Vibration of the spine and low back pain.

There are now many studies suggesting a positive relationship between both low back pain and spinal degeneration and exposure to whole body vibration. Such relationships appear to be particularly marked in drivers of tractors, earth-moving equipment, and trucks. There is a tendency toward a greater incidence of complaints as exposure increases. Vibration affects the spine by exciting a 4-6-Hz resonance that is related to the biologic "soft spring" between S-1 and the seat. The muscle nerves fire sequentially under vibration and fatigue. In animals, vibration exposure leads to pronounced creep, increased disk pressure, and changes in the levels of neuropeptides in the dorsal root ganglia.     

Lumbar spine kinesthesia in patients with low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Single-group, posttest only, using a sample of convenience. OBJECTIVE: To measure the repositioning error of subjects with low back pain for lumbar sagittal movement using a simple kinesthetic test previously described. BACKGROUND: Patients with low back pain are commonly observed to have difficulty in adopting a mid or neutral position of the lumbar spine. METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS: Twenty subjects with low back pain were required to reproduce an upright neutral posture of the lumbar spine following movement into flexion in a sitting position. Trunk positioning accuracy was measured with an electromagnetic tracking device. RESULTS: The mean absolute value of the repositioning error in the sagittal plane was 2.25 degrees +/-0.88 degrees on day 1 and 2.32 degrees +/-1.62 degrees on day 2. The performance of patients with low back pain was similar to that of asymptomatic patients in a previous study, although subjects with low back pain overshot the neutral position more frequently (79%) than did nonimpaired subjects (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with low back pain may have attempted to use extra mechanoreceptive cues to compensate for some kinesthetic deficit. Nevertheless, the kinesthetic test used was not sensitive enough to detect any repositioning deficits, and reasons for this are explored.     

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.     

Theories of back pain and health care utilization.

Because most people in the United States have occasional back pain, demand for the treatment of back pain is widespread. Yet, few treatments have proven to be more effective than placebo therapy. We examine patterns of treatment that have emerged in the absence of definitive treatment. We concentrate on high-cost users of back pain treatment (i.e., chronic pain patients) and high-cost treatments (i.e., surgical and non-surgical hospitalization for low back pain). The small minority of back pain patients whose disability persists into chronicity (90 days or more) accounts for a disproportionate amount of all back pain costs. Interventions have been developed to prevent back pain but, once back pain has already occurred, little is done to prevent it from becoming chronic. Drug therapy may be used to treat the symptom of chronic pain, the cause of which may not be thereby affected. Regarding high-cost treatments, surgical and nonsurgical hospitalizations for low back pain are common practices in the United States. Pain specialists for the past 15 years have advocated a conservative approach to back pain, but the rate of surgery for low back pain increased during this time. Average lengths of stay for surgical and nonsurgical low back pain hospitalizations decreased. We explore why, in the instance of low back pain surgery, change was resisted, whereas, in the instance of average lengths of stay, change was accepted. In view of why change may be resisted or accepted, we discuss interventions designed to change physicians' practice style.     

经椎间孔脊柱内窥镜技术治疗腰腿痛的适应证

[目的]探讨腰腿痛患者选择经椎间孔脊柱内窥镜技术(transforaminal endoscopic spine system,TESSYS)治疗的适应证及临床疗效。[方法]回顾性分析2013年12月~2015年6月本院采用TESSYS技术治疗的512例腰腿痛患者,其中腰椎间盘突出症441例、腰椎管狭窄症48例,腰椎滑脱(I度)23例。年龄18~85岁,平均56.6岁,采用疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)及改良Macnab疗效评定标准评价临床疗效。[结果]手术时间45~180 min,平均60.8 min;C型臂X线机曝光频率13~62次,平均17.8次。术中硬膜囊撕裂12例,头颈部疼痛4例,2例术后出现肌力一过性下降,无神经根损伤、椎间隙感染等严重并发症。468例(91.4%)术后随访时间3~15个月,平均10.5个月。改良Macnab疗效评定:优398例,良40例,可17例,差13例,优良率93.6%。术前VAS评分(8.7±1.4)分,术后即刻(2.6±1.6)、术后3个月(1.8±0.6)、末次随访时(1.9±1.3)。[结论]TESSYS是治疗腰腿痛的一种安全有效的微创技术,正确放置工作通道是扩大手术适应证的关键。     

A systematic review of low back pain and sciatica patients' expectations and experiences of health care

Background contextPrevious systematic reviews of patients' experience of health services have used mixed qualitative and quantitative studies. This review focused on qualitative studies, which are more suitable for capturing experience, using modern methods of synthesis of qualitative studies.PurposeTo describe the experience of health care of low back pain and sciatica patients and the sources of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with special reference to patients who do not receive a diagnosis.Study designA systematic review of qualitative studies.SamplePrimary qualitative studies identified from Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Psychinfo databases.Outcome measuresConceptual themes of patients' experiences.MethodData collection and analysis were through thematic content analysis. Two reviewers independently screened titles and collected and analyzed data. The authors were in receipt of a Primary Care Research Bursary from National Health Service Suffolk and Norfolk Research Departments, a not-for-profit organization.ResultsTwenty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were of high quality. Nine themes emerged: the process and content of care, relationships and interpersonal skills, personalized care, information, the outcome of care, the importance of a diagnosis, delegitimation, recognizing the expert, and service matters. How care was given mattered greatly to patients, with importance given to receiving a perceived full assessment, consideration for the individual's context, good relationships, empathy, and the sharing of information. These aspects of care facilitated the acceptance by some of the limitations of health care and were spread across disciplines. Not having a diagnosis made coping more difficult for some but for others led to delegitimation, a feeling of not being believed. Service matters such as cost and waiting time received little mention.ConclusionsAlthough much research into the development of chronic low back pain (LBP) has focused on the patient, this review suggests that research into aspects of care also warrant research. The benefits of generic principles of care, such as personalization and communication, are important to patients with LBP and sciatica; so, practitioners may help their patients by paying as much attention to them as to specific interventions. When neither cure nor a diagnostic label is forthcoming, generic skills remain important for patient satisfaction.     

Randomized trial comparing interferential therapy with motorized lumbar traction and massage in the management of low back pain in a primary care setting.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized trial designed to compare interferential therapy with motorized lumbar traction and massage management for low back pain in a primary care setting. OBJECTIVE: To measure and compare the outcome of interferential therapy and management by motorized lumbar traction and massage. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Management of low back pain by interferential therapy and motorized lumbar traction and massage is common in Germany. No reports of previous randomized trials for the outcome from interferential therapy were found. METHODS: Consenting patients were randomly assigned into one of two groups. A pretreatment interview was performed by the patient using a computer-based questionnaire. It also incorporated the Oswestry Disability Index and a pain visual analog scale. Management consisted of six sessions over a 2- to 3-week period. Oswestry Disability Indexes and pain visual analog scale scores also were obtained immediately after and at 3 months after treatment. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were recruited. The two treatment groups had similar demographic and clinical baseline characteristics. The mean Oswestry Disability Index before treatment was 30 for both groups (n = 147). After treatment, this had dropped to 25, and, at 3 months, were 21 (interferential therapy) and 22 (motorized lumbar traction and massage). The mean pain visual analog scale score before treatment was 50 (interferential therapy) and 51 (motorized lumbar traction and massage). This had dropped, respectively, to 46 and 44 after treatment and to 42 and 39 at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a progressive fall in Oswestry Disability Index and pain visual analog scale scores in patients with low back pain treated with either-interferential therapy or motorized lumbar traction and massage. There was no difference in the improvement between the two groups at the end of treatment. Although there is evidence from several trials that traction alone is ineffective in the management of low back pain, this study could not exclude some effect from the concomitant massage.     

The predictive effect of fear-avoidance beliefs on low back pain among newly qualified health care workers with and without previous low back pain: a prospective cohort study

Background  

Health care workers have a high prevalence of low back pain (LBP). Although physical exposures in the working environment are linked to an increased risk of LBP, it has been suggested that individual coping strategies, for example fear-avoidance beliefs, could also be important in the development and maintenance of LBP. Accordingly, the main objective of this study was to examine (1) the association between physical work load and LBP, (2) the predictive effect of fear-avoidance beliefs on the development of LBP, and (3) the moderating effect of fear-avoidance beliefs on the association between physical work load and LBP among cases with and without previous LBP.