A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. To determine the efficacy and adverse effects of conservative treatments for people who have lumbar disc herniation with associated radiculopathy (LDHR). Although conservative management is commonly used for people who have LDHR, the efficacy and adverse effects of conservative treatments for this condition are unclear. We searched 10 computer databases for trials published in English between 1971 and 2008. Trials focusing on people with referred leg symptoms and radiologic confirmation of a lumbar disc herniation were included if at least 1 group received a conservative and noninjection treatment. Eighteen trials involving 1671 participants were included. Seven (39%) trials were considered of high quality. Meta-analysis on 2 high-quality trials revealed that advice is less effective than microdiscectomy surgery at short-term follow-up, but equally effective at long-term follow-up. Individual high-quality trials provided moderate evidence that stabilization exercises are more effective than no treatment, that manipulation is more effective than sham manipulation for people with acute symptoms and an intact anulus, and that no difference exists among traction, laser, and ultrasound. One trial showed some additional benefit from adding mechanical traction to medication and electrotherapy methods. Adverse events were associated with traction (pain, anxiety, lower limb weakness, and fainting) and ibuprofen (gastrointestinal events). Advice is less effective than microdiscectomy in the short term but equally effective in the long term for people who have LDHR. Moderate evidence favors stabilization exercises over no treatment, manipulation over sham manipulation, and the addition of mechanical traction to medication and electrotherapy. There was no difference among traction, laser, and ultrasound. Adverse events were associated with traction and ibuprofen. Additional high-quality trials would allow firmer conclusions regarding adverse effects and efficacy.

The recommended initial treatment for multidirectional instability (MDI) of the shoulder is a rehabilitation program, yet there is very low-quality evidence to support this approach. The purpose was to compare the Watson MDI program and Rockwood Instability program among patients with nontraumatic, nonstructural MDI. The hypothesis was that the Watson MDI program would produce clinically and statistically superior outcomes over the Rockwood Instability program. Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Forty-one participants with MDI were randomly allocated to the Watson MDI or Rockwood Instability program. Participants attended 12 weekly physiotherapy sessions for exercise prescription. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 weeks after randomization. Primary outcomes were the Melbourne Instability Shoulder Score (MISS) and the Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI). Secondary outcomes included the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire, pain, muscle strength, scapular upward rotation, scapular coordinates, global rating of change, satisfaction scales, limiting angle in abduction range, limiting factor in abduction range, and incidence of dislocation. Primary analysis was by intention to treat based on linear mixed models. Between-group differences showed significant effects favoring the Watson program for the WOSI (effect size [ES], 11.1; 95% CI, 1.9-20.2; P = .018) and for the limiting factor in abduction (ES, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.0-1.6; P = .023) at 12 weeks, and for the WOSI (ES, 12.6; 95% CI, 3.4-21.9; P =. 008), MISS (ES, 15.4; 95% CI, 5.9-24.8; P = .002), and pain (ES, -2.0; CI: -2.3 to -0.7, P = .003) at 24 weeks. For people with MDI, 12 sessions of the Watson MDI program were more effective than the Rockwood program at 12- and 24-week follow-up. ACTRN12613001240730 (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry).

Background: Providing specific treatment based on symptom response for people with low back pain (LBP) and a directional preference (DP) is a widely used treatment approach. The efficacy of treatment using the principles of directional preference management (DPM) for LBP is unclear.Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of treatment using the principles of DPM for people with LBP and a DP.Methods: Computer databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English up to January 2010. Only RCTs investigating DPM for people with LBP and a DP were included. Outcomes for pain, back specific function, and work participation were extracted.Results: Six RCTs were included in this review. Five were considered high quality. Clinical heterogeneity of the included trials prevented meta-analysis. GRADE quality assessment revealed mixed results; however, moderate evidence was identified that DPM was significantly more effective than a number of comparison treatments for pain, function, and work participation at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-ups. No trials found that DPM was significantly less effective than comparison treatments.Conclusions: Although this systematic review showed mixed results, some evidence was found supporting the effectiveness of DPM when applied to participants with a DP, particularly at short-term and intermediate-term follow-ups. Further high-quality RCTs are warranted to evaluate the effect of DPM applied to people with LBP and a DP.

Introduction The management of intra-articular chondral defects in the knee remains a challenge. Inadequate healing in areas of weight bearing leads to impairment in load transmission and these defects predispose to later development of osteoarthritis. Surgical management of full thickness chondral defects include arthroscopic microfracture and when appropriate autologous chondrocyte implantation. This latter method however is technically challenging, and may not offer significant improvement over microfracture. Preclinical and limited clinical trials have indicated the capacity of mesenchymal stem cells to influence chondral repair. The aim of this paper is to describe the methodology of a pilot randomised controlled trial comparing arthroscopic microfracture alone for isolated knee chondral defects versus arthroscopic microfracture combined with postoperative autologous adipose derived mesenchymal stem cell injections. Methods and analysis A pilot single-centre randomised controlled trial is proposed. 40 participants aged 18–50 years, with isolated femoral condyle chondral defects and awaiting planned arthroscopic microfracture will be randomly allocated to a control group (receiving no additional treatment) or treatment group (receiving postoperative adipose derived mesenchymal stem cell treatment). Primary outcome measures will include MRI assessment of cartilage volume and defects and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Secondary outcomes will include further MRI assessment of bone marrow lesions, bone area and T2 cartilage mapping, a 0–10 Numerical Pain Rating Scale, a Global Impression of Change score and a treatment satisfaction scale. Adverse events and cointerventions will be recorded. Initial outcome follow-up for publication of results will be at 12 months. Further annual follow-up to assess long-term differences between the two group will occur. Ethics and dissemination This trial has received prospective ethics approval through the Latrobe University Human Research Ethics Committee. Dissemination of outcome data is planned through both national and international conferences and formal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR Trial ID: ACTRN12614000812695).

Background Many patients with low-back disorders persisting beyond 6 weeks do not recover. This study investigates whether individualised physiotherapy plus guideline-based advice results in superior outcomes to advice alone in participants with low-back disorders. Methods This prospective parallel group multicentre randomised controlled trial was set in 16 primary care physiotherapy practices in Melbourne, Australia. Random assignment resulted in 156 participants receiving 10 sessions of physiotherapy that was individualised based on pathoanatomical, psychosocial and neurophysiological barriers to recovery combined with guideline-based advice, and 144 participants receiving 2 sessions of physiotherapist-delivered advice alone. Primary outcomes were activity limitation (Oswestry Disability Index) and numerical rating scales for back and leg pain at 5, 10, 26 and 52 weeks postbaseline. Analyses were by intention-to-treat using linear mixed models. Results Between-group differences showed significant effects favouring individualised physiotherapy for back and leg pain at 10 weeks (back: 1.3, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.8; leg: 1.1, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.7) and 26 weeks (back: 0.9, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.4; leg: 1.0, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.6). Oswestry favoured individualised physiotherapy at 10 weeks (4.7; 95% CI 2.0 to 7.5), 26 weeks (5.4; 95% CI 2.6 to 8.2) and 52 weeks (4.3; 95% CI 1.4 to 7.1). Responder analysis at 52 weeks showed participants receiving individualised physiotherapy were more likely to improve by a clinically important amount of 50% from baseline for Oswestry (relative risk (RR=1.3) 1.5; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8) and back pain (RR 1.3; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8) than participants receiving advice alone. Conclusions 10 sessions of individualised physiotherapy was more effective than 2 sessions of advice alone in participants with low-back disorders of ≥6 weeks and ≤6 months duration. Between-group changes were sustained at 12 months for activity limitation and 6 months for back and leg pain and were likely to be clinically significant. Clinical trial registration ACTRN12609000834257.