Ergonomic issues in team lifting

In this article we review and critique the current body of scientific knowledge regarding the use of team lifting including: (a) psychophysical studies of team lifting capacity, and (b) studies of manual handling, patient handling, and stretcher carriage performed by lifting teams. The consensus of the research literature is that team-lifting capacity is greater than the lifting capacity of an individual, but that the capacity of lifting teams is less than the summed capacity of individual team members. Further, biomechanical, psychophysical, and physiological stress tends to be reduced compared to the equivalent lifts and transfers performed by individuals. However, the stress associated with team lifting depends on a broad range of individual team member, load, task and environmental factors, which can interact in unexpected ways. Caution is therefore recommended against making broad assumptions regarding the use of team lifting. Future studies are needed to examine how effort and load are distributed among lifting team members, with emphasis on identifying factors that may increase the risk of injury.

Prolotherapy injections for chronic low back pain - A systematic review

Study Design. A systematic review of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Objectives. To determine the efficacy of prolotherapy injections in adults with chronic low back pain. Summary of Background Data. Prolotherapy is an injection-based treatment for chronic low back pain. Proponents of prolotherapy suggest that some back pain stems from weakened or damaged ligaments. Repeatedly injecting them with irritant solutions is thought to strengthen the ligaments and reduce pain and disability. Prolotherapy protocols usually include co-interventions to enhance the effectiveness of the injections. Methods. The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index up to January 2004, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register 2004, issue 1, and consulted content experts. Both randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing prolotherapy injections to control injections, either alone or in combination with other treatments, were included. Studies had to include measures of pain and disability before and after the intervention. Two reviewers independently selected the trials and assessed them for methodologic quality. Treatment and control group protocols varied from study to study, making meta-analysis impossible. Results. Four studies, all of high quality and with a total of 344 participants, were included. All trials measured pain and disability levels at 6 months, three measured the proportion of participants reporting a greater than 50% reduction in pain or disability scores from baseline to 6 months. Two studies showed significant differences between the treatment and control groups for those reporting more than 50% reduction in pain or disability. Their results could not be pooled. In one, cointerventions confounded interpretation of results; in the other, there was no significant difference in mean pain and disability scores between the groups. In the third study, there was little or no difference between groups in the number of individuals who reported more than 50% improvement in pain and disability. The fourth study reporting only mean pain and disability scores showed no differences between groups. Conclusions. There is conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of prolotherapy injections in reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain. Conclusions are confounded by clinical heterogeneity among studies and by the presence of co-interventions. There was no evidence that prolotherapy injections alone were more effective than control injections alone. However, in the presence of co-interventions, prolotherapy injections were more effective than control injections, more so when both injections and co-interventions were controlled concurrently.

Prolotherapy injections, saline injections, and exercises for chronic low-back pain: A randomized trial

Objectives. To assess the efficacy of a prolotherapy injection and exercise protocol in the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Design. Randomized controlled trial with two- by- two factorial design, triple- blinded for injection status, and single- blinded for exercise status. Setting. General practice. Participants. One hundred ten participants with nonspecific low- back pain of average 14 years duration were randomized to have repeated prolotherapy ( 20% glucose/ 0.2% lignocaine) or normal saline injections into tender lumbo- pelvic ligaments and randomized to perform either flexion/ extension exercises or normal activity over 6 months. Main outcome measures: Pain intensity ( VAS) and disability scores ( Roland- Morris) at 2.5, 4, 6, 12, and 24 months. Results. Follow- up was achieved in 96% at 12 months and 80% at 2 years. Ligament injections, with exercises and with normal activity, resulted in significant and sustained reductions in pain and disability throughout the trial, but no attributable effect was found for prolotherapy injections over saline injections or for exercises over normal activity. At 12 months, the proportions achieving more than 50% reduction in pain from baseline by injection group were glucose- lignocaine: 0.46 versus saline: 0.36. By activity group these proportions were exercise: 0.41 versus normal activity: 0.39. Corresponding proportions for > 50% reduction in disability were glucose- lignocaine: 0.42 versus saline 0.36 and exercise: 0.36 versus normal activity: 0.38. There were no between group differences in any of the above measures. Conclusions. In chronic nonspecific low- back pain, significant and sustained reductions in pain and disability occur with ligament injections, irrespective of the solution injected or the concurrent use of exercises.

Joining forces - Combining cognition-targeted motor control training with group or individual pain physiology education: A successful treatment for chronic low back pain

Chronic unremittent low back pain (LBP) is characterised by cognitive barriers to treatment. Combining a motor control training approach with individualised education about pain physiology is effective in this group of patients. This randomized comparative trial (i) evaluates an approach to motor control acquisition and training that considers the complexities of the relationship between pain and motor output, and (ii) compares the efficacy and cost of individualized and group pain physiology education. After an "ongoing usual treatment" period, patients participated in a 4-week motor control and pain physiology education program. Patients received four one-hour individualized education sessions (IE) or one 4-hour group lecture (GE). Both groups reduced pain (numerical rating scale) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire). IE showed bigger decreases, which were maintained at 12 months (P < 0.05 for all). The combined motor control and education approach is effective. Although group education imparts a lesser effect, it may be more cost-efficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]