Chronic Low Back Pain Disorders Research Articles

DOSage of Exercise for chronic low back pain disorders (DOSE): protocol for a systematic review with dose-response network meta-analysis

Chronic low back disorders are the leading cause of direct and indirect healthcare burden globally. Exercise training improves pain intensity, mental health and physical function. However, the optimal prescription variables...

Efficacy of classification-based cognitive functional therapy in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Background: Non-specific chronic low back pain disorders have been proven resistant to change, and there is still a lack of clear evidence for one specific treatment intervention being superior to another.Methods: This randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the efficacy of a behavioural approach to management, classification-based cognitive functional therapy, compared with traditional manual therapy and exercise. Linear mixed models were used to estimate the group differences in treatment effects. Primary outcomes at 12-month follow-up were Oswestry Disability Index and pain intensity, measured with numeric rating scale. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age between 18 and 65 years, diagnosed with non-specific chronic low back pain for >3 months, localized pain from T12 to gluteal folds, provoked with postures, movement and activities. Oswestry Disability Index had to be >14% and pain intensity last 14 days >2/10. A total of 121 patients were randomized to either classification-based cognitive functional therapy group n = 62) or manual therapy and exercise group (n > = 59).Results: The classification-based cognitive functional therapy group displayed significantly superior outcomes to the manual therapy and exercise group, both statistically (p < 0.001) and clinically. For Oswestry Disability Index, the classification-based cognitive functional therapy group improved by 13.7 points, and the manual therapy and exercise group by 5.5 points. For pain intensity, the classification-based cognitive functional therapy improved by 3.2 points, and the manual therapy and exercise group by 1.5 points.Conclusions: The classification-based cognitive functional therapy produced superior outcomes for non-specific chronic low back pain compared with traditional manual therapy and exercise.

Prospective, Randomized, Single‐Blind, Sham Treatment‐Controlled Study of the Safety and Efficacy of an Electromagnetic Field Device for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Study

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of therapeutic electromagnetic fields (TEMF) on chronic low back pain. Secondary objectives included the investigation of the effects of TEMF on psychometric measures. Pain Research center in an Urban Academic Rehabilitation Facility. Prospective, randomized, single-blind, placebo (sham) treatment-controlled design in which participants were evaluated over a 6-week period. A total of 40 subjects were randomly assigned: 20 subjects to 15 milliTESLA (mT) treatment using a prototype electromagnetic field device and 20 to sham treatment. After a 2-week baseline period, eligible individuals were randomized to one of the treatment groups (sham or 15 mT) for six 30-minute treatments over 2 weeks, then a 2-week follow-up period. The primary outcome measure was the self-report of pain severity using a 100 mm visual analog scale collected using a twice daily McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form. Several secondary measures were assessed. Both groups (15 mT and sham) improved over time (P < 0.05). Although groups were similar during the treatment period, treated subjects (TEMF of 15 mT) improved significantly over sham treatment during the 2-week follow-up period (20.5% reduction in pain; F(1,34) = 10.62, P = 0.003). There were no reported serious adverse events. This study demonstrates that TEMF may be an effective and safe modality for the treatment of chronic low back pain disorders. More studies are needed to test this hypothesis.

Differences in Sitting Postures are Associated With Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain Disorders When Patients Are Subclassified

A comparative study. To investigate sitting postures of asymptomatic individuals and nonspecific chronic low back pain (NS-CLBP) patients (pooled and subclassified) and evaluate the importance of subclassification. Currently, little evidence exists to support the hypothesis that CLBP patients sit differently from pain-free controls. Although classifying NS-CLBP patients into homogeneous subgroups has been previously emphasized, no attempts have been made to consider such groupings when examining seated posture. Three angles (sacral tilt, lower lumbar, and upper lumbar) were measured during "usual" and "slumped" sitting in 33 NS-CLBP patients and 34 asymptomatic subjects using an electromagnetic measurement device. Before testing, NS-CLBP patients were subclassified by two blinded clinicians. Twenty patients were classified with a flexion motor control impairment and 13 with an active extension motor control impairment. No differences were found between control and NS-CLBP (pooled) patients during usual sitting. In contrast, analyses based on subclassification revealed that patients classified with an active extension pattern sat more lordotic at the symptomatic lower lumbar spine, whereas patients with a flexion pattern sat more kyphotic, when compared with healthy controls (F = 19.7; df1 = 2, df2 = 63, P < 0.001). Further, NS-CLBP patients had less ability to change their posture when asked to slump from usual sitting (t = 4.2, df = 65; P < 0.001). Differences in usual sitting posture were only revealed when NS-CLBP patients were subclassified. This highlights the importance of subclassifying NS-CLBP patients.

Diagnosis and classification of chronic low back pain disorders: Maladaptive movement and motor control impairments as underlying mechanism

Low back pain (LBP) is a very common but largely self-limiting condition. The problem arises however, when LBP disorders do not resolve beyond normal expected tissue healing time and become chronic. Eighty five percent of chronic low back pain (CLBP) disorders have no known diagnosis leading to a classification of ‘non-specific CLBP’ that leaves a diagnostic and management vacuum. Even when a specific radiological diagnosis is reached the underlying pain mechanism cannot always be assumed. It is now widely accepted that CLBP disorders are multi-factorial in nature. However the presence and dominance of the patho-anatomical, physical, neuro-physiological, psychological and social factors that can influence the disorder is different for each individual. Classification of CLBP pain disorders into sub-groups, based on the mechanism underlying the disorder, is considered critical to ensure appropriate management. It is proposed that three broad sub-groups of CLBP disorders exist. The first group of disorders present where underlying pathological processes drive the pain, and the patients’ motor responses in the disorder are adaptive. A second group of disorders present where psychological and/or social factors represent the primary mechanism underlying the disorder that centrally drives pain, and where the patient's coping and motor control strategies are mal-adaptive in nature. Finally it is proposed that there is a large group of CLBP disorders where patients present with either movement impairments (characterized by pain avoidance behaviour) or control impairments (characterized by pain provocation behaviour). These pain disorders are predominantly mechanically induced and patients typically present with mal-adaptive primary physical and secondary cognitive compensations for their disorders that become a mechanism for ongoing pain. These subjects present either with an excess or deficit in spinal stability, which underlies their pain disorder. For this group, physiotherapy interventions that are specifically directed and classification based, have the potential to impact on both the physical and cognitive drivers of pain leading to resolution of the disorder. Two case studies highlight the different mechanisms involved in patients with movement and control impairment disorder outlining distinct treatment approaches involved for management. Although growing evidence exists to support this approach, further research is required to fully validate it.