The presentation and management of the syncopal acute low back pain patient in chiropractic practice

The purpose of this case study is to illustrate the presentation of an acute low back pain patient in chiropractic practice and the clinical issues and management that this prompts. Acute low back pain is a common phenomenon affecting all age groups. The patient discussed in this paper serves as a typical presentation of such a complaint and also demonstrates some more extreme signs and symptoms related to acute pain including syncope. This acts as a discussion point for the physiological mechanisms of syncope in relation to acute pain and the effect on patient management. There has previously been no mutual agreement between professions regarding approach to treatment. The advent of clinical guidelines for the management of acute low back pain has attempted to initiate consistent treatment of such patients and provides scope for future discussion of this challenging topic.     

A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of mechanical traction for sub-groups of patients with low back pain: study methods and rationale

Background  

Patients with signs of nerve root irritation represent a sub-group of those with low back pain who are at increased risk of persistent symptoms and progression to costly and invasive management strategies including surgery. A period of non-surgical management is recommended for most patients, but there is little evidence to guide non-surgical decision-making. We conducted a preliminary study examining the effectiveness of a treatment protocol of mechanical traction with extension-oriented activities for patients with low back pain and signs of nerve root irritation. The results suggested this approach may be effective, particularly in a more specific sub-group of patients. The aim of this study will be to examine the effectiveness of treatment that includes traction for patients with low back pain and signs of nerve root irritation, and within the pre-defined sub-group.     

Routine primary care management of acute low back pain: adherence to clinical guidelines

One of the major challenges for general practitioners is to manage individuals with acute low back pain appropriately to reduce the risk of chronicity. A prospective study was designed to assess the actual management of acute low back pain in one primary care setting and to determine whether existing practice patterns conform to published guidelines. Twenty-four family physicians from public primary care centers of the Basque Health Service in Bizkaia, Basque Country (Spain), participated in the study. A total of 105 patients aged 18–65 years presenting with acute low back pain over a 6-month period were included. Immediately after consultation, a research assistant performed a structured clinical interview. The patients care provided by the general practitioner was compared with the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) guidelines and guidelines issued by the Royal College of General Practitioners. The diagnostic process showed a low rate of appropriate use of history (27%), physical examination (32%), lumbar radiographs (31%), and referral to specialized care (33%). Although the therapeutic process showed a relatively high rate of appropriateness in earlier mobilization (77%) and educational advice (65%), only 23% of patients were taught about the benign course of back pain. The study revealed that management of acute low back pain in the primary care setting is far from being in conformance with published clinical guidelines.This study was supported by a grant from Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria (FIS 96/0324), Madrid, Spain. There were no conflicts of interest     

Synthesis of recommendations for the assessment and management of low back pain from recent clinical practice guidelines

Background ContextLow back pain (LBP) is a prevalent, costly, and challenging condition to manage. Clinicians must choose among numerous assessment and management options. Several recent clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on LBP have attempted to inform these decisions by evaluating and summarizing the best available supporting evidence. The quality and consistency of recommendations from these CPGs are currently unknown.PurposeTo conduct a systematic review of recent CPGs and synthesize their recommendations on assessing and managing LBP for clinicians.Study Design/SettingSystematic review.MethodsLiterature search using MEDLINE, National Guidelines Clearinghouse, National Institute for Clinical Excellence, Internet search engines, and references of known articles. Only CPGs related to both assessment and management of LBP written in English were eligible; CPGs that summarized evidence from before the year 2000 were excluded. Data related to methods and recommendations for assessment and management of LBP were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument by two reviewers.ResultsThe search uncovered 669 citations, of which 95 were potentially relevant and 10 were included in the review; 6 discussed acute LBP, 6 chronic LBP, and 6 LBP with neurologic involvement. Methods used to develop CPGs varied, but the overall methodological quality was high as defined by AGREE scores. Recommendations for assessment of LBP emphasized the importance of ruling out potentially serious spinal pathology, specific causes of LBP, and neurologic involvement, as well as identifying risk factors for chronicity and measuring the severity of symptoms and functional limitations, through the history, physical, and neurologic examination. Recommendations for management of acute LBP emphasized patient education, with short-term use of acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or spinal manipulation therapy. For chronic LBP, the addition of back exercises, behavioral therapy, and short-term opioid analgesics was suggested. Management of LBP with neurologic involvement was similar, with additional consideration given to magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography to identify appropriate candidates willing to undergo epidural steroid injections or decompression surgery if more conservative approaches are not successful.ConclusionsRecommendations from several recent CPGs regarding the assessment and management of LBP were similar. Clinicians who care for patients with LBP should endeavor to adopt these recommendations to improve patient care. Future CPGs may wish to invite coauthors from targeted clinician user groups, increase patient participation, update their literature searches before publication, conduct their own quality assessment of studies, and consider cost-effectiveness and other aspects in their recommendations more explicitly.     

Chiropractic and exercise for seniors with low back pain or neck pain: the design of two randomized clinical trials

Background  

Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are common conditions in old age, leading to impaired functional ability and decreased independence. Manual and exercise therapies are common and effective therapies for the general LBP and NP populations. However, these treatments have not been adequately researched in older LBP and NP sufferers.     

运动疗法治疗非特异性下背痛的疗效分析

本研究对运动疗法和药物治疗进行随机单盲对比观察，旨在探讨运动疗法在非特异性下背痛治疗中的应用价值。     

Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

This randomized controlled health economic study assesses the cost-effectiveness of the concept of total disc replacement (TDR) (Charité/Prodisc/Maverick) when compared with the concept of instrumented lumbar fusion (FUS) [posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) /posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)]. Social and healthcare perspectives after 2 years are reported. In all, 152 patients were randomized to either TDR (n = 80) or lumbar FUS (n = 72). Cost to society (total mean cost/patient, Swedish kronor = SEK, standard deviation) for TDR was SEK 599,560 (400,272), and for lumbar FUS SEK 685,919 (422,903) (ns). The difference was not significant: SEK 86,359 (−45,605 to 214,332). TDR was significantly less costly from a healthcare perspective, SEK 22,996 (1,202 to 43,055). Number of days on sick leave among those who returned to work was 185 (146) in the TDR group, and 252 (189) in the FUS group (ns). Using EQ-5D, the total gain in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over 2 years was 0.41 units for TDR and 0.40 units for FUS (ns). Based on EQ-5D, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of using TDR instead of FUS was difficult to analyze due to the “non-difference” in treatment outcome, which is why cost/QALY was not meaningful to define. Using cost-effectiveness probabilistic analysis, the net benefit (with CI) was found to be SEK 91,359 (−73,643 to 249,114) (ns). We used the currency of 2006 where 1 EURO = 9.26 SEK and 1 USD = 7.38 SEK. It was not possible to state whether TDR or FUS is more cost-effective after 2 years. Since disc replacement and lumbar fusion are based on different conceptual approaches, it is important to follow these results over time.     

Comparison of low back pain sites identified by patient's finger versus hand: prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Background Accurate diagnosis and appropriate therapy for low back pain are based on knowledge of the site of the patient's pain. In clinical settings, patients generally indicate the site of low back pain using the hand, but Chapman and Syrjala as well as Macnab recommended that the patient should indicate the site with the finger. Whether any differences emerge from these methods is an important fundamental question. The purpose of this study was to compare low back pain sites identified by the patient's finger versus the hand. Specifically, we conducted a prospective randomized controlled comparison and investigated the surface area and the accuracy of the sites indicated by the two identifications. Methods Subjects were 137 low back pain patients meeting the following criteria: (1) age 18–65 years; (2) low back pain induced by lumbar flexion, extension, or lateral bending while standing; (3) absence of leg pain; and (4) pain at only one site. Subjects indicated the site of pain by hand and by index finger immediately after provocation of pain. A demonstrably reproducible site was outlined on the skin. The outlines of the sites were recorded and verified by digital images. The body surface area of the sites was determined using NIH Image Version 1.61. Sites identified by hand versus index finger were compared on the surface area. Additionally, to compare the accuracy of the two identifications, patients were asked which of two sites more accurately represented the pain site in outline form after the two identification procedures. Results The surface area of sites identified by the finger was significantly smaller than that of sites identified by the hand (P < 0.05). Furthermore, a considerably higher proportion, approximately 80%, of patients answered that the site of the pain was identified more accurately by finger than by hand. Conclusions The indication by a finger resulted in more accurate, localized identification of the site of low back pain than the indication by a hand. The identification of the pain site with a patients' finger indication does not directly clarify the etiology of low back pain, but it has the potential to provide important information useful for making an accurate diagnosis and for determining the appropriate therapy.     

Muscle energy technique in patients with acute low back pain: a pilot clinical trial

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, pilot clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: Examining the outcomes of Muscle Energy Technique (MET) in patients with acute low back pain. BACKGROUND: MET is commonly used to treat patients with acute low back pain. No randomized controlled trials examining the outcomes of this treatment in symptomatic populations has been reported in the literature. METHODS AND MEASURES: Ten men and 9 women diagnosed with acute low back pain were randomly assigned with stratification to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Patients were matched according to age, gender, and initial Oswestry score. The control group received supervised neuromuscular re-education and resistance training while the experimental group received the same exercises coupled with MET. Both groups received the selected treatment 8 times over a 4-week period (2 times per week). Patients completed an Oswestry Disability Index on their first and eighth visits and change scores were calculated. RESULTS: A 2-tailed t test (P < .05) demonstrated a statistically significant difference with the experimental group showing greater improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index score than the control group. CONCLUSION: MET combined with supervised motor control and resistance exercises may be superior to neuromuscular re-education and resistance training for decreasing disability and improving function in patients with acute low back pain.     

Immediate effect of mechanical lumbar traction in patients with chronic low back pain: A crossover,repeated measures,randomized controlled trial

BackgroundLumbar traction is a treatment method traditionally used for chronic low back pain (CLBP) in many countries. However, its clinical effectiveness has not been proven in medical practice. The purpose is to conduct a multi-center, crossover, randomized controlled trial (RCT) to prove the efficacy and safety of traction on CLBP patients, using equipment capable of precise traction force control and of reproducibility of the condition based on the previous biomechanical and pre-clinical studies.MethodsNinety-five patients with non-specific CLBP from 28 clinics and hospitals were randomly assigned to either the intermittent traction with vibration (ITV) first group (A: sequence ITV to ITO) or the intermittent traction only (ITO) first group (B: sequence ITO to ITV); the former was treated with repeated traction and vibration force added to preload. All patients were followed up weekly for 2 periods after study-initiation. The primary outcome measures were disability level including pain and quality of life (based on Japan Low back pain Evaluation Questionnaire; JLEQ), and JLEQ was measured repeatedly. Statistical analysis was performed using linear mixed model.ResultsComparing to pre-traction data, both traction modes significant improvement except the first intervention of ITO treatment. The differences in JLEQ scores over time showed significant improvements in the treatment to which vibrational force was added in contrast to the conventional traction treatment; Mean difference was significant to compare ITV treatment and ITO treatment (−1.75 (p = 0.001), 95% CI; −2.69 to −0.80). However, neither difference between the two sequences (p = 0.884) nor carryover effect (p = 0.527) was observed.ConclusionsAltogether, the results indicate that lumbar traction was able to improve the pain and functional status immediately in patients with CLBP. This study contributes to add some evidence of the efficacy of lumbar traction.