Abstract: In this update, we identified eight new studies, thereby including a total of 22 trials (2503 participants), 10 of which had a low risk of bias. Most rehabilitation programmes were assessed in only one study. Both men and women were included, and overall mean age was 41.4 years. All participants had received standard discectomy, microdiscectomy and in one study standard laminectomy and (micro)discectomy. Mean duration of the rehabilitation intervention was 12 weeks; eight studies assessed six to eight-week exercise programmes, and eight studies assessed 12 to 13-week exercise programmes. Programmes were provided in primary and secondary care facilities and were started immediately after surgery (n = 4) or four to six weeks (n = 16) or one year after surgery (n = 2). In general, the overall quality of the evidence is low to very low. Rehabilitation programmes that started immediately after surgery were not more effective than their control interventions, which included exercise. Low- to very low-quality evidence suggests that there were no differences between specific rehabilitation programmes (multidisciplinary care, behavioural graded activity, strength and stretching) that started four to six weeks postsurgery and their comparators, which included some form of exercise. Low-quality evidence shows that physiotherapy from four to six weeks postsurgery onward led to better function than no treatment or education only, and that multidisciplinary rehabilitation co-ordinated by medical advisors led to faster return to work than usual care. Statistical pooling was performed only for three comparisons in which the rehabilitation programmes started four to six weeks postsurgery: exercise programmes versus no treatment, high- versus low-intensity exercise programmes and supervised versus home exercise programmes. Very low-quality evidence (five RCTs, N = 272) shows that exercises are more effective than no treatment for pain at short-term follow-up (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.55 to -0.24), and low-quality evidence (four RCTs, N = 252) suggests that exercises are more effective for functional status on short-term follow-up (SMD -0.67; 95% CI -1.22 to -0.12) and that no difference in functional status was noted on long-term follow-up (three RCTs, N = 226; SMD -0.22; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.04). None of these studies reported that exercise increased the reoperation rate. Very low-quality evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) shows that high-intensity exercise programmes are more effective than low-intensity exercise programmes for pain in the short term (weighted mean difference (WMD) -10.67; 95% CI -17.04 to -4.30), and low-quality evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) shows that they are more effective for functional status in the short term (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.36). Very low-quality evidence (four RCTs, N = 154) suggests no significant differences between supervised and home exercise programmes for short-term pain relief (SMD -0.76;  95% CI -2.04 to 0.53) or functional status (four RCTs, N = 154; SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.88 to 0.15). Considerable variation was noted in the content, duration and intensity of the rehabilitation programmes included in this review, and for none of them was high- or moderate-quality evidence identified. Exercise programmes starting four to six weeks postsurgery seem to lead to a faster decrease in pain and disability than no treatment, with small to medium effect sizes, and high-intensity exercise programmes seem to lead to a slightly faster decrease in pain and disability than is seen with low-intensity programmes, but the overall quality of the evidence is only low to very low. No significant differences were noted between supervised and home exercise programmes for pain relief, disability or global perceived effect. None of the trials reported an increase in reoperation rate after first-time lumbar surgery. High-quality randomised controlled trials are strongly needed.

Plain-language summary: This updated review evaluated the effectiveness of various rehabilitation programmes for patients who had lumbar disc surgery for the first time. We included 22 randomised controlled trials with 2503 participants, both men and women, between the ages of 18 and 65 years. The evidence is current to May 2013. Most commonly, treatment started four to six weeks after surgery, but the start of treatment ranged from two hours to 12 months after surgery. Considerable variation in the content, duration and intensity of treatments (i.e. exercise programmes) has been noted. The duration of the interventions varied from two weeks to one year; most programmes lasted six to 12 weeks. Participants reported on average serious pain intensity (56 points on a zero to 100 scale, with 100 being the worst possible pain). Most studies compared (1) exercise versus no treatment, (2) high-intensity exercise versus low-intensity exercise or (3) supervised exercise versus home exercise, most commonly starting four to six weeks after surgery. Comparisons in this review included (1) exercise versus no treatment, (2) high-intensity versus low-intensity exercise and (3) supervised versus home exercise. Patients who participated in exercise programmes four to six weeks after surgery reported slightly less short-term pain and disability than those who received no treatment. Patients who participated in high-intensity exercise programmes reported slightly less short-term pain and disability than those participating in low-intensity exercise programmes. Patients in supervised exercise programmes reported little or no difference in pain and disability compared with those in home exercise programmes. Here it was difficult to draw firm conclusions in the absence of high-quality evidence. None of the trials reported an increase in reoperation rate after first-time lumbar surgery. The evidence does not show whether all patients should be treated after surgery or only those who still have symptoms four to six weeks later. Limitations in the methods of half of the trials suggest that the results should be read with caution. Most of the treatments were assessed in only one trial. Therefore for most of the interventions, only low- to very low-quality evidence indicates that no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding their effectiveness.