Does pre-operative multifidus morphology on MRI predict clinical outcomes in adults following surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spine disease? A systematic review

Low back pain (LBP) resulting from degenerative lumbar spine disease is a leading contributor to global disability. Changes in the morphology of the lumbar multifidus muscle on magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI) are associated with worse LBP and disability, but the association between multifidus morphology and post-operative outcomes is not known. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the relationship between pre-operative multifidus morphology and post-operative changes in pain and disability. We performed a systematic search using the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus databases covering the period from January 1946 to January 2018. The literature was searched and assessed by independent reviewers according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. All relevant papers were assessed for risk of bias according to the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. The initial search yielded 436 studies, of which 6 studies were included in the analysis. Four studies were at a low risk of bias. These studies included a total of 873 patients undergoing spinal surgery. An association between low fat infiltration and greater improvement in LBP and disability following surgery was identified. There was insufficient evidence to identify a relationship between cross-sectional area (CSA) and LBP or disability. This systematic review found evidence for an association between low multifidus fat infiltration on MRI at baseline and greater reductions in measures of LBP and disability following surgical treatment. There is also limited evidence for an association between larger pre-operative multifidus CSA and improvements in disability, but not pain. The findings of this review should be interpreted with caution due to the small quantity of the available literature.     

Slacklining as therapy to address non-specific low back pain in the presence of multifidus arthrogenic muscle inhibition

Low back pain(LBP) represents the most prevalent, problematic and painful of musculoskeletal conditions that affects both the individual and society with health and economic concerns. LBP is a heterogeneous condition with multiple diagnoses and causes. In the absence of consensus definitions, partly because of terminology inconsistency, it is further referred to as non-specific LBP(NSLBP). In NSLBP patients, the lumbar multifidus(MF), a key stabilizing muscle, has a depleted role due to recognized myocellular lipid infiltration and wasting, with the potential primary cause hypothesized as arthrogenic muscle inhibition(AMI). This link between AMI and NSLBP continues to gain increasing recognition. To date there is no ‘gold standard' or consensus treatment to alleviate symptoms and disability due to NSLBP, though the advocated interventions are numerous, with marked variations in costs and levels of supportive evidence. However, there is consensus that NSLBP management be cost-effective, self-administered, educational, exercise-based, and use multi-modal and multi-disciplinary approaches. An adjuvant therapy fulfilling these consensus criteria is ‘slacklining', within an overall rehabilitation program. Slacklining, the neuromechanical action of balance retention on a tightened band, induces strategic indirect-involuntary therapeutic muscle activation exercise incorporating spinal motor control. Though several models have been proposed, understanding slacklining's neuro-motormechanism of action remains incomplete. Slacklining has demonstrated clinical effects to overcome AMI in peripheral joints, particularly the knee, and is reported in clinical case-studies as showing promising results in reducing NSLBP related to MF deficiency induced through AMI(MF-AMI). Therefore, this paper aims to: rationalize why and how adjuvant, slacklining therapeutic exercise may positively affect patients with NSLBP, due to MF-AMI induced depletion of spinal stabilization; considers current understandings and interventions for NSLBP, including the contributing role of MF-AMI; and details the reasons why slacklining could be considered as a potential adjuvant intervention for NSLBP through its indirect-involuntary action. This action is hypothesized to occur through an over-ride or inhibition of central down-regulatory induced muscle insufficiency, present due to AMI. This subsequently allows neuroplasticity, normal neuro-motor sequencing and muscle re-activation, which facilitates innate advantageous spinal stabilization. This in-turn addresses and reduces NSLBP, its concurrent symptoms and functional disability. This process is hypothesized to occur through four neuro-physiological processing pathways: finite neural delay; movement-control phenotypes; inhibition of action and the innate primordial imperative; and accentuated corticospinal drive. Further research is recommended to investigate these hypotheses and the effect of slacklining as an adjuvant therapy in cohort and control studies of NSLBP populations.     

Evaluation of adverse health outcomes associated with vertebral fractures

Little is known about the frequency or degree to which vertebral fractures cause pain and physical disability. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the advantages of risk analysis over other statistical techniques (e.g., correlation analysis) for quantifying relationships between vertebral fractures and outcomes such as pain and disability. Subjects who volunteered to participate in studies of osteoporosis were asked about pain and disability. The number and degree of vertebral deformities were assessed from radiographs. Strong associations were observed between the most severe vertebral deformities and the risk of high pain or disability scores, while weaker associations were observed for moderate deformities. There did not appear to be any association between vertebral deformity and risk of moderate levels of pain or disability. Because of the potential for bias in cross-sectional studies such as this, the magnitude of these findings must be considered tentative. We conclude that risk analysis is an appropriate method for quantifying the relationship of vertebral fractures with pain and disability, but that prospective studies are now needed.     

The centralization phenomenon and fear-avoidance beliefs as prognostic factors for acute low back pain: a preliminary investigation involving patients classified for specific exercise

STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of patients with acute low back pain (LBP). OBJECTIVES: To determine if the centralization phenomenon and fear-avoidance beliefs predict measurement of pain and disability 6 months after entering the study. BACKGROUND: The centralization phenomenon and fear-avoidance are predictive of future pain and disability. However, previous prognostic studies have not routinely included both measures in homogenous subgroups of patients with acute LBP. METHODS AND MEASURES: Patients completed self-report questionnaires and were evaluated and treated with treatment-based classification guidelines. Only the patients classified for specific exercise were included in this analysis (n = 28). Measures of disability and pain intensity were reassessed at 6 months by mail. Separate hierarchical regression models predicted measures of disability and pain intensity with the centralization phenomenon, fear-avoidance beliefs, and prespecified covariates. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in duration of symptoms, fear-avoidance beliefs, and history of LBP based on the centralization phenomenon (P > .05). Patients reporting the centralization phenomenon were significantly more likely to have leg pain (P < .01). A regression model including initial disability, the centralization phenomenon, and fear-avoidance beliefs about work significantly predicted 6-month disability, explaining 49% of the total variance (P < .001). A regression model that included initial pain intensity and the centralization phenomenon significantly predicted 6-month pain intensity, explaining 29% of the total variance (P < .016). These factors also appeared to be clinically meaningful predictors of outcome, but lacked precision for immediate use in clinical settings. The following covariates were not included in the final regression models: presence of leg pain, history of LBP, and duration of LBP. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline elevation in fear-avoidance beliefs about work and lack of centralization phenomenon predicted higher disability. Baseline lack of centralization phenomenon predicted higher pain intensity. These results can only be generalized to patients with acute LBP classified for specific exercise. It will be necessary to independently validate these prediction models before they can be implemented in clinical settings.     

Catastrophization,fear of movement,anxiety, and depression are associated with persistent,severe low back pain and disability

BACKGROUND CONTEXTPsychological characteristics are important in the development and progression of low back pain (LBP); however, their role in persistent, severe LBP is unclear.PURPOSETo investigate the relationship between catastrophization, depression, fear of movement, and anxiety and persistent, severe LBP, and disability.STUDY DESIGN/ SETTINGOne-year prospective cohort study.PATIENT SAMPLEParticipants were selected from the SpineData registry (Denmark), which enrolls individuals with LBP of 2 to 12 months duration without radiculopathy and without satisfactory response to primary intervention.OUTCOME MEASURESPsychological characteristics, including catastrophization, depression, fear of movement, and anxiety, were examined at baseline using a validated screening questionnaire. Current, typical, and worst pain in the past 2 weeks were assessed by 11-point numeric rating scales and an average pain score was calculated. Disability was measured using the 23-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.METHODSParticipants completed baseline questionnaires on initial presentation to the Spine Center (Middelfart, Denmark), and follow-up questionnaires were sent and returned electronically. Statistical analysis involved multivariable Poisson regression to investigate the association between psychological factors and the number of episodes of severe pain or disability. This study received no direct funding.RESULTSOf the 952 participants at baseline, 633 (63.4%) provided data 1 year later. Approximately half of the participants reported severe LBP (n=299, 47.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 43.3%–51.2%) or disability (n=315, 57.6%, 95% CI 53.3%–61.8%) at a minimum of one time point, and 14.9% (n=94, 95% CI 12.2%–17.9%) and 24.3% (n=133, 95% CI 20.8%–28.1%) experienced severe LBP or disability at two time points, respectively. Multivariable Poisson regression showed a relationship between catastrophization, depression, fear of movement, and anxiety and a greater number of time points with severe LBP and disability, after adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, and duration of symptoms. However, when all psychological factors were added to the regression model, only catastrophization and depression remained significantly associated.CONCLUSIONSThis study showed that persistent, severe LBP, and disability is common in a secondary care population with LBP and is associated with a variety of psychological risk factors, in particular catastrophization and depression, highlighting the importance of considering these factors in the design and evaluation of outcomes studies for LBP.     

Clinical and psychological correlates of lumbar motion abnormalities in low back disorders.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Low back pain (LBP) and low back disorders (LBDs) identify a complex constellation of conditions that frustrate both diagnosis and therapy. Dynamic quantitative assessment and questionnaire instruments directed toward psychosocial and situational variables provide potentially powerful tools for determining functional pathology and potentially outcome. PURPOSE: Our goal was to independently assess clinical correlates of a trunk motion measurement device, the lumbar motion monitor (LMM). The reliability of the LMM as a clinical test was assessed by comparison with an independent medical examination and biobehavioral questionnaires. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: There were three study components. A multispecialty physician panel that administered a structured physical examination contributed to a clinical correlation case series study. Standardized outcomes and risk identification questionnaires were administered to the case population. Finally, the LMM was administered in a customary fashion to the same population. PATIENT SAMPLE: Nineteen subjects were recruited on the basis of criteria that included symptoms of chronic recurrent low back pain. This was an employed and active, although impaired, population. Eighteen of the subjects were currently employed with limited lost work time, but chronic and recurrent pain was a common feature. OUTCOME MEASURES: Questionnaire outcome measures were both characterologic and situation based. In addition to providing diagnoses, the physician panel was also asked to offer certain qualitative assessments, such as rehabilitative potential and functional level pertinent to activities of daily living. The impact of LMM measures on physician decision making was also assessed. Trunk angular measurements were used to assess function of patients with chronic low back disorders. METHODS: Kinematic performance on the LMM was expressed as three probability scores. These were the likelihood of abnormality, the "sincerity of effort" (exacerbation or aggravation of impairment), and the likelihood of structural anatomic disease. These variables were examined against established self-report measures of pain and disability. RESULTS: The LMM and physician panels were in agreement on the presence or absence of abnormality. LMM findings tended to be more consistent with clinical history than the clinical examination. The LMM results were also generally consistent with the self-reported measures of pain and disability: a high likelihood of structural disease was associated with depression, somatization, poor health perception and diminished vitality. CONCLUSIONS: The LMM appears to be a useful assessment tool for gauging the presence of LBP and LBD. It was accurate in detecting abnormality when abnormality was determined by clinical history and physician diagnosis. The LMM's differentiation of mechanical low back disease (nonanatomically specific disorders) from structurally specific low back disease was not consistent with a parallel clinical differentiation. Larger trials in a prospective format and studies on a chronically disabled population seem warranted. In an impaired but less disabled population, elevated pain and somatization did not appear to weaken the effort during testing.     

Catastrophizing—a prognostic factor for outcome in patients with low back pain: a systematic review

Background contextPsychological factors including catastrophizing thoughts are believed to influence the development of chronic low back pain (LBP).PurposeTo assess the prognostic importance of catastrophizing as a coping strategy in patients with LBP.Study designThis is a systematic review.Patient sampleThis study included patients with LBP.Outcome measuresWork-related outcomes and perceived measures including return to work, pain, and disability.MethodsIn September 2012, the following databases were searched: BIOSIS, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, OTSeeker, PeDRO, PsycInfo, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science. To ensure completeness of the search, a hand search and a search of bibliographies were conducted and all relevant references included. All observational studies investigating the prognostic value of catastrophizing in patients with LBP were eligible. Included were studies with 100 and more patients and follow-up of at least 3 months. Excluded were studies with poor methodological quality, short follow-up duration, and small sample size.ResultsA total of 1,473 references were retrieved, and 706 references remained after the removal of duplicates. For 77 references, the full text was assessed and 19 publications based on 16 studies were included. Of four studies that investigated work-related outcomes, two found catastrophizing to be associated with work status. Most studies that investigated self-reported outcome measures (n=8, 66%) found catastrophizing to be associated with pain and disability at follow-up in acute, subacute, and chronic LBP patients. In most studies that applied cutoff values, patients identified as high catastrophizers experienced a worse outcome compared with low catastrophizers (n=5, 83%).ConclusionsThere is some evidence that catastrophizing as a coping strategy might lead to delayed recovery. The influence of catastrophizing in patients with LBP is not fully established and should be further investigated. Of particular importance is the establishment of cutoff levels for identifying patients at risk.     

Increased prevalence of low back pain among physiotherapy students compared to medical students

Some studies have demonstrated that physiotherapists have a high prevalence of low back pain (LBP). The association between physiotherapy students, who are potentially exposed to the same LBP occupational risks as graduates, and LBP has never been demonstrated. The objective of the study is to evaluate the association between undergraduate physiotherapy study and LBP. The study design includes a cross-sectional study. A questionnaire-based study was carried out with physiotherapy and medical students. LBP was measured as lifetime, 1-year and point prevalence. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to find the factors associated with LBP. Bivariate analyses were also performed to assess differences between LBP characteristics in the two courses. 77.9% of the students had LBP at some point in their lives, 66.8% in the last year and 14.4% of them reported they were suffering from LBP at the moment of answering the questionnaire. Physiotherapy students reported a higher prevalence of LBP when compared with the medical students in all measures. In the logistic regression model, physiotherapy students (A-OR 2.51; 95% CI 1.35–4.67; p = 0.003), and being exposed to the undergraduate study for more than four semesters (A-OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.43–4.55; p = 0.001) were independently associated with LBP. There were no differences between the courses concerning pain intensity and disability. As it was a cross-sectional study, we were not able to observe accurately if there is an increasing incidence of LBP during the course. Also, we did not intend to identify which activities in the course were associated with the development of LBP. This study clearly demonstrated an association between undergraduate physiotherapy study and LBP. The length of course exposure is also associated with LBP.     

How is recovery from low back pain measured? A systematic review of the literature

Recovery is commonly used as an outcome measure in low back pain (LBP) research. There is, however, no accepted definition of what recovery involves or guidance as to how it should be measured. The objective of the study was designed to appraise the LBP literature from the last 10 years to review the methods used to measure recovery. The research design includes electronic searches of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane database of clinical trials and PEDro from the beginning of 1999 to December 2008. All prospective studies of subjects with non-specific LBP that measured recovery as an outcome were included. The way in which recovery was measured was extracted and categorised according to the domain used to assess recovery. Eighty-two included studies used 66 different measures of recovery. Fifty-nine of the measures did not appear in more than one study. Seventeen measures used pain as a proxy for recovery, seven used disability or function and seventeen were based on a combination of two or more constructs. There were nine single-item recovery rating scales. Eleven studies used a global change scale that included an anchor of ‘completely recovered’. Three measures used return to work as the recovery criterion, two used time to insurance claim closure and six used physical performance. In conclusion, almost every study that measured recovery from LBP in the last 10 years did so differently. This lack of consistency makes interpretation and comparison of the LBP literature problematic. It is likely that the failure to use a standardised measure of recovery is due to the absence of an established definition, and highlights the need for such a definition in back pain research.     

Center of pressure excursion as a measure of balance performance in patients with non-specific low back pain compared to healthy controls: a systematic review of the literature

Over the past 20 years, the center of pressure (COP) has been commonly used as an index of postural stability in standing. While many studies investigated COP excursions in low back pain patients and healthy individuals, no comprehensive analysis of the reported differences in postural sway pattern exists. Six online databases were systematically searched followed by a manual search of the retrieved papers. The selection criteria comprised papers comparing COP measures derived from bipedal static task conditions on a force-plate of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) sufferers to those of healthy controls. Sixteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity in study designs prevented pooling of the data so only a qualitative data analysis was conducted. The majority of the papers (14/16, 88%) concluded that NSLBP patients have increased COP mean velocity and overall excursion as compared to healthy individuals. This was statistically significant in the majority of studies (11/14, 79%). An increased sway in anteroposterior direction was also observed in NSLBP patients. Patients with NSLBP exhibit greater postural instability than healthy controls, signified by greater COP excursions and a higher mean velocity. While the decreased postural stability in NSLBP sufferers further appears to be associated with the presence of pain, it seems unrelated to the exact location and pain duration. No correlation between the pain intensity and the magnitude of COP excursions could be identified.     

Objective features of sedentary time and light activity differentiate people with low back pain from healthy controls: a pilot study

BACKGROUND CONTEXTPhysical inactivity has been described as both a cause and a consequence of low back pain (LBP) largely based on self-reported measures of daily activity. A better understanding of the connections between routine physical activity and LBP may improve LBP interventions.PURPOSEIn this study, we aim to objectively characterize the free-living physical activity of people with low back pain in comparison to healthy controls using accelerometers, and we aim to derive a set of LBP-specific physical activity minutes thresholds that may be used as targets for future physical activity interventions.STUDY DESIGNCross-sectional.PATIENT SAMPLEA total of 22 low back pain patients and 155 controls.OUTCOME MEASURESAccelerometry derived physical activity measures.METHODSTwenty-two people with LBP were compared to 155 age and gender-matched healthy controls. All subjects wore an ActiGraph accelerometer on the right hip for 7 consecutive days. Accelerometry-based physical activity features (count-per-minute CPM) were derived using Freedson's intervals and physical performance intervals. A random forest machine learning classifier was trained to classify LBP status using a leave-one-out cross-validation procedure. An interpretation algorithm, the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) algorithm was subsequently applied to assess the feature importance and to establish LBP-specific physical activity thresholds.RESULTSThe LBP group reported mild to moderate disability (average ODI=18.5). The random forest classifier identified a set of 8 features (digital biomarkers) that achieved 88.1% accuracy for distinguishing LBP from controls. All of the top distinguishing features were related to differences in the sedentary and light activity ranges (<800 CPM), whereas moderate to vigorous physical activity was not discriminative. In addition, we identified and ranked physical activity thresholds that are associated with LBP prediction that can be used in future studies of physical activity interventions for LBP.CONCLUSIONSWe describe a set of physical activity features from accelerometry data associated with LBP. All of the discriminating features were derived from the sedentary and light activity range. We also identified specific activity intensity minutes thresholds that distinguished LBP subjects from healthy controls. Future examination on the digital markers and thresholds identified through this work can be used to improve physical activity interventions for LBP treatment and prevention by allowing the development of LBP-specific physical activity guidelines.     

An initial application of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for measuring disability in patients with low back pain

Background  

Recent approaches to outcome measurement involving Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) offer an approach for measuring disability in low back pain (LBP) in a way that can reduce the burden upon patient and professional. The aim of this study was to explore the potential of CAT in LBP for measuring disability as defined in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) which includes impairments, activity limitation, and participation restriction.     

Modifying patterns of movement in people with low back pain ¿ does it help? A systematic review

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Physiotherapy for people with low back pain frequently includes assessment and modification of lumbo-pelvic movement. Interventions commonly aim to restore normal movement and thereby reduce pain and improve activity limitation. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate: (i) the effect of movement-based interventions on movement patterns (muscle activation, lumbo-pelvic kinematics or postural patterns) of people with low back pain (LBP), and (ii) the relationship between changes in movement patterns and subsequent changes in pain and activity limitation. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched from inception until January 2012. Randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials of people with LBP were eligible for inclusion. The intervention must have been designed to influence (i) muscle activity patterns, (ii) lumbo-pelvic kinematic patterns or (iii) postural patterns, and included measurement of such deficits before and after treatment, to allow determination of the success of the intervention on the lumbo-pelvic movement. Twelve trials (25% of retrieved studies) met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently identified, assessed and extracted data. The PEDro scale was used to assess method quality. Intervention effects were described using standardised differences between group means and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The included trials showed inconsistent, mostly small to moderate intervention effects on targeted movement patterns. There was considerable heterogeneity in trial design, intervention type and outcome measures. A relationship between changes to movement patterns and improvements in pain or activity limitation was observed in one of six studies on muscle activation patterns, one of four studies that examined the flexion relaxation response pattern and in two of three studies that assessed lumbo-pelvic kinematics or postural characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Movement-based interventions were infrequently effective for changing observable movement patterns. A relationship between changes in movement patterns and improvement in pain or activity limitation was also infrequently observed. No independent studies confirm any observed relationships. Challenges for future research include defining best methods for measuring (i) movement aberrations, (ii) improvements in movements, and (iii) the relationship between changes in how people move and associated changes in other health indicators such as activity limitation.     

Development,validity, and reliability of The Assessment of Pain and Occupational Performance (POP): a new instrument using two dimensions in the investigation of disability in back pain

Background contentQuestionnaires for measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain (LBP) focus on disability and present responses for each question in a predetermined, fixed relationship between “can do/difficulties and pain.” Their design does not permit a separation of the two.PurposeTo present the development of The Assessment of Pain and Occupational Performance (POP) and to evaluate validity and reliability.Study designA prospective, consecutive study of patients investigated by use of the POP.Patient sampleA total of 220 patients participated in the study.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study including 53 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, empirical tests of content and construct validity established the definitive version of the POP. The POP focuses on performance of activities. It is a disease-specific, discriminative assessment instrument designed for patients with back pain (BP) and LBP. Based on a semi-structured interview the POP investigates each of 36 activities in two dimensions, with separate, defined scales from “normally healthy” to “extremes” for level of activity (x-scale) and pain intensity (y-scale). The final scores are expressed in percent, 0% to 100%. Patients with chronic LBP (CLBP) (n=142) were allocated to the specific (S) group, that is, patients with specific LBP problems (n=97) or to the nonspecific (NS) group, that is, those with NS BP (n=45). The ability of the POP to differentiate between the two known groups was evaluated. Construct–convergent validity between the POP and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was carried out for the S group. Inter-rater reliability was established between six pairs of raters who examined 25 patients recruited from primary health care, the P-LBP group.ResultsIn construct known group validity, the median, the interquartile range, and the Mann-Whitney U test showed that the S group had a significantly higher level of activity (p<.001) combined with worse pain (p=.001) compared with the NS group. There were significant differences between the two groups in performing activities in the forward bending position (10 items) and in the upright standing position (9 items). The result of Spearman rank order correlation showed a strong relationship between the ODI and the POP for level of activity (r=0.70, p≤.001). The multiple correlation coefficient between the total score of the ODI (10 items) and the total score of the POP (36 items) was r=0.72 and p≤.001. Inter-rater reliability—the standard deviation of the differences was less than 1 point (scale 0–5). A Bland–Altman plot showed the mean differences for the level of activity of the dressing/undressing item. The average percentage agreement was 80% on the x- and y-scales. In POP 36, the average Kappa for level of activity was 0.79, which is good agreement, and for pain 0.84, which is very good agreement.ConclusionThe construction of the POP allows the patient to count, and the occupational therapist to investigate, from full level of activity to avoidance and from no pain to worst imaginable pain for each physically loaded task in personal activities of daily living (ADL), transfer/transport, instrumental ADL, and social activities. The POP can differentiate between groups concerning level of activity and pain, and appears to be a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating LBP. The POP should be considered for use in both clinical and research applications.     

An educational approach based on a non-injury model compared with individual symptom-based physical training in chronic LBP. A pragmatic, randomised trial with a one-year follow-up

Background  

In the treatment of chronic back pain, cognitive methods are attracting increased attention due to evidence of effectiveness similar to that of traditional therapies. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of performing a cognitive intervention based on a non-injury model with that of a symptom-based physical training method on the outcomes of low back pain (LBP), activity limitation, LBP attitudes (fear-avoidance beliefs and back beliefs), physical activity levels, sick leave, and quality of life, in chronic LBP patients.     

Heavy domestic,but not recreational,physical activity is associated with low back pain: Australian Twin low BACK pain (AUTBACK) study

Purpose

To evaluate the association between domestic and recreational physical activity (PA) and low back pain (LBP) after adjusting for genetic and environmental influences.

Methods

Twins were recruited through the Australian twin registry. LBP prevalence and domestic (vigorous gardening/heavy yard work) and recreational (light walking, moderate/vigorous) PA were assessed by a validated questionnaire. Associations were analysed using a cross-sectional analysis of the complete sample of 486 twins, including a matched case–control analysis of 69 twin pairs discordant for LBP. Logistic regression and the lincom post-estimation method were used for the analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results

The case–control analysis showed that LBP was significantly associated with heavy domestic PA (OR 2.88, 95 % CI 1.29–6.43), whereas no significant association was found with any form of recreational PA. The results of the lincom command indicated that being engaged in both heavy domestic and recreational PA (light walking or moderate/vigorous) was associated with a significantly increased probability of LBP compared with being engaged only in recreational PA (light walking or moderate/vigorous, ORs 3.48–4.22). Using the whole sample, we found weaker associations but in the same direction.

Conclusions

We found evidence that heavy domestic PA is associated with an increased probability of LBP, and the combination of heavy domestic and recreational PA might increase the probability of LBP more so than heavy domestic or recreational PA alone. Associations being greater when using the co-twin case–control analysis indicate that genetic and environmental factors influence the relationship between PA and LBP, and demonstrate the value of a twin design.     

Prognosis of chronic low back pain in patients presenting to a private community-based group exercise program

Purpose

To examine the prognosis and prognostic factors for patients with chronic low back pain presenting to a private, community-based, group exercise program.

Methods

A total of 118 consecutive patients with chronic LBP were recruited. Baseline assessments included socio-demographic characteristics, back pain history and clinical examination findings. Primary outcome measures were pain intensity and disability at 3, 6 and 12 months. Potential prognostic factors to predict pain intensity and disability at 12 months were assessed using a multivariate regression model.

Results

112 (95 %) participants were followed up at 12 months. The majority of participants were female (73 %), had high educational levels (82 %) and resided in suburbs with a high socio-economic status (99 %). Pain intensity improved markedly during the first 6 months (35 %) with further minimal reductions up to 12 months (39 %). Interestingly, disability improved to a greater degree than pain (48 % improvement at 6 months) and continued to improve throughout the 12 months (60 %). Baseline pain intensity accounted for 10 % of the variance in the 1 year pain outcomes. Duration of current episode, baseline disability and educational level accounted for 15 % of the variation in disability at 12 months.

Conclusions

During a period of 12 months, patients with chronic LBP presenting to a private, community-based, group exercise program improved markedly, with greater improvements in disability than pain. The predictors investigated accounted for only 10 and 15 % of pain and disability outcomes, respectively.     

The prognostic value of catastrophizing for predicting the clinical evolution of low back pain patients: a study in routine clinical practice within the Spanish National Health Service

Background contextExperimental studies suggest that catastrophizing may worsen the prognosis of low back pain (LBP) and LBP-related disability and increase the risk of chronicity.PurposeTo assess the prognostic value of baseline catastrophizing for predicting the clinical evolution of LBP patients in routine clinical practice and the association between the evolution of pain and catastrophizing.Study design/settingProspective study in routine clinical practice of the Spanish National Health Service.Patient sampleOne thousand four hundred twenty-two acute and chronic adult LBP patients treated in primary and hospital care.Outcome measuresPain, disability, and catastrophizing measured through validated instruments.MethodsPatients were managed according to routine clinical practice. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 3 months later. Logistic regression models were developed to estimate the association between baseline catastrophizing score and the improvement of LBP and disability, adjusting for baseline LBP and leg pain (LP) severity, disability, duration of the pain episode, workers' compensation coverage, radiological findings, failed back surgery, and diagnostic procedures and treatments undertaken throughout the study. Another model was developed to estimate the association between the evolution of LBP and the change in catastrophizing, adjusting for the same possible confounders plus the evolution of LP and disability. Models were repeated excluding the treatments undergone after the baseline assessment.ResultsRegression models showed that the degree of baseline catastrophizing does not predict the evolution of LBP and disability. Conversely, as the degree of pain improvement increases, so does the odds ratio for improvement in catastrophizing, ranging from three (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.00–4.50; p<.001) for improvements in pain between 1.1 and 4 visual analog scale (VAS) points, to 7.3 (95% CI, 3.49–15.36; p<.001) for improvements in pain more than 6.1 VAS points. Similar results were obtained when treatments were excluded from the models.ConclusionsIn routine practice, assessing the baseline score for catastrophizing does not help clinicians to predict the evolution of LBP and disability at 3 months.