRP and corticosteroid treatment led to a statistically significant reduction in the visual analog scale (VAS). One found that only the PRP group led to a statistically significant reduction in VAS. Three studies found more significant improvements in one or more clinical outcome scores among PRP patients as compared with corticosteroid patients at the three- to six-month follow-up. Two studies found no difference in outcome score improvements between the two groups at six- to 12-week follow-up. There were no reports of major complications. There were no significant differences in minor complication rates between the two groups. In conclusion, both PRP and corticosteroid injections are safe and effective options for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy. There is some evidence that PRP injection is a more effective option at long-term follow-up compared with corticosteroid injection. Further randomized controlled trials with longer-term follow-up are necessary to compare its long-term efficacy.

The association of sarcopenia with poor clinical outcomes has been identified in various medical conditions, although there is a lack of quantitative analysis to validate the influence of sarcopenia on patients with lumbar degenerative spine disease (LDSD) from the available literature. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with LDSD and examine its impact on clinical outcomes. The electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) were systematically searched from inception through December 2020 for clinical studies investigating the association of sarcopenia with clinical outcomes in patients with LDSD. A random-effects model meta-analysis was carried out for data synthesis. This meta-analysis included 14 studies, comprising 1953 participants. The overall prevalence of sarcopenia among patients with LDSD was 24.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.3%-34.3%). The relative risk of sarcopenia was not significantly increased in patients with LDSD compared with controls (risk ratio, 1.605; 95% CI, 0.321-8.022). The patients with sarcopenia did not experience an increase in low back and leg pain. However, lower quality of life (SMD, -0.627; 95% CI, -0.844--0.410) were identified postoperatively. Sarcopenia did not lead to an elevated rate of complications after lumbar surgeries. Sarcopenia accounts for approximately one-quarter of the population with LDSD. The clinical manifestations are less influenced by sarcopenia, whereas sarcopenia is associated with poorer quality of life after lumbar surgeries. The current evidence is still insufficient to support sarcopenia as a predictor of postoperative complications.

Low back pain is the leading cause of years lost to disability worldwide. Approximately 15% to 45% of chronic low back pain is due to facet joint arthropathy. Currently, no large-scale retrospective studies have investigated long-term clinical predictors of success in individuals receiving radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the medial branches for facet joint arthropathy.
To determine the clinical factors associated with success and failure of RFA of lumbar facet joints at 1-year follow-up.
Clinical data were gathered from 500 consecutive patients with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 diagnosis of lumbar spondylosis. VAS pain scores for patients undergoing lumbar medial branch RFA procedures were recorded at multiple time points, up to the 1-year follow-up visit. A responder was defined as having ≥30% improvement in VAS score from the pre-procedural VAS score. For our primary analysis, regression analysis was conducted to identify associations between responder status and patient characteristics, including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), hormone use, opiate dose, and smoking history at multiple time points, up to the 1-year follow-up visit.
A total of 500 patients were included in the study. At the 1-year post-RFA follow-up visit, responder status was associated with a lower rate of prior opioid use (43.22% vs. 55.76%, odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.92], P = 0.018), lower pre-procedural opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents (10.16 ± 16.02 vs. 14.67 ± 20.65, β -4.50 [95% CI -8.57 to -0.44], P = 0.030), and a higher pre-VAS pain score (6.36 ± 2.17 vs. 5.85 ± 2.17, β 0.50 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.95], P = 0.028). There were no significant associations between responder status and age, gender, BMI, hormone use, and smoking history at the 1-year follow-up visit.
Our results suggest that patients prescribed opioids, particularly at higher dosages, may find less pain relief 1 year following RFA for facetogenic pain. Additionally, patients with higher pre-procedural VAS pain scores may be more likely to have a positive response at 1 year.

Degenerative disc disease is a leading cause of chronic back pain in the aging population in the world. Sinuvertebral nerve and basivertebral nerve are postulated to be associated with the pain pathway as a result of neurotization. Our goal is to perform a prospective study using radiofrequency ablation on sinuvertebral nerve and basivertebral nerve; evaluating its short and long term effect on pain score, disability score and patients\' outcome. A review in literature is done on the pathoanatomy, pathophysiology and pain generation pathway in degenerative disc disease and chronic back pain. 30 patients with 38 levels of intervertebral disc presented with discogenic back pain with bulging degenerative intervertebral disc or spinal stenosis underwent Uniportal Full Endoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation application through either Transforaminal or Interlaminar Endoscopic Approaches. Their preoperative characteristics are recorded and prospective data was collected for Visualized Analogue Scale, Oswestry Disability Index and MacNab Criteria for pain were evaluated. There was statistically significant Visual Analogue Scale improvement from preoperative state at post-operative 1wk, 6 months and final follow up were 4.4 ± 1.0, 5.5 ± 1.2 and 5.7 ± 1.3, respectively, p < 0.0001. Oswestery Disability Index improvement from preoperative state at 1week, 6 months and final follow up were 45.8 ± 8.7, 50.4 ± 8.2 and 52.7 ± 10.3, p < 0.0001. MacNab criteria showed excellent outcomes in 17 cases, good outcomes in 11 cases and fair outcomes in 2 cases Sinuvertebral Nerve and Basivertebral Nerve Radiofrequency Ablation is effective in improving the patients\' pain, disability status and patient outcome in our study.

Lumbar fusion is an accepted and effective technique for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. The practice has evolved continually since Albee and Hibbs independently reported the first cases in 1913, and advancements in both technique and patient selection continue through the present day. Clinical and radiological indications for surgery have been tested in trials, and other diagnostic modalities have developed and been studied. Fusion practices have also advanced; instrumentation, surgical approaches, biologics, and more recently, operative planning, have undergone stark changes at a seemingly increasing pace over the last decade. As the general population ages, treatment of degenerative lumbar disease will become a more prevalent-and costlier-issue for surgeons as well as the healthcare system overall. This review will cover the evolution of indications and techniques for fusion in degenerative lumbar disease, with emphasis on the evidence for current practices.

BACKGROUND: The pathogenesis of synovial cysts is largely unknown; however, they have been increasingly thought of as markers of spinal facet instability and typically associated with degenerative spondylosis. We specifically investigated the incidence of concomitant synovial cysts with underlying degenerative spondylolisthesis.
METHODS: A literature search was performed using 4 online databases to assess the association between lumbar synovial cysts and degenerative spinal pathological features. Meta-analyses were performed on the prevalence rates of coexisting degenerative spinal pathological entities and treatment modalities. A random effects model was used to calculate the mean and 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: A total of 17 studies encompassing 824 cases met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence rates of concurrent spondylolisthesis, facet arthropathy, and degenerative disc disease at the same level of the synovial cysts were 42.5% (range, 39.0%-46.1%), 89.3% (range, 79.0%-94.8%), and 48.8% (range, 43.8%-53.9%), respectively. Among these, patients with coexisting spondylolisthesis were more likely to undergo spinal fusion surgery (vs. laminectomy alone) and reoperation than were patients without spondylolisthesis with a pooled odds ratio of 11.5 (95% confidence interval, 4.5-29.1; P < 0.0001) and 2.0 (95% confidence interval, 0.9-4.2; P = 0.088), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a combination of synovial cysts and degenerative spondylolisthesis are more likely to undergo spinal fusion surgery than laminectomy alone compared with patients with synovial cysts and no preoperative spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, patients with synovial cysts and spondylolisthesis are more likely to require additional fusion surgery. The results from the present review lend credence to the argument that synovial cyst herniation might be a manifestation of an unstable spinal level.

BACKGROUND: Due to uncertain evidence, lumbar fusion for degenerative indications is associated with the greatest measured practice variation of any surgical procedure.
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current evidence on the comparative safety and efficacy of lumbar fusion, decompression-alone, or nonoperative care for degenerative indications.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to June 30, 2016). Comparative studies reporting validated measures of safety or efficacy were included. Treatment effects were calculated through DerSimonian and Laird random effects models.
RESULTS: The literature search yielded 65 studies (19 randomized controlled trials, 16 prospective cohort studies, 15 retrospective cohort studies, and 15 registries) enrolling a total of 302 620 patients. Disability, pain, and patient satisfaction following fusion, decompression-alone, or nonoperative care were dependent on surgical indications and study methodology. Relative to decompression-alone, the risk of reoperation following fusion was increased for spinal stenosis (relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.28) and decreased for spondylolisthesis (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.83). Among patients with spinal stenosis, complications were more frequent following fusion (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.18-2.96). Mortality was not significantly associated with any treatment modality.
CONCLUSIONS: Positive clinical change was greatest in patients undergoing fusion for spondylolisthesis while complications and the risk of reoperation limited the benefit of fusion for spinal stenosis. The relative safety and efficacy of fusion for chronic low back pain suggests careful patient selection is required (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews number, CRD42015020153).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted from six electronic databases. The relative risk and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as statistical summary effect sizes.
RESULTS: Fusion rates (88.6% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.23) and clinical outcomes were comparable between ALIF and TLIF. ALIF was associated with restoration of disk height (WMD, 2.71 mm, P = 0.01), segmental lordosis (WMD, 2.35, P = 0.03), and whole lumbar lordosis (WMD, 6.33, P = 0.03). ALIF was also associated with longer hospitalization (WMD, 1.8 days, P = 0.01), lower dural injury (0.4% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.05) but higher blood vessel injury (2.6% vs. 0%, P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: ALIF and TLIF appear to have similar success and clinical outcomes, with different complication profiles. ALIF may be associated with superior restoration of disk height and lordosis, but requires further validation in future studies.