Does anticipation of back pain predispose to back trouble?

Limb movement imparts a perturbation to the body. The impact of that perturbation is limited via anticipatory postural adjustments. The strategy by which the CNS controls anticipatory postural adjustments of the trunk muscles during limb movement is altered during acute back pain and in people with recurrent back pain, even when they are pain free. The altered postural strategy probably serves to protect the spine in the short term, but it is associated with a cost and is thought to predispose spinal structures to injury in the long term. It is not known why this protective strategy might occur even when people are pain free, but one possibility is that it is caused by the anticipation of back pain. In eight healthy subjects, recordings of intramuscular EMG were made from the trunk muscles during single and repetitive arm movements. Anticipation of experimental back pain and anticipation of experimental elbow pain were elicited by the threat of painful cutaneous stimulation. There was no effect of anticipated experimental elbow pain on postural adjustments. During anticipated experimental back pain, for single arm movements there was delayed activation of the deep trunk muscles and augmentation of at least one superficial trunk muscle. For repetitive arm movements, there was decreased activity and a shift from biphasic to monophasic activation of the deep trunk muscles and increased activity of superficial trunk muscles during anticipation of back pain. In both instances, the changes were consistent with adoption of an altered strategy for postural control and were similar to those observed in patients with recurrent back pain. We conclude that anticipation of experimental back pain evokes a protective postural strategy that stiffens the spine. This protective strategy is associated with compressive cost and is thought to predispose to spinal injury if maintained long term. © Guarantors of Brain 2004; all rights reserved

Deep and superficial fibers of the lumbar multifidus muscle are differentially active during voluntary arm movements

AB Study Design. A cross-sectional study was conducted. Objective. To determine the activity of the deep and superficial fibers of the lumbar multifidus during voluntary movement of the arm. Summary of Background Data. The multifidus contributes to stability of the lumbar spine. Because the deep and superficial parts of the multifidus are near the center of lumbar joint rotation, the superficial fibers are well suited to control spine orientation, and the deep fibers to control intervertebral movement. However, there currently are limited in vivo data to support this distinction. Methods. Electromyographic activity was recorded in both the deep and superficial multifidus, transversus abdominis, erector spinae, and deltoid using selective intramuscular electrodes and surface electrodes during single and repetitive arm movements. The latency of electromyographic onset in each muscle during single movements and the pattern of electromyographic activity during repetitive movements were compared between muscles. Results. With single arm movements, the onset of electromyography in the erector spinae and superficial multifidus relative to the deltoid was dependent on the direction of movement, but the onset in the deep multifidus and transversus abdominis was not. With repetitive arm movements, peaks in superficial multifidus and erector spinae electromyography occurred only during flexion for most subjects, whereas peaks in deep multifidus electromyography occurred during movement in both directions. Conclusions. The deep and superficial fibers of the multifidus are differentially active during single and repetitive movements of the arm. The data from this study support the hypothesis that the superficial multifidus contributes to the control of spine orientation, and that the deep multifidus has a role in controlling intersegmental motion. (C) 2002 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Combined physiotherapy and education is efficacious for chronic low back pain

Manual therapy, exercise and education target distinct aspects of chronic low back pain and probably have distinct effects, This study aimed to determine the efficacy of a combined physiotherapy treatment that comprised all of these strategies. By concealed randomisation, 57 chronic low back pain patients were allocated to either the four-week physiotherapy program or management as directed by their general practitioners, The dependent variables of interest were pain and disability. Assessors were blind to treatment group. Outcome data from 49 subjects (86%) showed a significant treatment effect. The physiotherapy program reduced pain and disability by a mean of 1.5/10 points on a numerical rating scale (95% CI 0.7 to 2.3) and 3.9 points on the 18-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (95% CI 2 to 5.8), respectively. The number needed to treat in order to gain a clinically meaningful change was 3 (95% CI 3 to 8) for pain, and 2 (95% CI 2 to 5) for disability. A treatment effect was maintained at one-year follow-up. The findings support the efficacy of combined physiotherapy treatment in producing symptomatic and functional change in moderately disabled chronic low back pain patients.

Unraveling the barriers to reconceptualization of the problem in chronic pain: The actual and perceived ability of patients and health professionals to understand the neurophysiology

To identify why reconceptualization of the problem is difficult in chronic pain, this study aimed to evaluate whether (1) health professionals and patients can understand currently accurate information about the neurophysiology of pain and (2) health professionals accurately estimate the ability of patients to understand the neurophysiology of pain. Knowledge tests were completed by 276 patients with chronic pain and 288 professionals either before (untrained) or after (trained) education about the neurophysiology of pain. Professionals estimated typical patient performance on the test. Untrained participants performed poorly (mean +/- standard deviation, 55% +/- 19% and 29% +/- 12% for professionals and patients, respectively), compared to their trained counterparts (78% +/- 21% and 61% +/- 19%, respectively). The estimated patient score (46% +/- 18%) was less than the actual patient score (P < .005). The results suggest that professionals and patients can understand the neurophysiology of pain but professionals underestimate patients' ability to understand. The implications are that (1) a poor knowledge of currently accurate information about pain and (2) the underestimation of patients' ability to understand currently accurate information about pain represent barriers to reconceptualization of the problem in chronic pain within the clinical and lay arenas. (C) 2003 by the American Pain Society.