Transforaminal endoscopic surgery for symptomatic lumbar disc herniations: a systematic review of the literature

The study design includes a systematic literature review. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic surgery and to compare this with open microdiscectomy in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations. Transforaminal endoscopic techniques for patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations have become increasingly popular. The literature has not yet been systematically reviewed. A comprehensive systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed up to May 2008. Two reviewers independently checked all retrieved titles and abstracts and relevant full text articles for inclusion criteria. Included articles were assessed for quality and outcomes were extracted by the two reviewers independently. One randomized controlled trial, 7 non-randomized controlled trials and 31 observational studies were identified. Studies were heterogeneous regarding patient selection, indications, operation techniques, follow-up period and outcome measures and the methodological quality of these studies was poor. The eight trials did not find any statistically significant differences in leg pain reduction between the transforaminal endoscopic surgery group (89%) and the open microdiscectomy group (87%); overall improvement (84 vs. 78%), re-operation rate (6.8 vs. 4.7%) and complication rate (1.5 vs. 1%), respectively. In conclusion, current evidence on the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic surgery is poor and does not provide valid information to either support or refute using this type of surgery in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations. High-quality randomized controlled trials with sufficiently large sample sizes are direly needed to evaluate if transforaminal endoscopic surgery is more effective than open microdiscectomy.     

Fusion and nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review of Oswestry Disability Index and MOS Short Form-36 outcomes

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although numerous studies have been published, controversy still exists regarding fusion and nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic degenerative lumbar spine conditions. Definite conclusions are difficult to draw because of differences in patient inclusion criteria, fusion technique, nonoperative treatment regimen, and clinical outcome measures used to determine success. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate lumbar fusion and nonsurgical interventions for various degenerative spine disorders using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) as a primary outcome measure in a systematic review. A secondary objective was to determine whether there is a difference in clinical outcomes based on the specific diagnosis. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with low back pain of at least 12 weeks duration and older than 18 years, with prospectively collected ODI scores and at least a 12-month follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: ODI and Short Form-36 (SF-36). METHODS: A MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, CINAHL, and Cochrane database search was done using the search strategy recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. Proceedings from annual meetings of various spine societies and reference lists from review articles and retrieved articles were evaluated for possible inclusion. Criteria for inclusion were prospective randomized clinical trials in patients with low back pain of at least 12 weeks duration and older than 18 years; with prospectively collected ODI scores and at least a 12-month follow-up. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the van Tulder criteria. Data extracted from each study included demographics, study design, diagnosis, baseline and change in ODI, and baseline and change in SF-36 Physical Composite Score (PCS). The data were pooled and analyzed based on the primary reported inclusion diagnosis: degenerative disc disease (DDD), chronic low back pain (CLBP), and spondylolisthesis; and treatment: fusion (unspecified, posterior, anterior, combined) and nonsurgical. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The distribution of sex and smokers was similar across diagnoses and treatments. Patients with spondylolisthesis were older than patients with DDD and CLBP. Patients with spondylolisthesis had the greatest ODI improvement followed by patients with DDD and CLBP. The three fusion types produced similar amounts of improvement in ODI. Nonsurgical patients did not improve as much but had a lower baseline ODI. Improvements in the SF-36 PCS were fairly consistent across diagnostic groups and treatment types. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial improvement can be expected in patients treated with fusion, regardless of technique, when an established indication such as spondylolisthesis or DDD exists. CLBP patients are less disabled and experience less improvement.     

Influence of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration on the outcome of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective clinical, histological, X-ray and MRI investigation

Introduction

The role of fusion of lumbar motion segments for the treatment of axial low back pain (LBP) from lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) without any true deformities or instabilities remains controversially debated. In an attempt to avoid previously published and fusion-related negative side effects, motion preserving technologies such as total lumbar disc replacement (TDR) have been introduced. The adequate extent of preoperative DDD for TDR remains unknown, the number of previously published studies is scarce and the limited data available reveal contradictory results. The goal of this current analysis was to perform a prospective histological, X-ray and MRI investigation of the index-segment’s degree of DDD and to correlate these data with each patient’s pre- and postoperative clinical outcome parameters from an ongoing prospective clinical trial with ProDisc II (Synthes, Paoli, USA).

Materials and methods

Nucleus pulposus (NP) and annulus fibrosus (AF) changes were evaluated according to a previously validated quantitative histological degeneration score (HDS). X-ray evaluation included assessment of the mean, anterior and posterior disc space height (DSH). MRI investigation of DDD was performed on a 5-scale grading system. The prospective clinical outcome assessment included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores as well as the patient’s subjective satisfaction rates.

Results

Data from 51 patients with an average follow-up of 50.5 months (range 6.1–91.9 months) were included in the study. Postoperative VAS and ODI scores improved significantly in comparison to preoperative levels (p < 0.002). A significant correlation and interdependence was established between various parameters of DDD preoperatively (p < 0.05). Degenerative changes of NP tissue samples were significantly more pronounced in comparison to those of AF material (p < 0.001) with no significant correlation between each other (p > 0.05). Preoperatively, the extent of DDD was not significantly correlated with the patient’s symptomatology (p > 0.05). No negative influence was associated with increasing stages of DDD on the postoperative clinical outcome parameters following TDR (p > 0.05). Increasing stages of DDD in terms of lower DSH scores were not associated with inferior clinical results as outlined by postoperative VAS or ODI scores or the patient’s subjective outcome evaluation at the last FU examination (p > 0.05). Conversely, some potential positive effects on the postoperative outcome were observed in patients with advanced stages of preoperative DDD. Patients with more severe preoperative HDS scores of NP samples demonstrated significantly lower VAS scores during the early postoperative course (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

Increasing stages of DDD did not negatively impact on the outcome following TDR in a highly selected patient population. In particular, no preoperative DDD threshold value was identified from which an inferior postoperative outcome could have been deduced. Conversely, some positive effects on the postoperative outcome were detected in patients with advanced stages of DDD. Combined advantageous effects of progressive morphological structural rigidity of the index segment and restabilizing effects from larger distraction in degenerated segments may compensate for increasing axial rotational instability, one of TDR’s perceived disadvantages. Our data reveal a “therapeutic window” for TDR in a cohort of patients with various stages of DDD as long as preoperative facet joint complaints or degenerative facet arthropathies can be excluded and stringent preoperative decision making criteria are adhered to. Previously published absolute DSH values as contraindication against TDR should be reconsidered.     

腰痛患者MRI上各节段腰椎间盘退变形式与年龄的相关性分析

目的:探讨腰痛患者MRI上各节段腰椎间盘退变形式与年龄的相关性.方法:回顾性分析2004-2006年共529例就诊于加州大学洛杉矶分校Santa Moniea骨科医院脊柱外科中心的腰痛伴或不伴有腿痛患者(男191例,女338例)的腰椎MRI资料,根据患者年龄分为5组,≤29岁、30～39岁、40～49岁、50～59岁及≥60岁组.按Pfirrmann's分级系统对每例患者腰椎各节段的椎间盘(LI/2～L5/S1)退变程度进行分级,所得数据采用SPSS 13.0进行统计学分析,总结其退变模式.结果:71例(13.4%)患者LI/2～L5/Si椎间盘退变程度表现为1-1-1-1-1,为正常椎间盘,是所有组合中最常见的.低年龄组发生严重退变(4级)的几率最低,L1/2、L2/3、L3,4椎间盘退变程度较IA/5、L5/S1低;1-1-1-1-1的发生率随着年龄的增加而明显降低,而1-1-1-1-2和1-1-1-1-3与之相反,发生率随着年龄的增加而明显升高.40岁以前,1-1-1-1-1的发生率最高;在40～49岁年龄组中.1-1-1-1-3的发生几率最高,为7.6%,而超过50岁,3-3-3-3-3发生的几率最高.单节段退变发生率与年龄呈负相关(P<0.01).随着年龄的增大而降低;而所有节段退变的发生率与年龄呈正相关(P(<0.01),随着年龄的增大而增加.结论:在腰痛患者中,腰椎单一节段退变所占比例随年龄增大而减小,而所有节段退变所占比例随年龄增大而增大.     

A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease

Lumbar fusion has been developed for several decades and became the standard surgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Artificial total disc replacement (TDR), as an alternative for spinal arthrodesis, is becoming more commonly employed treating lumbar DDD. It is still uncertain whether TDR is more effective and safer than lumbar fusion. To systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of TDR to that of the fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD, we performed a meta-analysis. Cochrane review methods were used to analyze all relevant randomized controlled trials published up to July 2009. Five relevant randomized controlled trials involving 837 patients were identified. Patients in TDR group have sightly better functioning and less back or leg pain without clinical significance, and significantly higher satisfaction status in TDR group compared with lumbar fusion group at the 2-year follow-up. But these outcomes are highly influenced by the study with BAK cage interbody fusion, the function/pain and patient satisfaction status are no longer significantly different between two groups after excluding this study. At 5 years, these outcomes are not significantly different between comparing groups. The complication and reoperation rate of two groups are similar both at 2 and at 5 years. In conclusion, TDR does not show significant superiority for the treatment of lumbar DDD compared with fusion. The benefits of motion preservation and the long-term complications are still unable to be concluded. More high-quality RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.     

Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review

Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) has been increasingly used as an alternative to fusion surgery in patients with pain or neurological symptoms in the cervical spine who do not respond to non-surgical treatment. A systematic literature review has been conducted to evaluate whether CTDR is more efficacious and safer than fusion or non-surgical treatment. Published evidence up to date is summarised qualitatively according to the GRADE methodology. After 2 years of follow-up, studies demonstrated statistically significant non-inferiority of CTDR versus fusion with respect to the composite outcome ‘overall success’. Single patient relevant endpoints such as pain, disability or quality of life improved in both groups with no superiority of CTDR. Both technologies showed similar complication rates. No evidence is available for the comparison between CTDR and non-surgical treatment. In the long run improvement of health outcomes seems to be similar in CTDR and fusion, however, the study quality is often severely limited. After both interventions, many patients still face problems. A difficulty per se is the correct diagnosis and indication for surgical interventions in the cervical spine. CTDR is no better than fusion in alleviating symptoms related to disc degeneration in the cervical spine. In the context of limited resources, a net cost comparison may be sensible. So far, CTDR is not recommended for routine use. As many trials are ongoing, re-evaluation at a later date will be required. Future research needs to address the relative effectiveness between CTDR and conservative treatment.     

Cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for low back pain: a systematic review

Healthcare costs for low back pain (LBP) are increasing rapidly. Hence, it is important to provide treatments that are effective and cost-effective. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for LBP. We searched nine clinical and economic electronic databases and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies for eligible studies. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials investigating treatments for LBP endorsed by the guideline of the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society were included. Two independent reviewers screened search results and extracted data. Data extracted included the type and perspective of the economic evaluation, the treatment comparators, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the treatment comparators. Twenty-six studies were included. Most studies found that interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation or cognitive-behavioural therapy were cost-effective in people with sub-acute or chronic LBP. Massage alone was unlikely to be cost-effective. There were inconsistent results on the cost-effectiveness of advice, insufficient evidence on spinal manipulation for people with acute LBP, and no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of medications, yoga or relaxation. This review found evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of the guideline-endorsed treatments of interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation and cognitive-behavioural therapy for sub-acute or chronic LBP. There is little or inconsistent evidence for other treatments endorsed in the guideline.     

Five-year follow-up of total disc replacement compared to fusion: a randomized controlled trial

Purpose

To evaluate long-term clinical results of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) compared with posterior lumbar fusion.

Methods

This prospective randomized controlled trial comprised 152 patients; 80 were randomized to TDR and 72 to fusion. All patients had chronic low back pain (CLBP) and had not responded to nonsurgical treatment. Primary outcome measure was global assessment of back pain (GA), secondary outcome measures were back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ5D, and SF-36. All measures were collected from SweSpine (Swedish national register for spinal surgery) at 1, 2, and 5 years. Follow-up rate at 5 years was 99.3 %.

Results

Both groups showed clinical improvement at 5-year follow-up. For GA, 38 % (30/80) in the TDR group were totally pain free vs. 15 % (11/71) in the fusion group (p < 0.003). Back pain and improvement of back pain were better in the TDR group: VAS back pain at 5 years 23 ± 29 vs. 31 ± 27, p = 0.009, and VAS improvement of back pain at 5 years 40 ± 32 vs. 28 ± 32, p = 0.022. ODI and improvement in ODI were also better in the TDR group: ODI at 5 years 17 ± 19 vs. 23 + 17, p = 0.02 and ODI improvement at 5 years 25 ± 18 vs. 18 ± 19 (p = 0.02). There was no difference in complications and reoperations between the two groups.

Conclusions

Global assessment of low back pain differed between the two surgical groups at all follow-up occasions. Significant differences between groups concerning back pain, pain improvement, and ODI were present at 1 year and disappeared at 2 years, but reappeared at the 5-year follow-up.     

Imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials: a systematic review of the literature

The placebo is an important tool to blind patients to treatment allocation and therefore minimise some sources of bias in clinical trials. However, placebos that are improperly designed or implemented may introduce bias into trials. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the adequacy of placebo interventions used in low back pain trials. Electronic databases were searched systematically for randomised placebo-controlled trials of conservative interventions for low back pain. Trial selection and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. A total of 126 trials using over 25 different placebo interventions were included. The strategy most commonly used to enhance blinding was the provision of structurally equivalent placebos. Adequacy of blinding was assessed in only 13% of trials. In 20% of trials the placebo intervention was a potentially genuine treatment. Most trials that assessed patients’ expectations showed that the placebo generated lower expectations than the experimental intervention. Taken together, these results demonstrate that imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials; a result suggesting that many trials provide potentially biased estimates of treatment efficacy. This finding has implications for the interpretation of published trials and the design of future trials. Implementation of strategies to facilitate blinding and balance expectations in randomised groups need a higher priority in low back pain research. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Computed tomography for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal pathology in adult patients with low back pain or sciatica: a diagnostic systematic review

Aim  

In low back pain if serious pathology is suspected diagnostic imaging could be performed. One of the imaging techniques available for this purpose is computed tomography (CT), however, insight in the diagnostic performance of CT is unclear.     

Total disc replacement for chronic low back pain: background and a systematic review of the literature

In this paper the rationale for total disc replacement is discussed, and the authors suggest seven requirements that should be met before the implantation of these devices can be accepted as regular procedures. In an attempt to answer the questions raised, a systematic literature search was performed. The search yielded no controlled trials and nine case series with a total of 564 arthroplasties in 411 patients. The devices used were SB Charité in eight and Acroflex in one study. The percentage results classified as "good" or "excellent" in the studies varied from 50 to 81%. Complications were observed in 3-50% of the patients. Twenty-two of the operated levels were fused either spontaneously or after additional surgery. A meta-analysis to compare the results with other treatments could not be performed due to the lack of comparative studies. Despite the fact that these devices have been implanted for almost 15 years, on the basis of this literature survey there are currently insufficient data to assess the performance of total disc replacement adequately. There is no evidence that disc replacement reliably, reproducibly, and over longer periods of time fulfils the three primary aims of clinical efficacy, continued motion, and few adjacent segment degenerative problems. Total disc replacement seems to be associated with a high rate of re-operations, and the potential problems that may occur with longer follow-up have not been addressed. Therefore, total disc replacements should be considered experimental procedures and should only be used in strict clinical trials.     

The effectiveness of walking as an intervention for low back pain: a systematic review

As current low back pain (LBP) guidelines do not specifically advocate walking as an intervention, this review has explored for the effectiveness of walking in managing acute and chronic LBP. CINAHL, Medline, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases, as well as a hand search of reference lists of retrieved articles, were searched. The search was restricted to studies in the English language. Studies were included when walking was identified as an intervention. Four studies met inclusion criteria, and were assessed with a quality checklist. Three lower ranked studies reported a reduction in LBP from a walking intervention, while the highest ranked study observed no effect. Heterogeneity of study design made it difficult to draw comparisons between studies. There is only low–moderate evidence for walking as an effective intervention strategy for LBP. Further investigation is required to investigate the strength of effect for walking as a primary intervention in the management of acute and chronic LBP.     

前路小切口人工髓核置换术治疗退变性腰椎间盘疾患的远期效果

目的:分析前路经小切口行人工髓核(prosthetic disc nucleus,PDN)置换治疗退变性腰椎间盘疾患的远期效果。方法:2003年6月～2004年9月共行前路L4/5单间隙PDN置换术12例,其中男4例,女8例,年龄18～42岁,平均28.5±8.4岁。腰椎间盘突出症10例,椎间盘源性腰痛2例。术前、术后3个月、术后1年和末次随访时行腰、腿痛视觉模拟评分(visual analoge scale,VAS)和Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评定,应用MacNab标准评价临床疗效,影像学观察假体位置、手术及上位相邻节段椎间隙高度和腰椎运动范围(range of motion,ROM),并进行统计学分析。结果:术后随访60～89个月,平均73.6±8.3个月,腿痛与腰痛VAS、ODI评分术后3个月与术前、术后1年与术后3个月比较有显著性改善(P<0.05),末次随访与术后1年比较无显著性差异(P>0.05);手术节段椎间隙高度术后3个月与术前、术后1年与术后3个月比较有显著性增加(P<0.05),末次随访与术后1年比较无显著差异(P>0.05);手术上位相邻节段椎间隙高度术后3个月、术后1年与术前比较无显著性差异,末次随访与术后1年比较无显著性差异(P>0.05);腰椎ROM术后3个月与术前、术后1年与术后3个月比较无显著性差异(P>0.05),末次随访与术后1年比较有显著性减少(P<0.05)。随访过程中无假体脱入椎管、移位和位置不良,末次随访时MacNab优良率为83.3%,MRI T2加权像显示手术节段椎体终板均出现Modic改变。结论:通过前路小切口进行PDN置换可有效防止假体脱入椎管,长期改善临床症状、恢复手术节段椎间隙高度,维持邻近节段椎间隙高度,但手术节段终板损伤较为常见。     

Long-term clinical results following Charite III lumbar total disc replacement

Background Context

Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) operation represents an alternative to lumbar fusion for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration and has gained increasing attention in recent years.

The course and prognostic factors of symptomatic cervical disc herniation with radiculopathy: a systematic review of the literature

Background contextCervical spine disc herniation is a disabling source of cervical radiculopathy. However, little is known about its course and prognosis. Understanding the course and prognosis of symptomatic cervical disc herniation is necessary to guide patients' expectations and assist clinicians in managing patients.PurposeTo describe the natural history, clinical course, and prognostic factors of symptomatic cervical disc herniations with radiculopathy.Study designSystematic review of the literature and best evidence synthesis.MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SportsDiscus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 2013 was conducted to retrieve eligible articles. Eligible articles were critically appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. The results from articles with low risk of bias were analyzed using best evidence synthesis principles.ResultsWe identified 1,221 articles. Of those, eight articles were eligible and three were accepted as having a low risk of bias. Two studies pertained to course and one study pertained to prognosis. Most patients with symptomatic cervical disc herniations with radiculopathy initially present with intense pain and moderate levels of disability. However, substantial improvements tend to occur within the first 4 to 6 months post-onset. Time to complete recovery ranged from 24 to 36 months in, approximately, 83% of patients. Patients with a workers' compensation claim appeared to have a poorer prognosis.ConclusionsOur best evidence synthesis describes the best available evidence on the course and prognosis of cervical disc herniations with radiculopathy. Most patients with symptomatic cervical spine disc herniation with radiculopathy recover. Possible recurrences and time to complete recovery need to be further studied. More studies are also needed to understand the prognostic factors for this condition.     

Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing lumbar spinal pathology in adult patients with low back pain or sciatica: a diagnostic systematic review

Purpose  

In about 5% of all cases LBP is associated with serious underlying pathology requiring diagnostic confirmation and directed treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often used for this diagnostic purpose yet its role remains controversial. Consequently, this review aimed to summarize the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for identifying lumbar spinal pathology in adult low back pain (LPB) or sciatica patients.     

Systematic review of tests to identify the disc, SIJ or facet joint as the source of low back pain

Clinical practice guidelines state that the tissue source of low back pain cannot be specified in the majority of patients. However, there has been no systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests used to identify the source of low back pain. The aim of this systematic review was therefore to determine the diagnostic accuracy of tests available to clinicians to identify the disc, facet joint or sacroiliac joint (SIJ) as the source of low back pain. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched up to February 2006 with citation tracking of eligible studies. Eligible studies compared index tests with an appropriate reference test (discography, facet joint or SIJ blocks or medial branch blocks) in patients with low back pain. Positive likelihood ratios (+LR) > 2 or negative likelihood ratios (-LR) < 0.5 were considered informative. Forty-one studies of moderate quality were included; 28 investigated the disc, 8 the facet joint and 7 the SIJ. Various features observed on MRI (high intensity zone, endplate changes and disc degeneration) produced informative +LR (> 2) in the majority of studies increasing the probability of the disc being the low back pain source. However, heterogeneity of the data prevented pooling. +LR ranged from 1.5 to 5.9, 1.6 to 4.0, and 0.6 to 5.9 for high intensity zone, disc degeneration and endplate changes, respectively. Centralisation was the only clinical feature found to increase the likelihood of the disc as the source of pain: +LR = 2.8 (95%CI 1.4–5.3). Absence of degeneration on MRI was the only test found to reduce the likelihood of the disc as the source of pain: −LR = 0.21 (95%CI 0.12–0.35). While single manual tests of the SIJ were uninformative, their use in combination was informative with +LR of 3.2 (95%CI 2.3–4.4) and −LR of 0.29 (95%CI 0.12–0.35). None of the tests for facet joint pain were found to be informative. The results of this review demonstrate that tests do exist that change the probability of the disc or SIJ (but not the facet joint) as the source of low back pain. However, the changes in probability are usually small and at best moderate. The usefulness of these tests in clinical practice, particularly for guiding treatment selection, remains unclear. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Cost-effectiveness of general practice care for low back pain: a systematic review

Care from a general practitioner (GP) is one of the most frequently utilised healthcare services for people with low back pain and only a small proportion of those with low back pain who seek care from a GP are referred to other services. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of GP care in non-specific low back pain. We searched clinical and economic electronic databases, and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies to June 2010. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials with at least one GP care arm were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened search results and extracted data. Eleven studies were included; the majority of which conducted a cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis. Most studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of usual GP care. Adding advice, education and exercise, or exercise and behavioural counselling, to usual GP care was more cost-effective than usual GP care alone. Clinical rehabilitation and/or occupational intervention, and acupuncture were more cost-effective than usual GP care. One study investigated the cost-effectiveness of guideline-based GP care, and found that adding exercise and/or spinal manipulation was more cost-effective than guideline-based GP care alone. In conclusion, GP care alone did not appear to be the most cost-effective treatment option for low back pain. GPs can improve the cost-effectiveness of their treatment by referring their patients for additional services, such as advice and exercise, or by providing the services themselves.