Three-year cost analysis of function-centred versus pain-centred inpatient rehabilitation in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain

OBJECTIVE: To compare costs of function- and pain-centred inpatient treatment in patients with chronic low back pain over 3 years of follow-up. DESIGN: Cost analysis of a randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: A total of 174 patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to function- or pain-centred inpatient treatment. METHODS: Data on direct and indirect costs were gathered by questionnaires sent to patients, health insurance providers, employers, and the Swiss Disability Insurance Company. RESULTS: There was a non-significant difference in total medical costs after 3 years' follow-up. Total costs were 77,305 Euros in the function-centred inpatient treatment group and 83,085 Euros in the pain-centred inpatient treatment group. Likewise, indirect costs after 3 years from lost work days were non-significantly lower in the function-centred in-patient treatment group (6354 Euros; 95% confidence interval -20,892, 8392) and direct medical costs were non-significantly higher in the function-centred inpatient treatment group (574 Euros; 95% confidence interval -862, 2011). CONCLUSION: The total costs of function-centred and pain-centred inpatient treatment were similar over the whole 3-year follow-up.

Coping resources in a sample of chronic low back pain patients: Evaluation of the questionnaire for back pain

BACKGROUND The coping resources questionnaire for back pain (FBR) uses 12 items to measure the perceived helpfulness of different coping resources (CRs, social emotional support, practical help, knowledge, movement and relaxation, leisure and pleasure, spirituality and cognitive strategies). The aim of the study was to evaluate the instrument in a clinical patient sample assessed in a primary care setting. SAMPLE AND METHODS The study was a secondary evaluation of empirical data from a large cohort study in general practices. The 58 participating primary care practices recruited patients who reported chronic back pain in the consultation. Besides the FBR and a pain sketch, the patients completed scales measuring depression, anxiety, resilience, sociodemographic factors and pain characteristics. To allow computing of retested parameters the FBR was sent to some of the original participants again after 6 months (90% response rate). We calculated consistency and retest reliability coefficients as well as correlations between the FBR subscales and depression, anxiety and resilience scores to account for validity. By means of a cluster analysis groups with different resource profiles were formed. Results. RESULTS For the study 609 complete FBR baseline data sets could be used for statistical analysis. The internal consistency scores ranged fromα=0.58 to α=0.78 and retest reliability scores were between rTT=0.41 and rTT=0.63. Correlation with depression, fear and resilience ranged from r=-0.38 to r=0.42. The cluster analysis resulted in four groups with relatively homogenous intragroup profiles (high CRs, low spirituality, medium CRs, low CRs). The four groups differed significantly in fear and depression (the more inefficient the resources the higher the difference) as well as in resilience (the more inefficient the lower the difference). The group with low CRs also reported permanent pain with no relief. The groups did not otherwise differ. CONCLUSIONS The FBR is an economic instrument that is suitable for practical use e.g. in primary care practices to identify strengths and deficits in the CRs of chronic pain patients that can then be specified in face to face consultation. However, due to the rather low reliability, the use of subscales for profile differentiation and follow-up measurement in individual diagnoses is limited.

Comparison of pain-resilient working individuals to population-based case controls with/without momentary low back pain

Background: Few studies have examined the 20% of individuals who never experience an episode of low back pain (LBP). To date, no investigation has been undertaken that examines a group who claim to have never experienced LBP in their lifetime in comparison to two population-based case–control groups with and without momentary LBP. This study investigates whether LBP-resilient workers between 50 and 65 years had better general health, demonstrated more positive health behaviour and were better able to achieve routine activities compared with both case–control groups. Methods: Forty-two LBP-resilient participants completed the same pain assessment questionnaire as a population-based LBP sample from a nationwide, large-scale cross-sectional survey in Switzerland. The LBP-resilient participants were pairwise compared to the propensity score-matched case controls by exploring differences in demographic and work characteristics, and by calculating odds ratios (ORs) and effect sizes. A discriminant analysis explored group differences, while the multiple logistic regression analysis specified single indicators which accounted for group differences. Results: LBP-resilient participants were healthier than the case controls with momentary LBP and achieved routine activities more easily. Compared to controls without momentary LBP, LBP-resilient participants had a higher vitality, a lower workload, a healthier attitude towards health and behaved more healthily by drinking less alcohol. Conclusions: By demonstrating a difference between LBP-resilient participants and controls without momentary LBP, the question that arises is what additional knowledge can be attained. Three underlying traits seem to be relevant about LBP-resilient participants: personality, favourable work conditions and subjective attitudes/attributions towards health. These rationales have to be considered with respect to LBP prevention.

Low back pain risk factors associated with persistence, recurrence and delayed presentation

BACKGROUND: There is little knowledge in the literature on the role of time-related variables for the prognosis of acute and subacute low back pain (LBP). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the relationship between time-related LBP characteristics and prognostic factors for acute/subacute LBP. METHODS: We performed a prospective inception cohort study of 315 patients attending a health practitioner for acute/subacute LBP or recurrent LBP. One-tailed correlations were conducted between patient characteristics and time-related variables. RESULTS: The pattern of correlation between risk factors for and resources against persistent LBP differed between three time-related variables. 'Subacute LBP' and 'delayed presentation' were positively associated with psychological factors. Both indicators were negatively correlated with resources against development of persistent LBP. Moreover, 'delayed presentation' was related positively with occupational stressors. In contrast, 'recurrent LBP' was only related to more impaired health-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with current LBP waiting longer until seeking help in primary care have a more disadvantageous profile of occupational and psychological risk factors and lower resource levels. A similar but less pronounced pattern occurred in those with subacute LBP compared to those with acute LBP. Consideration of time characteristics of LBP may help to better understand LBP.

Core stability exercise in chronic low back pain

Exercise is commonly used in the management of chronic musculoskeletal conditions, including chronic low back pain (CLBP). The focus of exercise is varied and may include parameters ranging from strength and endurance training, to specific training of muscle coordination and control. The assumption underpinning these approaches is that improved neuromuscular function will restore or augment the control and support of the spine and pelvis. In a biomechanical model of CLBP, which assumes that pain recurrence is caused by repeated mechanical irritation of pain sensitive structures [1], it is proposed that this improved control and stability would reduce mechanical irritation and lead to pain relief [1]. Although this model provides explanation for the chronicity of LBP, perpetuation of pain is more complex, and contemporary neuroscience holds the view that chronic pain is mediated by a range of changes including both peripheral (eg, peripheral sensitization) and central neuroplastic changes [2]. Although this does not exclude the role of improved control of the lumbar spine and pelvis in management of CLBP, particularly when there is peripheral sensitization, it highlights the need to look beyond outdated simplistic models. One factor that this information highlights is that the refinement of control and coordination may be more important than simple strength and endurance training for the trunk muscles. The objective of this article is to discuss the rationale for core stability exercise in the management of CLBP, to consider critical factors for its implementation, and to review evidence for efficacy of the approach.

Hip strategy for balance control in quiet standing is reduced in people with low back pain

Study Design. Quiet stance on supporting bases with different lengths and with different visual inputs were tested in 24 study participants with chronic low back pain (LBP) and 24 matched control subjects. Objectives. To evaluate postural adjustment strategies and visual dependence associated with LBP. Summary of Background Data. Various studies have identified balance impairments in patients with chronic LBP, with many possible causes suggested. Recent evidence indicates that study participants with LBP have impaired trunk muscle control, which may compromise the control of trunk and hip movement during postural adjustments ( e. g., hip strategy). As balance on a short base emphasizes the utilization of the hip strategy for balance control, we hypothesized that patients with LBP might have difficulties standing on short bases. Methods. Subjects stood on either flat surface or short base with different visual inputs. A task was counted as successful if balance was maintained for 70 seconds during bilateral stance and 30 seconds during unilateral stance. The number of successful tasks, horizontal shear force, and center-of-pressure motion were evaluated. Results. The hip strategy was reduced with increased visual dependence in study participants with LBP. The failure rate was more than 4 times that of the controls in the bilateral standing task on short base with eyes closed. Analysis of center-of-pressure motion also showed that they have inability to initiate and control a hip strategy. Conclusions. The inability to control a hip strategy indicates a deficit of postural control and is hypothesized to result from altered muscle control and proprioceptive impairment.

Effect of experimentally induced low back pain on postural sway with breathing

Although breathing perturbs balance, in healthy individuals little sway is detected in ground reaction forces because small movements of the spine and lower limbs compensate for the postural disturbance. When people have chronic low back pain (LBP), sway at the ground is increased, possibly as a result of reduced compensatory motion of the trunk. The aim of this study was to determine whether postural compensation for breathing is reduced during experimentally induced pain. Subjects stood on a force plate with eyes open, eyes closed, and while breathing with hypercapnoea before and after injection of hypertonic saline into the right lumbar longissimus muscle to induce LBP. Motion of the lumbar spine, pelvis, and lower limbs was measured with four inclinometers fixed over bony landmarks. During experimental pain, motion of the trunk in association with breathing was reduced. However, despite this reduction in motion, there was no increase in postural sway with breathing. These data suggest that increased body sway with breathing in people with chronic LBP is not simply because of reduced trunk movement, but instead, indicates changes in coordination by the central nervous system that are not replicated by experimental nociceptor stimulation.

Are the changes in postural control associated with low back pain caused by pain interference?

Background: Voluntary limb movements are associated with involuntary and automatic postural adjustments of the trunk muscles. These postural adjustments occur prior to movement and prevent unwanted perturbation of the trunk. In low back pain, postural adjustments of the trunk muscles are altered such that the deep trunk muscles are consistently delayed and the superficial trunk muscles are sometimes augmented. This alteration of postural adjustments may reflect disruption of normal postural control imparted by reduced central nervous system resources available during pain, so-called pain interference, or reflect adoption of an alternate postural adjustment strategy. Methods: We aimed to clarify this by recording electromyographic activity of the upper (obliquus extemus) and lower (transversus abdominis/obliquus internus) abdominal muscles during voluntary arm movements that were coupled with painful cutaneous stimulation at the low back. If the effect of pain on postural adjustments is caused by pain interference, it should be greatest at the onset of the stimulus, should habituate with repeated exposure, and be absent immediately when the threat of pain is removed. Sixteen patients performed 30 forward movements of the right arm in response to a visual cue (control). Seventy trials were then conducted in which arm movement was coupled with pain (pain trials) and then a further 70 trials were conducted without the pain stimulus (no pain trials). Results: There was a gradual and increasing delay of transversus abdominis/obliquus internus electromyograph and augmentation of obliquus externus during the pain trials, both of which gradually returned to control values during the no pain trials. Conclusion: The results suggest that altered postural adjustments of the trunk muscles during pain are not caused by pain interference but are likely to reflect development and adoption of an alternate postural adjustment strategy, which may serve to limit the amplitude and velocity of trunk excursion caused by arm movement.

Low back pain patients demonstrate increased hip extensor muscle activity during standardized submaximal rotation efforts

Study Design. A comparative study of trunk and hip extensor muscle recruitment patterns in 2 subject groups. Objective. To examine for changes in recruitment of the hip and back extensor muscles during low level isometric trunk rotation efforts in chronic low back pain (CLBP) subjects by comparison with matched asymptomatic control subjects. Summary of Background Data. Anatomic and biomechanical models have provided evidence that muscles attaching to the thoracolumbar fascia (TLF) are important for providing stabilization to the lumbopelvic region during trunk rotation. This has guided rehabilitation programs. The muscles that link diagonally to the posterior layer of the TLF have not previously been examined individually and compared during low-level trunk rotation efforts in CLBP patients and matched controls. Methods. Thirty CLBP patients and 30 matched controls were assessed using surface electromyography (EMG) as they performed low-level isometric rotation efforts while standing upright. Muscles studied included latissimus dorsi, erector spinae, upper and lower gluteus maximus, and biceps femoris. Subjects performed the rotation exertion with various levels of external trunk support, related to different functional tasks. Results. EMG results demonstrated that subjects with CLBP had significantly higher levels of recruitment for the lower and upper gluteus maximus (P < 0.05), hamstrings (P < 0.05), and erector spinae muscles (P < 0.05) during rotation to the left compared with the control subjects. Conclusion. This study provided evidence of increased muscle recruitment in CLBP patients when performing a standardized trunk rotation task. These results may have implications for the design of therapeutic exercise programs for CLBP patients.

Stated versus observed performance levels in patients with chronic low back pain

This study examined the relationship between chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients' perceived (stated) levels of function and their measured (observed) performance in squatting and stair climbing activities as compared to healthy volunteers. Twenty patients with CLBP and 20 healthy subjects were asked through an interview to self-assess their ability to comfortably perform stair climbing and squatting as well as other tolerances. The subjects were then asked to perform the activities and their performance levels were recorded. Results of the t-tests and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedures revealed that patients' estimate of squatting and stair climbing abilities as well as their demonstrated levels were significantly lower (p < 0.001) than those of the healthy subjects. There was a significant difference between groups in terms of the time required to perform squatting but not stair climbing. Both healthy subjects and patients with CLBP underestimated their physical capabilities. Findings indicate that the use of actual performance measurement combined with self-report of functional abilities is needed when assessing performance levels of both healthy as well as patients with CLBP.

Resolvin inflammation with pain

Background: Inflammation and pain coexist in conditions such as arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and lower back pain. The drugs currently used to treat the combination of inflammation and pain all have disadvantages. Thus, new drugs and new approaches are needed to treat inflammation with pain. The resolvins are considered to be part of the natural resolving mechanism for inflammation, and have been shown to prevent inflammation in animal models. Objectives/methods: To evaluate a paper suggesting that the resolvins RvE1 and RvD1 attenuate inflammatory pain in animal models. Results: RvE1 has been shown to attenuate inflammation and, to a lesser extent, pain in animal models. Limited results are presented of the effectiveness of RvD1 against inflammatory pain. Conclusion: Drugs that mimic or potentiate the effects of the resolvins may be useful for the treatment of some inflammation with pain.

Physical activity amongst people with chronic back pain : an investigation of perceived barriers and facilitators to inform intervention development

Previous research has indicated people with non-specific low back pain who are physically inactive face a poorer prognosis than people with back pain who participate in low or moderate intensity physical activity. They also face a greater risk of other lifestyle related health conditions, such as diabetes and heart disease. For these reasons, contemporary non-surgical interventions for low back pain aim to incorporate a return to physical activity. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence supporting physical activity interventions for this purpose. It is likely that people with low back pain face additional challenges when trying to commence (or return to) regular physical activity. This exploratory qualitative research aimed to map out perceived barriers and facilitators to undertaking physical activity among people with non-specific low back pain to inform future intervention development.

The relationship between hip-abductor strength and the magnitude of pelvic drop in patients with low back pain

Context: It has been theorized that a positive Trendelenburg test (TT) indicates weakness of the stance hip-abductor (HABD) musculature, results in contralateral pelvic drop, and represents impaired load transfer, which may contribute to low back pain. Few studies have tested whether weakness of the HABDs is directly related to the magnitude of pelvic drop (MPD). Objective: To examine the relationship between HABD strength and MPD during the static TT and during walking for patients with nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) and healthy controls (CON). A secondary purpose was to examine this relationship in NSLBP after a 3-wk HABD-strengthening program. Design: Quasi-experimental. Setting: Clinical research laboratory. Participants: 20 (10 NSLBP and 10 CON). Intervention: HABD strengthening. Main Outcome Measures: Normalized HABD strength, MPD during TT, and maximal pelvic frontal-plane excursion during walking. Results: At baseline, the NSLBP subjects were significantly weaker (31%; P = .03) than CON. No differences in maximal pelvic frontal-plane excursion (P = .72), right MPD (P = 1.00), or left MPD (P = .40) were measured between groups. During the static TT, nonsignificant correlations were found between left HABD strength and right MPD for NSLBP (r = -.32, P = .36) and CON (r = -.24, P = .48) and between right HABD strength and left MPD for NSLBP (r = -.24, P = .50) and CON (r = -.41, P = .22). Nonsignificant correlations were found between HABD strength and maximal pelvic frontal-plane excursion for NSLBP (r = -.04, P = .90) and CON (r = -.14, P = .68). After strengthening, NSLBP demonstrated significant increases in HABD strength (12%; P = .02), 48% reduction in pain, and no differences in MPD during static TT and maximal pelvic frontal-plane excursion compared with baseline. Conclusions: HABD strength was poorly correlated to MPD during the static TT and during walking in CON and NSLBP. The results suggest that HABD strength may not be the only contributing factor in controlling pelvic stability, and the static TT has limited use as a measure of HABD function.

The relationship between hip abductor muscle strength and magnitude of pelvic drop following a 3 week strengthening protocol in non-specific low back pain patients.

Purpose: To examine the relationship between hip abductor muscle (HABD) strength and the magnitude of pelvic drop (MPD) for patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) and controls (CON) prior to and following a 3-week HABD strengthening protocol. At baseline, we hypothesized that NSLBP patients would exhibit reduced HABD strength and greater MPD compared to CON. Following the protocol, we hypothesized that strength would increase and MPD would decrease. Relevance: The Trendelenburg test (TT) is a common clinical test used to examine the ability of the HABD to maintain horizontal pelvic position during single limb stance. However, no study has specifically tested this theory. Moreover, no study has investigated the relationship between HABD strength and pelvic motion during walking or tested whether increased HABD strength would reduce the MPD. Methods: Quasi-experimental with 3-week exercise intervention. Fifteen NSLBP patients (32.5yrs,range 21-51yrs; VAS baseline: 5.3cm) and 10 CON (29.5yrs,range 22-47yrs) were recruited. Isometric HABD strength was measured using a force dynamometer and the average of three maximal voluntary contractions were normalized to body mass (N/kg). Two-dimensional MPD (degrees) was measured using a 60 Hz camera and was derived from two retroreflective-markers placed on the posterior superior iliac spines. MPD was measured while performing the static TT and while walking and averaged over 10 consecutive footfalls. NSLBP patients completed a 3-week HABD strengthening protocol consisting of 2 open-kinetic-chain exercises then all measures were repeated. Non-parametric analysis was used for group comparisons and correlation analysis. Results: At baseline, the NSLBP patients demonstrated 31% reduced HABD strength (mean=6.6 N/kg) compared to CON (mean=9.5 N/kg: p=0.03) and no significant differences in maximal pelvic frontal plane excursion while walking (NSLBP:mean=8.1°, CON:mean=7.1°: p=0.72). No significant correlations were measured between left HABD strength and right MPD (r=-0.37, p=0.11), or between right HABD strength and left MPD (r=-0.04, p=0.84) while performing the static TT. Following the 3-week strengthening protocol, NSLBP patients demonstrated a 12% improvement in strength (Post:mean=7.4 N/kg: p=0.02), a reduction in pain (VAS followup: 2.8cm), but no significant decreases in MPD while walking (p=0.92). Conclusions: NSLBP patients demonstrated reduced HABD strength at baseline and were able to increase strength and reduce pain in a 3-week period. However, despite increases in HABD strength, the NSLBP group exhibited similar MPD motion during the static TT and while walking compared to baseline and controls. Implications: The results suggest that the HABD alone may not be primarily responsible for controlling a horizontal pelvic position during static and dynamic conditions. Increasing the strength of the hip abductors resulted in a reduction of pain in NSLBP patients providing evidence for further research to identify specific musculature responsible for controlling pelvic motion.

How Can Models of Motor Control Be Useful for Understanding Low Back Pain?

Introduction. The purpose of this chapter is to address the question raised in the chapter title. Specifically, how can models of motor control help us understand low back pain (LBP)? There are several classes of models that have been used in the past for studying spinal loading, stability, and risk of injury (see Reeves and Cholewicki (2003) for a review of past modeling approaches), but for the purpose of this chapter we will focus primarily on models used to assess motor control and its effect on spine behavior. This chapter consists of 4 sections. The first section discusses why a shift in modeling approaches is needed to study motor control issues. We will argue that the current approach for studying the spine system is limited and not well-suited for assessing motor control issues related to spine function and dysfunction. The second section will explore how models can be used to gain insight into how the central nervous system (CNS) controls the spine. This segues segue nicely into the next section that will address how models of motor control can be used in the diagnosis and treatment of LBP. Finally, the last section will deal with the issue of model verification and validity. This issue is important since modelling accuracy is critical for obtaining useful insight into the behavior of the system being studied. This chapter is not intended to be a critical review of the literature, but instead intended to capture some of the discussion raised during the 2009 Spinal Control Symposium, with some elaboration on certain issues. Readers interested in more details are referred to the cited publications.