Use of a classification system to guide nonsurgical management of a patient with chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This case report describes the use of a classification system in the evaluation of a patient with chronic low back pain (LBP) and illustrates how this system was used to develop a management program in which the patient was instructed in symptom-reducing strategies for positioning and functional movement. CASE DESCRIPTION: The patient was a 55-year-old woman with a medical diagnosis of lumbar degenerative disk and degenerative joint disease from L2 to S1. Rotation with extension of the lumbar spine was found to be consistently associated with an increase in symptoms during the examination. Instruction was provided to restrict lumbar rotation and extension during performance of daily activities. OUTCOMES: The patient completed 8 physical therapy sessions over a 3-month period. Pretreatment, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores were 43%, 16%, and 12%, respectively. DISCUSSION: Daily repetition of similar movements and postures may result in preferential movement of the lumbar spine in a specific direction, which then may contribute to the development, persistence, or recurrence of LBP. Research is needed to determine whether patients with LBP would benefit from training in activity modifications that are specific to the symptom-provoking movements and postures of each individual as identified through examination.     

Single leg landing kinematics in volleyball athletes: A comparison between athletes with and without active extension low back pain

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare kinematics of the lower extremity and lumbar spine during a single leg landing task between female volleyball athletes with and without persistent low back pain (LBP).MethodsIn this cross sectional study, 36 volunteer female volleyball athletes with (n = 18) and without (n = 18) LBP were recruited. Two specifically trained physical therapists selected only athletes with a specific movement-based subgroup of LBP for inclusion. Three dimensional kinematic and ground reaction force data were recorded for each athlete across three single leg landing trials by utilizing a Vicon 6-camera motion capture system and one in-floor embedded Kistler force plate, respectively. Independent t-tests compared data between the two groups.ResultsLumbar lordosis when standing (p = 0.046) as well as on initial contact (p = 0.025) and at the time which the maximal vertical ground reaction force occurred (p = 0.020) were significantly greater in the LBP group. There were no other significant differences.ConclusionsThe tendency for this specific subgroup of athletes to consistently adopt more extended lumbar postures in both static and dynamic tasks may be worth considering by those involved in coaching, performance optimizing and injury prevention.     

Intersegmental kinematic analysis of lumbar spine by functional radiography between two subgroups of patients with chronic low back pain

IntroductionKinematic deficits such as fault in joint accessory motion is one of the most important contributing factors for developing the movement impairment in the lumbar spine. Functional radiography is accessible method for detecting the artherokinematic disorders. The aim of this study was to compare lumbar spine intersegmental motion between low back pain (LBP) subgroups of movement system impairment (MSI) model by functional radiography.Materials and methods20 subjects with chronic LBP in two subgroups of the MSI model (Rotation with Flexion and Rotation with Extension) participated in this study. Five x-rays were taken in different positions. Intersegmental linear translation and angular rotation of the lumbar segments were calculated.ResultsIn the Rotation with Extension subgroup, the translation and rotation values of the L3-4 segment from full to full position were significantly more than their values in the Rotation with Flexion subgroup ((mean difference = −1.69 (mm) P = 0.01), (mean difference = −3.80 (mm) P = 0.02) respectively). The translation of L2-3 segment from the neutral to the mid-flexion position was significantly greater in the Rotation with Flexion subgroup compared to the Rotation with Extension subgroup (mean difference = 1.12 (mm) P = 0.04). cumulative intersegmental angular rotation of all lumbar segments from mid to mid position was greater in the Rotation with Flexion subgroup compared to the Rotation with Extension subgroup (P = 0.03).ConclusionChanges in intersegmental translation and angular rotation of lumbar segments in subgroups of patients with LBP may be important contributing factors that induce direction specific lumbar spine loads and contribute to the development or persistence of LBP problems.     

Classification, intervention, and outcomes for a person with lumbar rotation with flexion syndrome

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this case report is to describe the classification, intervention, and outcomes for a patient with lumbar rotation with flexion syndrome. CASE DESCRIPTION: The patient was a 22-year-old man with a medical diagnosis of low back strain. Impairments in lumbar flexion and right rotation and lateral bending were identified. Daily activities and positions associated with these actions were associated with increased low back pain (LBP). Instruction focused on modifying lumbar rotation and flexion movements and alignments in daily activities. Exercises to address the direction-specific impairments were prescribed. OUTCOMES: The patient participated in 4 visits and completed a questionnaire 1 year after intervention. The patient reported a decrease in symptoms, disability, and frequency of recurrences. DISCUSSION: Repetition of specific strategies (alignment and movement) during activities may result in specific impairments that contribute to LBP. Modification of the strategies and exercises to change contributing factors are proposed to help alleviate symptoms, disability, and recurrences.     

Does adding hip strengthening exercises to manual therapy and segmental stabilization improve outcomes in patients with nonspecific low back pain? A randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe literature is unclear on the need for hip strengthening in persons with low back pain (LBP).ObjectivesTo investigate the effectiveness of hip strengthening exercises when added to manual therapy and lumbar segmental stabilization in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP.MethodsSeventy patients with chronic nonspecific LBP were randomly assigned to either the manual therapy and lumbar segmental stabilization group or the manual therapy and lumbar segmental stabilization plus specific hip strengthening group. A 10 cm visual analogue scale and the Rolland-Morris Questionnaire were the primary clinical outcome measures at baseline, at the end of treatment (posttreatment), and 6- and 12-months posttreatment. Hip strength and kinematics were measured as secondary outcomes .ResultsWhile within-group improvements in pain, disability, and hip extensors strength occurred in both groups, there were no significant between-group differences at posttreatment or follow-ups. Mean difference in changes in pain level between groups at posttreatment and at 6- and 12-month follow-up were 0.5 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.5, 1.5), 0.3 points (95% CI: -0.9, 1.5), and 0.0 points (95% CI: -1.1, 1.1), respectively. The mean differences in changes in disability were 0.8 points (95% CI: -1.3, 2.7), 0.0 points (95% CI: -2.4, 2.4), and 0.4 points (95% CI: -2.0, 2.8), respectively. Finally, we did not observe any between-group differences for any of the other outcomes at any timepoint.ConclusionThe addition of specific hip strengthening does not appear to result in improved clinical outcomes for patients with nonspecific LBP.     

Lower lumbar spine axial rotation is reduced in end-range sagittal postures when compared to a neutral spine posture

Sports such as rowing, gymnastics, cycling and fast bowling in cricket that combine rotation with spine flexion and extension are known to carry greater risk of low back pain (LBP). Few studies have investigated the capacity of the lumbar spine to rotate in various sagittal positions, and further, these studies have generated disparate conclusions. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the range of lower lumbar axial rotation (L3–S2) is decreased in end-range flexion and extension postures when compared to the neutral spine posture. Eighteen adolescent female rowers (mean age=14.9 years) with no history of LBP were recruited for this study. Lower lumbar axial rotation was measured by an electromagnetic tracking system (3-Space Fastrak™) in end-range flexion, extension and neutral postures, in sitting and standing positions. There was a reduction in the range of lower lumbar axial rotation in both end-range extension and flexion (p<0.001) postures when compared to neutral. Further, the range of lower lumbar axial rotation measurements in flexion when sitting was reduced when compared to standing (p=0.013). These findings are likely due to the anatomical limitations of the passive structures in end-range sagittal postures.     

Effect of 2 lumbar spine postures on transversus abdominis muscle thickness during a voluntary contraction in people with and without low back pain

Objective

The present study investigated the effect of 2 different lumbar spine postures, neutral and flexed lumbar postures, on transversus abdominis (TrA) muscle function during a voluntary contraction (hollowing and draw-in maneuver) in people with and without low back pain (LBP).

Methods

Thirty participants with LBP and 30 healthy participants were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Transversus abdominis muscle function was measured as a change in thickness with ultrasound imaging. Participants performed voluntary TrA contraction in a supine lying position with the lumbar spine in neutral and flexed postures. Data were analyzed using a 2-way (groups, postures) analysis of variance.

Results

Lumbar posture influenced TrA function during a voluntary contraction in people with and without LBP. There was a significant main effect of posture (F_1,58 = 16.140, P < .001). Neutral lumbar posture improved participants' ability to recruit TrA in both group (mean difference, 7.5%; 95% confidence interval, 3.8%-11.3%). No significant differences were found between healthy subjects and those with LBP.

Conclusions

The results of the present study showed that, in subjects performing a voluntary TrA contraction, the neutral lumbar posture improves the ability to increase change in TrA thickness. This study found no significant difference in TrA thickness change between healthy subjects and those with nonspecific LBP.     

Effect of the Individual Strengthening Exercises for Posterior Pelvic Tilt Muscles on Back Pain,Pelvic Angle,and Lumbar ROM of a LBP Patient with Excessive Lordosis: A Case Study

[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to document the effect of individual strengthening exercises for posterior pelvic tilt muscles on back pain, pelvic tilt angle, and lumbar ROM of a low back pain (LBP) patient with excessive lordosis. [Subjects] The subject was a 28 year-old male with excessive lordosis who complained of severe LBP at the L3 level. [Methods] He performed individual strengthening exercises for the posterior pelvic tilt muscles (rectus abdominis, gluteus maximus, hamstring). [Results] Pelvic tilt angles on the right and left sides recovered to his normal ranges. Limited lumbar ROM increased, and low back pain decreased. [Conclusion] We suggest that an approach of individual resistance exercises is necessary for the effective and fast strengthening of the pelvic posterior tilt muscles in case of LBP with excessive lordosis.Key words: LBP, Lordosis, Posterior pelvic tilt     

Lumbar spine side bending is reduced in end range extension compared to neutral and end range flexion postures

Lumbar side bending movements coupled with extension or flexion is a known low back pain (LBP) risk factor in certain groups, for example, athletes participating in sports such as hockey, tennis, gymnastics, rowing and cricket. Previous research has shown that sagittal spinal postures influence the degree of spinal rotation, with less rotation demonstrated at end of range extension and flexion. To date it is unknown whether sagittal spinal postures influence side bending. The aim of this study was to determine whether side bend range of motion (ROM) of the lumbar spine is decreased in end-range flexion and extension postures compared to a neutral spine. Twenty subjects between 18 and 55 years of age [mean age = 22.8 yrs (6.8)] with no history of LBP were recruited for this study. Upper (L1–L3) and lower (L3–L5) lumbar side bend, were measured utilising a 14 camera system (Vicon, Oxford metrics, inc.) in end-range flexion, extension and neutral postures, in both sitting and standing positions. The results revealed no statistically significant difference in upper and lower lumbar side bend ROM in an end-range flexion posture compared to a neutral spinal posture. A reduction was found in the range of upper and lower lumbar side bend ROM in an end-range extended posture (p < 0.05), compared to neutral and end range flexion postures. This ROM reduction was found in sitting and standing. These findings allow clinicians to better interpret combined movements involving side bending of the lumbar spine in clinical and real life settings.     

The effectiveness of hip interventions in patients with low-back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundLow-back pain (LBP) may be directly or indirectly related to impairments from the hip joint.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of hip interventions on pain and disability in patients with LBP in the short-, medium-, and long-term.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, PEDro, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases were searched in November 2022. Randomized controlled trials involving hip-targeted interventions compared to specific low back interventions in patients with LBP were selected. The outcomes were pain intensity and disability. The quality of the studies was assessed with the risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models.ResultsA total of 2581 studies were screened. Eight were included in the meta-analysis involving 508 patients with LBP. The results provided very low certainty that both hip strengthening and hip stretching improved pain (MD = -0.66; 95% CI -0.86, -0.48; I²:0%) (MD = -0.55; 95% CI -1.02, -0.08) and disability (SMD = -0.81; 95% CI -1.53, -0.10; I²: 80%) (SMD = -1.03; 95% CI -1.82, -0.25) in the short-term, respectively. No benefits were found in the medium- or long-term. The risk of bias, heterogeneity, and imprecision of the results downgraded the level of evidence.ConclusionsVery low certainty evidence suggest a positive effect of hip strengthening in isolation or combined with specific low back exercise and hip stretching combined with specific low back exercise for decreasing pain intensity and disability in the short-term, in patients with LBP.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO CRD42022303173     

Identifying non-specific low back pain clinical subgroups from sitting and standing repositioning posture tasks using a novel Cardiff Dempster–Shafer Theory Classifier

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) classification systems are used to deliver targeted treatments matched to an individual profile, however, distinguishing between different subsets of LBP remains a clinical challenge.MethodsA novel application of the Cardiff Dempster–Shafer Theory Classifier was employed to identify clinical subgroups of LBP on the basis of repositioning accuracy for subjects performing a sitting and standing posture task. 87 LBP subjects, clinically subclassified into flexion (n = 50), passive extension (n = 14), and active extension (n = 23) motor control impairment subgroups and 31 subjects with no LBP were recruited. Thoracic, lumbar and pelvic repositioning errors were quantified. The Classifier then transformed the error variables from each subject into a set of three belief values: (i) consistent with no LBP, (ii) consistent with LBP, (iii) indicating either LBP or no LBP.FindingsIn discriminating LBP from no LBP the Classifier accuracy was 96.61%. From no-LBP, subsets of flexion LBP, active extension and passive extension achieved 93.83, 98.15% and 97.62% accuracy, respectively. Classification accuracies of 96.8%, 87.7% and 70.27% were found when discriminating flexion from passive extension, flexion from active extension and active from passive extension subsets, respectively. Sitting lumbar error magnitude best discriminated LBP from no LBP (92.4% accuracy) and the flexion subset from no-LBP (90.1% accuracy). Standing lumbar error best discriminated active and passive extension from no LBP (94.4% and 95.2% accuracy, respectively).InterpretationUsing repositioning accuracy, the Cardiff Dempster–Shafer Theory Classifier distinguishes between subsets of LBP and could assist decision making for targeted exercise in LBP management.     

Association Among Dyskinesia of the Lumbar Spine Segment,Inclination Angle of the Lumbosacral Spine,and Low Back Pain in Young Athletes: A Predictive Correlational Study

ObjectiveThis predictive correlational study aimed to investigate the association among low back pain (LBP), dyskinesia of the lumbosacral spine segment (determined by inertial sensors), and inclination angles: the inclination angle of the lumbosacral spine (alpha), the inclination angle of the thoracolumbar spine (beta), and the inclination angle of the upper thoracic section (gamma). Our hypothesis was that young athletes with LBP had a particular dyskinesia: nonphysiological movements of the lumbosacral segment of the spine.MethodsThe study group consisted of 108 young athletes aged 10 to 16 years (male/female 44%/56%; 12.3 ± 1.8 years; 160.1 ± 12.0 cm; 51.1 ± 13.8 kg; 4.3 ± 2.4 training years; 3.7 ± 2.1 training h/wk). The alpha, beta, and gamma angles were measured with a digital inclinometer. The position of the lumbosacral segment at the maximum extension was determined with the inertial sensors, positioned at the 11th thoracic vertebra (T11), the third lumbar spine vertebra (L3), and the second sacral spine vertebra (S2).The data were analyzed using Student's t tests, tetrachoric correlation coefficients, and logistic regression.ResultsThere was a significant statistical difference in alpha angles (t = 9.4, P < .001) and lumbar positions in extension (t = 6.4, P < .001) between groups with LBP and without LBP. The logistic regression indicated that LBP in young athletes was significantly associated with the increased alpha angle and nonphysiological lumbar position in extension measured by a sensor at the third lumbar spine vertebra.ConclusionThere was a strong association among LBP, increased inclination angle of the lumbosacral spine, and dyskinesia of the lumbar spine segment in young athletes.     

Association of low back pain with muscle stiffness and muscle mass of the lumbar back muscles,and sagittal spinal alignment in young and middle-aged medical workers

BackgroundMuscle stiffness of the lumbar back muscles in low back pain (LBP) patients has not been clearly elucidated because quantitative assessment of the stiffness of individual muscles was conventionally difficult. This study aimed to examine the association of LBP with muscle stiffness assessed using ultrasonic shear wave elastography (SWE) and muscle mass of the lumbar back muscle, and spinal alignment in young and middle-aged medical workers.MethodsThe study comprised 23 asymptomatic medical workers [control (CTR) group] and 9 medical workers with LBP (LBP group). Muscle stiffness and mass of the lumbar back muscles (lumbar erector spinae, multifidus, and quadratus lumborum) in the prone position were measured using ultrasonic SWE. Sagittal spinal alignment in the standing and prone positions was measured using a Spinal Mouse. The association with LBP was investigated by multiple logistic regression analysis with a forward selection method. The analysis was conducted using the shear elastic modulus and muscle thickness of the lumbar back muscles, and spinal alignment, age, body height, body weight, and sex as independent variables.FindingsMultiple logistic regression analysis showed that muscle stiffness of the lumbar multifidus muscle and body height were significant and independent determinants of LBP, but that muscle mass and spinal alignment were not. Muscle stiffness of the lumbar multifidus muscle in the LBP group was significantly higher than that in the CTR group.InterpretationThe results of this study suggest that LBP is associated with muscle stiffness of the lumbar multifidus muscle in young and middle-aged medical workers.     

Different ways to balance the spine in sitting: Muscle activity in specific postures differs between individuals with and without a history of back pain in sitting

BackgroundPrevious research explored muscle activity in four distinct sitting postures with fine-wire electromyography, and found that lumbar multifidus muscle activity increased incrementally between sitting with flat thoracolumbar and lumbar regions, long thoracolumbar lordosis, or short lordosis confined to the lumbar region. This study used similar methods to explore whether people with a history of low back pain provoked by prolonged sitting used different patterns of trunk muscle activity in specific postures.MethodsFine-wire electromyography electrodes were inserted into the right lumbar multifidus (deep and superficial), iliocostalis (lateral and medial), longissimus thoracis and transversus abdominis muscles. Superficial abdominal muscle activity was recorded with surface or fine-wire electrodes. Electromyography amplitude was compared between postures for the back pain group and observations were contrasted with the changes previously reported for pain-free controls. For comparison between groups normalised and non-normalised electromyography amplitudes were compared.FindingsIndividuals with a history of back pain demonstrated greater activity of the longissimus thoracis muscle in the long lordosis compared with the flat posture [mean difference (95% CI): 46.6 (17.5–75.7)%, normalised to sitting posture peak activity], but pain-free participants did not [mean difference: 7.7 (minus 12–27.6)%]. Pain-free participants modulated lumbar multifidus activity with changes in lumbar curve, but people with a history of pain in prolonged sitting did not change multifidus activity between the long and short lordotic postures.InterpretationIn clinical ergonomic interventions that modify spinal curves and sagittal balance in sitting, the muscle activity used in those postures may differ between people with and without a history of back pain.     

Classification, treatment and outcomes of a patient with lumbar extension syndrome

The purpose of the current report is to describe the classification, treatment, and outcomes of a patient with lumbar extension syndrome. The patient was a 40-year-old female with an 18-month history of mechanical low back pain (LBP). The patient reported a history of daily, intermittent pain (mean intensity of 9/10) that limited her ability to sit, stand, walk, and sleep, as well as perform work-related activities. Symptom-provoking movement and alignment impairments associated with the direction of lumbar extension were identified and modification of these impairments consistently resulted in a decrease in pain. Treatment was provided in 3 sessions over a 2-month period. Priority of treatment was to train the patient to restrict lumbar extension-related alignments and movements during symptom-provoking functional activities. Exercises to address the extension-related impairments also were prescribed. The primary change in outcome was a decrease in the mean intensity (2 months: 2/10; 6 months: 1/10) and frequency of pain (2 months: decreased pain with standing and walking; 6 months: additional decrease with sitting, standing and walking). She also reported a decreased duration and number of LBP episodes. Classification directed treatment resulted in improvement in short and long term impairment and functional-level outcomes.     

Kinematic Characteristics of Sit-to-Stand Movements in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

ObjectiveThe purpose of this review was to identify different kinematic characteristics between the movements of sit-to-stand-to-sit, sit-to-stand, or stand-to-sit of individuals with and without low back pain (LBP).MethodsA systematic search was conducted on scientific databases. The analyzed kinematic variables were duration of the movement, reproduction of the movement, ranges of motion, velocity, and acceleration. The studies were appraised for methodological quality using the Downs & Black scale and for the level of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.ResultsAfter all screening stages, this systematic review comprised 8 cross-sectional studies. When comparing the patients with LBP vs controls, patients with LBP take longer to perform the sit-to-stand-to-sit, sit-to-stand, and stand-to sit movements (eg, 9.33 ± 1.49 seconds vs 8.29 ± 1.23 seconds in the sit-to-stand-to-sit movement), show decreased mobility of the lumbar spine (eg, 26.21° ± 8.76° vs 32.07° ± 6.77° in the sit-to-stand-to-sit movement) and the hip (eg, 51.0° vs 77.25° in the sit-to-stand movement), present decreased velocity of the trunk (eg, 95.31° ± 25.13°/s vs 138.23° ± 23.42°/s in the sit-to-stand-to-sit movement) and the hip (eg, 46° ± 13°/s vs 69° ± 13°/s in the sit-to-stand movement), and decreased overall acceleration of the trunk (eg, 280.19° ± 113.08°/s² vs 460.16° ± 101.49°/s² in the sit-to-stand-to-sit movement), besides presenting greater variability of the trunk (eg, 5.53° ± 0.48° vs 4.32° ± 0.46° in the sit-to-stand movement).ConclusionThere are kinematic alterations in the lumbar spine, the hip, and the trunk of patients with LBP. However, information about pelvic and overall trunk mobility, velocity, and acceleration of the lumbar spine; and mobility, speed, and acceleration of hip and pelvis remain incipient in individuals with LBP. Based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, the results of this review indicate that there is low scientific evidence on the characteristics of the kinematic variables (duration of the movement, reproduction of the movement, range of motion, velocity, and acceleration) of the trunk, lumbar spine, pelvis, and hip in patients with LBP.     

Classification,treatment and outcomes of a patient with lumbar extension syndrome

The purpose of the current report is to describe the classification, treatment, and outcomes of a patient with lumbar extension syndrome. The patient was a 40-year-old female with an 18-month history of mechanical low back pain (LBP). The patient reported a history of daily, intermittent pain (mean intensity of 9/10) that limited her ability to sit, stand, walk, and sleep, as well as perform work-related activities. Symptom-provoking movement and alignment impairments associated with the direction of lumbar extension were identified and modification of these impairments consistently resulted in a decrease in pain. Treatment was provided in 3 sessions over a 2-month period. Priority of treatment was to train the patient to restrict lumbar extension-related alignments and movements during symptom-provoking functional activities. Exercises to address the extension-related impairments also were prescribed. The primary change in outcome was a decrease in the mean intensity (2 months: 2/10; 6 months: 1/10) and frequency of pain (2 months: decreased pain with standing and walking; 6 months: additional decrease with sitting, standing and walking). She also reported a decreased duration and number of LBP episodes. Classification directed treatment resulted in improvement in short and long term impairment and functional-level outcomes.     

Effect of Individual Strengthening Exercises for Anterior Pelvic Tilt Muscles on Back Pain,Pelvic Angle,and Lumbar ROMs of a LBP Patient with Flat Back

[Purpose] The purpose of this paper is to report the effect of individual strengthening exercises for the anterior pelvic tilt muscles on back pain, pelvic tilt angle, and lumbar ROM of a low back pain (LBP) patient with flat back. [Subject] A 37 year-old male, who complained of LBP pain at L3-5 levels with flat back, participated. [Methods] He performed the individual strengthening exercises for anterior pelvic tilt muscles (erector spinae,iliopsoas, rectus femoris). [Results] Pelvic tilt angles of the right and left sides were recovered to normal ranges. His lumbar ROMs increased, and low back pain decreased. [Conclusion] We suggest that individual resistance exercises are a necessary approach for effective and fast strengthening of pelvic anterior tilt muscles in LBP with flat back.Key words: Anterior pelvic tilt, Flat back syndrome, LBP