What is the best time point to identify patients at risk of developing persistent low back pain?

BACKGROUND Early identification of patients at risk of developing persistent low back pain (LBP) is crucial. OBJECTIVE Aim of this study was to identify in patients with a new episode of LBP the time point at which those at risk of developing persistent LBP can be best identified.METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 315 patients presenting to a health practitioner with a first episode of acute LBP. Primary outcome measure was functional limitation. Patients were assessed at baseline, three, six, twelve weeks and six months looking at factors of maladaptive cognition as potential predictors. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed for all time points. RESULTS The best time point to predict the development of persistent LBP at six months was the twelve-week follow-up (sensitivity 78%; overall predictive value 90%). Cognitions assessed at first visit to a health practitioner were not predictive. CONCLUSIONS Maladaptive cognitions at twelve weeks appear to be suitable predictors for a transition from acute to persistent LBP. Already three weeks after patients present to a health practitioner with acute LBP cognitions might influence the development of persistent LBP. Therefore, cognitive-behavioral interventions should be considered as early adjuvant LBP treatment in patients at risk of developing persistent LBP.

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.

Spine radiography in the evaluation of back and neck pain in an orthopaedic emergency clinic

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Despite the recommendations of national and international societies for the treatment of patients with acute neck and back pain, still too many radiologic examinations were performed. The purpose of this study was to analyze and optimize diagnostics and treatment of patients with acute back pain. METHODS The medical records of 484 patients presented to the emergency clinic with acute neck or back pain were analyzed for clinical history, physical examination, radiographic findings and therapy. RESULTS Radiographs of the lumbar, cervical, or thoracic spine were performed in 338 cases (70%). Radiographs were normal in 142 patients (42%) and degenerative changes were identified in 123 patients (36%). Only 2 patients (0.4%) had radiographic findings that had direct therapeutic relevance: 1 patient with metastatic disease and 1 patient with posttraumatic C1-C2 instability. For most patients without sensorimotor deficits and absent specific indications for radiography (“red flags”), therapy was not affected by the results of radiography. CONCLUSIONS Plain radiography of the spine was unnecessary in most patients initially evaluated with non-specific acute back pain and does not improve the clinical outcome. The implementation of national and international guidelines is a slow process, but helps to reduce costs and to protect patients from unnecessary ionizing radiation exposure.