Roland And Morris Disability Questionnaire Research Articles

Unilateral biportal endoscopy vs. open decompression for lumbar epidural lipomatosis-cohort study using a prospective registry.

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopy, unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression (UBE-ULBD), and open lumbar decompression (OLD) in patients with lumbar epidural lipomatosis (LEL). This prospective observational study was conducted from March 2019 to May 2022 and encompassed 33 patients with LEL who underwent lumbar decompression. The study included 15 cases of UBE-ULBD decompression and 18 cases of open decompression, which were followed up for 1 year. The baseline characteristics, initial clinical manifestations, and surgical details [including estimated blood loss (EBL) and preoperative complications] of all patients were recorded. Radiographic evaluation included the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the thecal sac and paraspinal muscles on MRI. Clinical results were analyzed using the Short Form-36 Score (SF-36), the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS) for lumbar and leg pain, creatine kinase, the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The dural sac CSA increased considerably at the 1-year postoperative follow-up in both groups (p < 0.001). The operative duration in the OLD group (48.2 ± 7.2 min) was shorter than that in the UBE-ULBD group (67.7 ± 6.3 min, p < 0.001). The OLD group (97.2 ± 19.8 mL) was associated with more EBL than the UBE-ULBD group (40.6 ± 13.6 mL, p < 0.001). The duration of hospitalization in the OLD group (5.4 ± 1.3 days) was significantly longer compared with the UBE-ULBD group (3.5 ± 1.2 days, p < 0.01). The SF-36, NRS, RMDQ, and ODI scores improved in both groups postoperatively (p < 0.001). Serum creatine kinase values in the UBE-ULBD group (101.7 ± 15.5) were significantly lower than those in the OLD group (330.8 ± 28.1 U/L) 1 day after surgery (p < 0.001). The degree of paraspinal muscle atrophy in the UBE-ULBD group (4.81 ± 1.94) was significantly lower than that in the OLD group (12.15 ± 6.99) at 1 year (p < 0.001). UBE-ULBD and OLD demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes in treating LEL. However, UBE-ULBD surgery was associated with shorter hospital stays, lower rates of incision infection, lighter paravertebral muscle injury, and lower EBL than OLD surgery. Consequently, UBE-ULBD can be recommended in patients with LEL if conservative treatment fails.

Effectiveness of Radial Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy in Patients with Acute Low Back Pain-Randomized Controlled Trial.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy (rESWT) primarily on acute lumbar back pain (aLBP), and secondarily on physical function and quality of life. This randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blinded trial with 12-week follow-up (FU) randomized 63 patients with aLBP 1:1 into two groups receiving either rESWT (intervention) or sham rESWT (placebo) with a manipulated shockwave head not delivering any shockwaves. Both, rESWT and sham procedure were carried out eight times for four weeks. Both groups received additional analgesics and physiotherapy twice a week. Primary patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) was the visual analogue scale for aLBP (VAS-LBP). Secondary PROMs included the Oswestry disability index (ODI), Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), EuroQol EQ-5D-3L, and the Beck Depression Index (BDI-II). Primary endpoint was a between-arm comparison of mean changes in VAS-LBP from baseline to final FU. At randomization, there were no differences between the two groups in relation to age and PROMs. Both groups showed significant improvement in all PROMs at final FU. VAS-LBP declined by 60.7% (p < 0.001) in the intervention and by 86.4% (p < 0.001) in the sham group. The intervention group showed significantly less pain relief after 4 and 12 weeks. The EQ-5D submodality pain showed significantly inferior results for the intervention (1.5 (0.58)) compared to the sham group (1.1 (0.33)) (p < 0.014) after eight weeks. No significant intergroup differences were observed for RDQ, ODI or BDI-II. Additional rESWT alongside conventional guideline therapy in aLBP does not have any significant effects on pain intensity, physical function, or quality of life. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study with a high level of evidence reporting the efficacy of rESWT in aLBP treatment and will be a future basis for decision-making.

Use of a Spinal Thermal Massage Device for Anti-oxidative Function and Pain Alleviation.

Background: Elderly people are vulnerable to a variety of diseases, including chronic pain, which reduces their levels of physical fitness. Thermal massage has been shown to relieve pain and activate antioxidant enzymes. The objective of this study was to determine whether thermal massaging of the spinal column can reduce muscle pain and induce antioxidant function.Methods: This study included participants aged ≥60 years with lower back pain. The participants were assigned to either an experimental group who received spinal column thermal massage and standard rehabilitative treatment or a control group who received standard rehabilitative treatment only. Data from a total of 116 participants (61 and 55 in the control and experimental groups, respectively) were used for analysis. Participants were assessed before treatment and at 4 (POST1) and 8 weeks (POST2) post-treatment, using a pain numeric rating scale (PNRS) and the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and by measuring the serum levels of superoxide dismutase (SOD), serum glutathione-peroxidase (GPx), and serum catalase (CAT).Results: The extent of pain reduction, as measured by the PNRS, was greater in the experimental group. The RMDQ score in the control group decreased at POST1, but the decrease was not maintained at POST2, whereas the decrease in POST1 in the experimental group continued until POST2. SOD concentrations were significantly higher in the experimental group at POST1 and POST2, and GPx levels were significantly higher in the experimental group at POST2; however, there were no changes in CAT concentrations. Incidentally, there was a significant correlation between antioxidant activity and pain perception in the experimental group.Conclusions: The study findings suggest that spinal column thermal massage reduces pain more effectively, improves self-reported levels of disability, and increases the antioxidant enzyme levels. Thermal massage may, therefore, be useful in the prevention and treatment of diseases associated with oxidation.

Community Pharmacist’s Role in Detecting Low Back Pain, and Patient Attitudes—A Cross-Sectional Observational Study in Italian Community Pharmacies

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most frequent diseases for which patients seek advice in a community pharmacy. The study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of the administration by community pharmacists of questionnaires to assess the LBP intensity and disability degree in patients entering community pharmacies and the attitudes they have toward pain management by pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. Methods: An explorative, cross-sectional, observational, and quantitative study was performed. Twelve Italian community pharmacists were asked to submit a questionnaire on LBP to patients visiting their pharmacies. The questionnaire included a pain intensity scale, and two validated tools: the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Start Back Screening Tool (SBST) to determine the degree and risk of patient disability, respectively. Results: 872 patients filled out the questionnaires in 6 months. No statistical differences between genders (p > 0.30) were recorded for pain intensity (Female: median score 6, IQR 4–7; Male: median scores 5, IQR 4–7; p > 0.30) and disability associated with LBP (RMDQ high-disability level: Females, 14.7%, Males, 15.0%; p > 0.90). Most of the patients (69%) reported a low degree of disability, but the risk of disability was medium and high in 36% and 18% of them, respectively (p < 0.05). About 14% of patients declare to never seek for physician’s advice despite their medium-high degree of disability. Conclusion: The study demonstrated the feasibility of validated tools for assessing the degree and risk of disability in LBP patients administrable in community pharmacies. Moreover, the community pharmacy resulted in an important care portal for patients suffering from moderate LBP and for intercepting patients who suffered from severe LBP but had never reported their problem to their physician.

Influence of Paravertebral Muscle Quality on Treatment Efficacy of Epidural Steroid Infiltration or Surgical Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis-Analysis of the Lumbar Spinal Outcome Study (LSOS) Data: A Swiss Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

Prospective multicenter cohort study. To study the question whether paravertebral muscle quality may affect the clinical outcome of epidural steroid infiltration (ESI) or surgical decompression in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). To the present, the impact of paravertebral muscle quality on clinical outcome of ESI or surgical decompression in patients with LSS has not been clarified. The Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study was used as database. Patients with symptomatic LSS who received an ESI (group I) or lumbar decompression surgery (group II), had a follow-up of at least 12 months and a pretreatment lumbar magnetic resonance imaging were included (n = 205). Paravertebral muscle quality was quantified by the degree of fatty degeneration (according to Goutallier) on the level L3. Clinical outcome was assessed using the Spinal Stenosis Measure, Numeric Rating Scale, Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire, and EQ-5D-3L sum score. Reinfiltration, surgery following infiltration, or revision was defined as treatment failure. ESI (group I) and surgical treatment (group II) were associated with a failure rate of 60% and 12.7%, respectively. In group I, there was a tendency for the rate of reintervention to be less in patients with bad muscle quality (P = 0.22). In group II, improvements in the clinical outcomes up to 12 months did not differ between Goutallier stage ≤1 and ≥2. Patients with Goutallier stage ≤1 had more improvement in Spinal Stenosis Measure symptoms (P = 0.04). Relevant fatty degeneration of the paravertebral musculature, as a sign of low muscle quality, has low impact on clinical outcome and the high failure rates with conservative treatment by ESI compared to surgical decompression. Therefore fatty degeneration has no relevant prognostic value for LSS treatment. 2.

Whole-body vibration training as a workplace-based sports activity for employees with chronic low-back pain.

The goal of this randomized and controlled study was to examine whether whole-body vibration (WBV) training is able to reduce back pain and physical disability in seated working office employees with chronic low-back pain in a real-world setting. A total of 41 subjects (68.3% female/mean age 45.5±9.1years/mean BMI 26.6±5.2) were randomly allocated to an intervention group (INT [n=21]) or a control group (CON [n=20]). The INT participated in WBV training 2.5 times per week for 3months. The primary outcome was the change in the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire (RMQ) score over the study period. In addition, secondary outcomes included changes in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Work Ability Index Questionnaire, the quality of life questionnaire SF-36, the Freiburger activity questionnaire, and an isokinetic test of the musculature of the trunk. Compliance with the intervention in the INT reached a mean of 81.1%±31.2% with no long-lasting unwanted side effects. We found significant positive effects of 3months of WBV training in the INT compared to the CON regarding the RMQ (P=.027), the ODI (P=.002), the SF-36 (P=.013), the Freiburger activity questionnaire (P=.022), the post-interventional sick-leave in the INT (P=.008), and trends regarding a positive effect of the intervention on the muscular capacity of the muscles of the trunk in flexion. WBV training seems to be an effective, safe, and suitable intervention for seated working employees with chronic low-back pain.

Short-term effect on pain and function of neurophysiological education and sensorimotor retraining compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with chronic or recurrent non-specific low back pain, a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background: Non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) is a major health problem. Identification of subgroups and appropriate treatment regimen was proposed as a key priority by the Cochrane Back Review Group. We developed a multimodal treatment (MMT) for patients with moderate to severe disability and medium risk of poor outcome. MMT includes a) neurophysiological education on the perception of pain to decrease self-limitation due to catastrophizing believes about the nature of NSCLBP, b) sensory training of the lower trunk because these patients predominantly show poor sensory acuity of the trunk, and c) motor training to regain definite movement control of the trunk. A pilot study was conducted to investigate the feasibility of MMT, prior to a larger RCT, with focus on patients’ adherence and the evaluation of short-term effects on pain and disability of MMT when compared to usual physiotherapy. Method: We conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in a primary care physiotherapy centre in Switzerland. Outcome assessment was 12 weeks after baseline. Patients with NSCLBP, considerable disability (five or more points on the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and medium or high risk of poor outcome on the Keele Start Back Tool (KSBT) were randomly allocated to either MMT or usual physiotherapy treatment (UPT) by an independent research assistant. Treatment included up to 16 sessions over 8 to 12 weeks. Both groups were given additional home training of 10 to 30 minutes to be performed five times per week. Adherence to treatment was evaluated in order to assess the feasibility of the treatment. Assessments were conducted by an independent blinded person. The primary outcome was pain (NRS 0-10) and the secondary outcome was disability (RMDQ). Between-group effects with Student’s t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test and the standardized mean difference of the primary outcome were calculated. (Continued on next page)

The impact of incidental durotomy on the outcome of decompression surgery in degenerative lumbar spinal canal stenosis: analysis of the Lumbar Spinal Outcome Study (LSOS) data--a Swiss prospective multi-center cohort study.

BackgroundIncidental durotomy is a well-known complication during surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). In this prospective multicenter cohort study including eight medical centers our aim was to assess whether incidental durotomy during first-time lumbar spinal stenosis decompression surgery without fusion has an impact on long-term outcome.MethodsPatients of the multi-center Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS) with confirmed DLSS undergoing first-time decompression without fusion were enrolled in this study. Baseline patient characteristics and outcomes were analyzed at 6, 12, and 24 months follow-up respectively with the Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM), the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Feeling Thermometer (FT), the EQ-5D-EL, and the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ).ResultsA total of 167 patients met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen (9 %) of those patients had an incidental durotomy. Baseline characteristics were similar between the durotomy and no-durotomy group. All patients improved over time. In the group of durotomy patients, the median improvement in SSM symptoms scale was 1.1 points at 6 months, 1.1 points at 12 months, and 1.6 points at 24 months after baseline. For the no-durotomy group, these improvements were 0.8, 0.9, and 0.9. For SSM function the improvements were 1.0, 0.8, and 0.9 in the durotomy group, and 0.6, 0.8, and 0.8 in the no-durotomy group. None of the between-group differences were statistically significant.ConclusionsIncidental durotomy in patients with DLSS undergoing first-time decompression surgery without fusion did not have negative effect on long-term outcome and quality of life. However, only 15 patients were included in the durotomy group but these findings remained even after adjusting for observed differences in baseline characteristics.

The Impact of Obesity on the Outcome of Decompression Surgery in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis: Analysis of the Lumbar Spinal Outcome Study (LSOS): A Swiss Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

Prospective, multicenter cohort study including 8 medical centers of the Cantons Zurich, Lucerne, and Thurgau, Switzerland. The aim of the study was to assess whether obese patients benefit after decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Lumbar decompression surgery has been shown to improve quality of life in patients with DLSS. In the existing literature, the efficacy of lumbar decompression in the obese population remains controversial. Baseline patient characteristics and outcomes were analyzed at 6 and 12 months follow-up with the Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM), the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Feeling Thermometer (FT), the EQ-5D-EL, and the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Body mass index (BMI) was classified into 3 categories according to the WHO. Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) in SSM for different BMI categories were considered as main outcome. Of the 656 patients in the Lumbar Spinal Outcome Study database as of end of October 2014, 166 patients met the inclusion criteria. Fifty (30.1%) had a BMI less than 25 (underweight and normal weight group), 72 (43.4%) had a BMI between 25 and less than 30 (preobesity group), and 44 (26.5%) patients had a BMI at least 30 (obese group). We found for the main outcome that in obese patients 36% reached MCID at 6 months, and 48% at 12 months. The estimated odds ratios for MCID in the obese group were 0.78 (0.34-1.82) at 6 months and 0.99 (0.44-2.23) at 12 months in a logistic regression model adjusting for levels of laminectomy. In the additional outcomes, SSM, NRS, FT, and RMDQ showed statistically significant mean improvements in the 6 and 12 months follow-up. Obese patients can expect clinical improvement after lumbar decompression for DLSS, but the percentage of patients with a meaningful improvement is lower than in the group of patients with underweight, normal weight, and preobese weight at 6 and 12 months.

Short-term effect on pain and function of neurophysiological education and sensorimotor retraining compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with chronic or recurrent non-specific low back pain, a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundNon-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) is a major health problem. Identification of subgroups and appropriate treatment regimen was proposed as a key priority by the Cochrane Back Review Group. We developed a multimodal treatment (MMT) for patients with moderate to severe disability and medium risk of poor outcome. MMT includes a) neurophysiological education on the perception of pain to decrease self-limitation due to catastrophizing believes about the nature of NSCLBP, b) sensory training of the lower trunk because these patients predominantly show poor sensory acuity of the trunk, and c) motor training to regain definite movement control of the trunk.A pilot study was conducted to investigate the feasibility of MMT, prior to a larger RCT, with focus on patients’ adherence and the evaluation of short-term effects on pain and disability of MMT when compared to usual physiotherapy.MethodWe conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in a primary care physiotherapy centre in Switzerland. Outcome assessment was 12 weeks after baseline. Patients with NSCLBP, considerable disability (five or more points on the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and medium or high risk of poor outcome on the Keele Start Back Tool (KSBT) were randomly allocated to either MMT or usual physiotherapy treatment (UPT) by an independent research assistant. Treatment included up to 16 sessions over 8 to 12 weeks. Both groups were given additional home training of 10 to 30 minutes to be performed five times per week. Adherence to treatment was evaluated in order to assess the feasibility of the treatment. Assessments were conducted by an independent blinded person. The primary outcome was pain (NRS 0-10) and the secondary outcome was disability (RMDQ). Between-group effects with Student’s t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test and the standardized mean difference of the primary outcome were calculated.ResultsTwenty-eight patients (46% male, mean age 41.5 years (SD 10.6)) were randomized to MMT (n = 14) or UPT (n = 14). Patients’ adherence to treatment was >80% in both groups. Pain reduction (NRS; [95% CI]) was 2.14 [1.0 to 3.5] in the MMT and 0.69 [-2.0 to 2.5.] in the UPT. The between-group difference was 1.45 [0.0 to 4.0] (p = 0.03), representing a moderate effect size of 0.66 [-0.1 to 1.5]. Reduction in disability on the RMDQ was 6.71 [4.2 to 9.3] in MMT and 4.69 [1.9 to 7.4] in UPT, with a non-significant between-group difference of 2.02 [-1.5 to 5.6] (p = 0.25). The required sample size for a RCT with six months follow-up was estimated at 170 patients.ConclusionsMMT was found to be feasible and to significantly reduce pain in the short term when compared with UPT. A future RCT with a six-month follow-up would require approximately 170 patients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN66262199. Registered 8 January 2014.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0533-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Should General Practitioners Issue a Sick Certificate to Employees Who Consult for Low Back Pain in Primary Care?

Purpose Back pain is a common problem and has significant societal impact. Sickness certification is commonly issued to patients consulting their general practitioner with low back pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the association of certification for low back pain with clinical outcomes and cost consequences. Methods A prospective cohort study using linked questionnaire and medical record data from 806 low back pain patients in 8 UK general practices: comparison of 116 (14.4 %) who received a sickness certificate versus 690 who did not receive certification. The primary clinical measure was the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Data on back pain consultation and work absenteeism were used to calculate healthcare and societal costs. Results Participants issued a sickness certificate had higher back-related disability at baseline consultation and 6-month follow-up [mean difference 3.1 (95 % CI 1.8, 4.4) on the RMDQ], indicating worse health status. After fully adjusting for baseline differences, most changes in clinical outcomes at 6 months were not significantly different between study groups. Productivity losses were significantly higher for the certification group, with most absence occurring after the expected end of certification; mean difference in costs due to absenteeism over 6 months was £1,956 (95 % CI £941, £3040). Conclusions There was no clear evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes between individuals issued a sickness certificate and those not issued a certification for their back pain. With little overall contrast in clinical outcomes, policy makers and care providers may wish to draw on the likely difference in societal costs alongside issues in ethical and moral care in their consideration of patient care for low back pain.

Patterns of interaction between factors that enhance or inhibit recovery from chronic low back pain

Purpose: This interview study aimed to capture an account of change in low back pain over time and understand the interaction of known bio-psychosocial risk factors. Methods: Thirty-four participants from the Back Skills Training (BeST) UK trial, evaluating a cognitive behavioural approach intervention for LBP, gave 61 interviews. Semi-structured interviews taken once or twice post intervention explored participants’ experiences of LBP and the intervention received. Initial thematic analysis of the data gave themes, which participants spoke about in an integrated way. Rereading of whole transcripts identified interactions between themes, which we classified as helpful or unhelpful to recovery. The team also explored whether there were correlations with Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) scores from the main trial. Results: Web diagrams gave a graphic representation of the interactions between factors, which were highly individual and time specific. We identified three categories of webs; dense web (mostly unhelpful), open web (helpful and unhelpful) and sparse web (mostly helpful). These categories correlated with (RMDQ) scores. Conclusions: Facilitators as well as potential barriers to recovery give added insight when considering psychosocial risk factors. Web categories highlight patterns of interaction between psychosocial factors, which underlie levels of disability. These patterns of interaction may help to guide clinicians in their choice of treatment approaches.Implications for RehabilitationLow Back PainLBP is common and poor outcome is more likely in the presence of psychosocial factors and co-morbidity.Interaction between these factors can be helpful and/or unhelpful, reinforcing or minimising negative or positive effects.Identifying patterns of interaction between these factors can help clinicians to choose appropriate treatment strategies to address these patterns.

Ability to Discriminate Between Healthy and Low Back Pain Sufferers Using Ultrasound During Maximum Lumbar Extension

ObjectiveTo analyze the ability to discriminate between healthy individuals and individuals with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) by measuring the relation between patient-reported outcomes and objective clinical outcome measures of the erector spinae (ES) muscles using an ultrasound during maximal isometric lumbar extension. DesignCross-sectional study with screening and diagnostic tests with no blinded comparison. SettingUniversity laboratory. ParticipantsHealthy individuals (n=33) and individuals with CNLBP (n=33). InterventionsEach subject performed an isometric lumbar extension. With the variables measured, a discriminate analysis was performed using a value ≥6 in the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ) as the grouping variable. Then, a logistic regression with the functional and architectural variables was performed. A new index was obtained from each subject value input in the discriminate multivariate analysis. Main Outcome MeasuresMorphologic muscle variables of the ES muscle were measured through ultrasound images. The reliability of the measures was calculated through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The relation between patient-reported outcomes and objective clinical outcome measures was analyzed using a discriminate function from standardized values of the variables and an analysis of the reliability of the ultrasound measurement. ResultsThe reliability tests show an ICC value >.95 for morphologic and functional variables. The independent variables included in the analysis explained 42% (P=.003) of the dependent variable variance. ConclusionsThe relation between objective variables (electromyography, thickness, pennation angle) and a subjective variable (RMDQ ≥6) and the capacity of this relation to identify CNLBP within a group of healthy subjects is moderate. These results should be considered by clinicians when treating this type of patient in clinical practice.

Trunk Balance is Important to an Exercise Routine in Patients with Specific Low Back Pain

Objective : The aim of the study is to investigate whether trunk balance exercises show any reduction in pain and disability and improvement in flexibility in individuals with specific low back pain. Background : The majority of exercises focusing on restoring lumbopelvic stability propose tar-geting the feedforward control of the lumbopelvic region. Less attention has been paid to feedback control during balance adjustments. Stability of the lumbar intervertebral segments is provided by osseous and ligamentous restraints. However, without the influence of neuromuscular control, the segments are inherently unstable upon the movement. Therefore, a combination of muscle forces and passive structures are utilized to dynamically stabilize the spine. Study design : Randomized Clinical Trial Setting: MMIPR, Mullana (Ambala) Method : Thirty patients were randomly allocated to 2 different groups. The experimental group performed trunk balance exercises in addition to conventional physiotherapy. The control group get only conventional physiotherapy. The primary outcome measures were numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Modified Schober's test. Results : A significant difference in scores on the NPRS (p = 0.002), RMDQ (p = .04) and trunk flexibility (p = 0.00) were found in favor of the experimental treatment. Trunk balance exercise group (Group A) showed a significant difference in outcome measures as compared to conventional group (Group B). Conclusion : Statistically and clinically the results suggests that trunk balance exercises are more effective than conventional treatment in reducing pain and disability and increasing flexibility in specific low back pain patients.

Professional Kinesiology Practice for Chronic Low Back Pain: Single-Blind, Randomised Controlled Pilot Study

Background: Chronic low back pain is a highly prevalent condition with no definitive treatment. Professional Kinesiology Practice (PKP) is a little known complementary medicine technique using non-standard muscle testing; no previous effectiveness studies have been performed. Methods: This is an exploratory, pragmatic single-blind, 3-arm randomised sham-controlled pilot study with waiting list control (WLC) in private practice UK (2007-2009). 70 participants scoring ≥4 on the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were randomised to real or sham PKP receiving 1 treatment weekly for 5 weeks or a WLC. WLC's were re-randomised to real or sham after 6 weeks. The main outcome was a change in RMDQ from baseline to end of 5 weeks of real or sham PKP. Results: With an effect size of 0.7 real treatment was significantly different to sham (mean difference RMDQ score = -2.9, p = 0.04, 95% CI -5.8 to -0.1). Compared to WLC, real and sham groups had significant RMDQ improvements (real -9.0, p < 0.01, 95% CI -12.1 to -5.8; effect size 2.1; sham -6.1, p < 0.01, 95% CI -9.1 to -3.1; effect size 1.4). Practitioner empathy (CARE) and patient enablement (PEI) did not predict outcome; holistic health beliefs (CAMBI) did, though. The sham treatment appeared credible; patients did not guess treatment allocation. 3 patients reported minor adverse reactions. Conclusions: Real treatment was significantly different from sham demonstrating a moderate specific effect of PKP; both were better than WLC indicating a substantial non-specific and contextual treatment effect. A larger definitive study would be appropriate with nested qualitative work to help understand the mechanisms involved in PKP.

Targeted physiotherapy treatment for low back pain based on clinical risk can improve clinical and economic outcomes when compared with current best practice

Does a stratified primary care approach for patients with low back pain result in clinical and economic benefits when compared with current best practice? A randomised, controlled trial with stratification for three risk groups and a targeted treatment according to the risk profile. Group allocation was carried out by computer-generated block randomisation in a 2:1 ratio. Ten general practices in England. Men and women at least 18 years old with low back pain of any duration, with or without associated radiculopathy. Exclusion criteria were potentially serious disorders, serious illness or comorbidity, spinal surgery in the past 6 months, pregnancy, and receiving back treatments (except primary care). In the intervention group decisions about referral to risk group were made by use of the STarT Back Screening Tool. The 30-min assessment and initial treatment focused on promotion of appropriate levels of activity, including return to work, a pamphlet about local exercise venues and self-help groups, the Back Book, and a 15-min educational video Get Back Active. Low-risk patients were only given this clinic session. Medium-risk patients were referred for standardised physiotherapy to address symptoms and function. High-risk patients were referred for psychologically informed physiotherapy to address physical symptoms and function, and psychosocial obstacles to recovery. In the control group a 30-min physiotherapy assessment and initial treatment including advice and exercises was provided, with the option of onward referral to further physiotherapy, based on the physiotherapist's clinical judgement. The 12 months score of Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Secondary measures were referral for further physiotherapy, back pain intensity, pain catastrophising, fear-avoidance beliefs, anxiety, depression, health-related quality of life, reduction of risk-subgroup, global change of pain, number of physiotherapy treatment sessions, adverse events, health-care resource use and costs over 12 months, number of days off work because of back pain, and satisfaction with care. Of 851 patients assigned to the intervention (n=568) and control groups (n=283) a total of 649 completed the 12 months follow-up. Adjusted mean changes in RMDQ scores were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 4 months (4.7 [SD 5.9] vs 3.0 [5.9], between-group difference 1.8 [95% CI 1.6 to 2.6]) and at 12 months (4.3 [6.4] vs 3.3 [6.2], 1.1 [0.6 to 1.9]). At 12 months, stratified care was associated with a mean increase in generic health benefit (0.039 additional QALYs) and cost savings (£240.01 vs £274.40) compared with the control group. There were significant differences in favour of the intervention group in many of the secondary outcomes. A stratified management approach including a prognostic screening and treatment targeting, showed improved clinical and economic benefits when compared with current best practice.

Erratum to: Prevalence of sleep disturbance in patients with low back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is a common, complex and difficult to manage health condition [1]. Approximately, 20% of the adult population experience an episode of LBP at any given time and estimates of lifetime prevalence are around 80% [2]. Despite intensive research, management is only moderately effective [3]. The economic burden of LBP is significant. For example, in the USA health-care expenditure for LBP is more than $90 billion/year [4], in the UK it is $17 billion/year [5] and in Australia $1 billion/year [6]. Most of the costs of LBP are associated with persistent or chronic LBP, i.e. LBP which lasts for more than 3 months [6]. There are several important consequences of LBP including work loss [7], disability and depression [8]. Considerable attention has been applied to understanding and managing these problems [9], often with limited success. Evidence is beginning to accumulate that patients with LBP also report significant problems with their sleep [10, 11]. Poor sleep is known to cause a range of physiological and psychological effects [12]. Over the long term, these effects can become severe and lead to serious health conditions such as depression, obesity, type-2 diabetes, hypertension and coronary artery disease [13, 14]. From a clinical perspective, the presence of sleep problems has implications for the management of LBP. For example, a recent study found that LBP patients who reported sleep disturbance were twice as likely to be hospitalised compared with those who did not [15]. Other research suggests that improved sleep quality might reduce pain and daytime symptoms of patients with arthritis [16]. It is currently unclear how common sleep disturbance is for patients who are seeking care for their LBP, as estimates have been based on either highly selected groups of patients, such as the elderly or those attending specialist pain clinics [17–19], or small samples of chronic LBP patients [7, 20, 21]. These studies are likely to provide prevalence estimates that may not generalise to more heterogeneous samples of patients who are seeking care for their LBP. High quality data on the prevalence of sleep disturbance in this group of patients will determine whether research resources should be directed towards understanding the relationship between these conditions. Differences in prevalence rates between patients with acute or persistent pain may help identify a patient group that is at risk of developing chronic sleep problems. Finally, investigating the relationship between pain intensity and sleep disturbance may provide directions for the design of interventions to manage these conditions. The aim of this study was to investigate sleep disturbance in a large heterogeneous sample of patients seeking care for their LBP. Specifically, we aimed to determine: the prevalence of reported sleep disturbance in people with LBP; whether sleep disturbance in patients seeking care for their LBP was associated with the duration of their LBP symptoms or with pain intensity.

Effectiveness of a 'Global Postural Reeducation' program for persistent Low Back Pain: a non-randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe aim of this non-randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of a Global Postural Reeducation (GPR) program as compared to a Stabilization Exercise (SE) program in subjects with persistent low back pain (LBP) at short- and mid-term follow-up (ie. 3 and 6 months).MethodsAccording to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 100 patients with a primary complaint of persistent LBP were enrolled in the study: 50 were allocated to the GPR group and 50 to the SE group. Primary outcome measures were Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcome measures were lumbar Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Fingertip-to-floor test (FFT). Data were collected at baseline and at 3/6 months by health care professionals unaware of the study. An intention to treat approach was used to analyze participants according to the group to which they were originally assigned.ResultsOf the 100 patients initially included in the study, 78 patients completed the study: 42 in the GPR group and 36 in the SE group. At baseline, the two groups did not differ significantly with respect to gender, age, BMI and outcome measures. Comparing the differences between groups at short- and mid-term follow-up, the GPR group revealed a significant reduction (from baseline) in all outcome measures with respect to the SE group.The ordered logistic regression model showed an increased likelihood of definitive improvement (reduction from baseline of at least 30% in RMDQ and VAS scores) for the GPR group compared to the SE group (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.7 to 5.7).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that a GPR intervention in subjects with persistent LBP induces a greater improvement on pain and disability as compared to a SE program. These results must be confirmed by further studies with higher methodological standards, including randomization, larger sample size, longer follow-up and subgrouping of the LBP subjects.Trial registrationNCT00789204

Improvement in low back movement control, decreased pain and disability, resulting from specific exercise intervention

BackgroundThe study was conducted to assess whether patient-specific functional impairment and experienced daily disability improved after treatment to address active movement control of the low back.MethodA prospective study was carried out in two outpatient physiotherapy practices in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. 38 patients (17 males and 21 females) suffering from non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) and movement control impairment were treated. The study participants had an average age of 45 ± 13 years, an average height of 170 ± 8 cm and an average weight of 73 ± 15 kg. Patients were assessed prior and post treatment. Treatment was aimed at improving movement control of the lumbar spine, pain and disability. Six physiotherapists treated each patient on average nine times (SD 4.6). Treatment effects were evaluated using a set of six movement control tests (MCT), patient-specific functional pain scores (PSFS) and a Roland and Morris disability questionnaire (RMQ). Means, standard deviations, confidence intervals and paired t-tests were calculated. The effect size (d) was based on the change between t1 (time prior intervention) and t2 (time post intervention) using a significance level of p < 0.05, with d > 0.8 being considered a large effect. Power calculations were performed for type I & II error estimation.ResultsMovement control (MCT) showed a 59% improvement from 3.2 (max 6) to 1.3 positive tests (d = 1.3, p < 0.001), complaints (PSFS) decreased 41% from 5.9 points (max 10) to 3.5 (d = 1.3, p < 0.001), and disability (RMQ) decreased 43% from 8.9 to 5.1 points (d = 1.0, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe results of this controlled case series study, based on prior and post intervention, showed that movement control, patient specific functional complaints and disability improved significantly following specific individual exercise programs, performed with physiotherapeutic intervention. The results obtained warrant performance of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to substantiate our findings.

Distinctiveness of psychological obstacles to recovery in low back pain patients in primary care

Many psychological factors have been suggested to be important obstacles to recovery from low back pain, yet most studies focus on a limited number of factors. We compared a more comprehensive range of 20 factors in predicting outcome in primary care. Consecutive patients consulting 8 general practices were eligible to take part in a prospective cohort study; 1591 provided data at baseline and 810 at 6months. Clinical outcome was defined using the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). The relative strength of the baseline psychological measures to predict outcome was investigated using adjusted multiple linear regression techniques. The sample was similar to other primary care cohorts (mean age 44years, 59% women, mean baseline RMDQ 8.6). The 20 factors each accounted for between 0.04% and 33.3% of the variance in baseline RMDQ score. A multivariate model including all 11 scales that were associated with outcome in the univariate analysis accounted for 47.7% of the variance in 6months RMDQ score; rising to 55.8% following adjustment. Four scales remained significantly associated with outcome in the multivariate model explaining 56.6% of the variance: perceptions of personal control, acute/chronic timeline, illness identify and pain self-efficacy. When all independent factors were included, depression, catastrophising and fear avoidance were no longer significant. Thus, a small number of psychological factors are strongly predictive of outcome in primary care low back pain patients. There is clear redundancy in the measurement of psychological factors. These findings should help to focus targeted interventions for back pain in the future.