[Diagnostic pitfalls about a specific case of low back pain]

Diagnostic pitfalls about a specific case of low back pain Low back pain is classified into two principle categories: specific and non specific. This difference is important in terms of screening, medical care and treatment. Specific low back pain has various etiologies that imply specific treatment. This report describes one case of rare specific low back pain. The purpose of this article is to highlight the pitfalls that can represent such a common pathology, to show that obtaining an early diagnosis can be challenging, and finally to prevent care providers from stereotypes related to low back pain management.

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.

Depression impacts the course of recovery in patients with acute low back pain

Little is known about the course of recovery of acute low back pain (LBP) patients as a function of depression. In a prospective study, 286 acute LBP patients were assessed at baseline and followed up over 6 months. Recovery was defined as improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Repeated-measures analysis of covariance was employed with ODI as repeated factor, age, sex, and body mass index as covariates, depression and all other potential prognostic factors as between-subject factors. Of study participants, 18% were classified as depressive (>33 points on the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale). Of 286 participants, 135 were lost to follow-up. In the longitudinal sample of 151 patients the course of recovery was slower in depressive patients. Depression was associated with LBP especially after 6 weeks and should therefore be included in screening instruments for acute LBP patients to identify those at risk of delayed recovery at an early stage.

Who is likely to develop persistent low back pain? A longitudinal analysis of prognostic occupational factors

OBJECTIVE: Occupational low back pain (LBP) is considered to be the most expensive form of work disability, with the socioeconomic costs of persistent LBP exceeding the costs of acute and subacute LBP by far. This makes the early identification of patients at risk of developing persistent LBP essential, especially in working populations. The aim of the study was to evaluate both risk factors (for the development of persistent LBP) and protective factors (preventing the development of persistent LBP) in the same cohort. PARTICIPANTS: An inception cohort of 315 patients with acute to subacute or with recurrent LBP was recruited from 14 health practitioners (twelve general practitioners and two physiotherapists) across New Zealand. METHODS: Patients with persistent LBP at six-month follow-up were compared to patients with non-persistent LBP looking at occupational, psychological, biomedical and demographic/lifestyle predictors at baseline using multiple logistic regression analyses. All significant variables from the different domains were combined into a one predictor model. RESULTS: A final two-predictor model with an overall predictive value of 78% included social support at work (OR 0.67; 95%CI 0.45 to 0.99) and somatization (OR 1.08; 95%CI 1.01 to 1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Social support at work should be considered as a resource preventing the development of persistent LBP whereas somatization should be considered as a risk factor for the development of persistent LBP. Further studies are needed to determine if addressing these factors in workplace interventions for patients suffering from acute, subacute or recurrent LBP prevents subsequent development of persistent LBP.

Comparison of cost and outcome of care in patients with low back pain who are managed by physicians or physical therapists in private practice

The purpose of this study was to determine if there were differences in the cost and outcome of care in patients with low back pain who were managed by physicians or physical therapists in private practice in the state of Arizona. A secondary purpose was to describe the current status of private practice physical therapy clinicians who treat patients with low back pain.^ A Survey on Practice was mailed to 194 physical therapists who were listed by the American Physical Therapy Association as being in private practice in Arizona. Eighty-three percent of the surveys were returned after three attempts. Of those which were returned, 72 were complete and included in the analysis.^ The 72 practices were screened to determine those eligible for the second phase of the study. Those eligible for the second phase numbered 52 clinics. Twenty-six practices agreed to participate; however, only 21 did participate. Clinics which participated were sent packets of information which were to be kept on each patient seen with a complaint of low back pain during a three month period. Packets contained a patient-oriented survey on functional activity to be completed before and after the physical therapy course of treatment, as well as a log which was completed by the physical therapist on the type of care given to the patient and an assessment of the outcome of treatment. The patient was asked to fill out a satisfaction survey relative to the care received from the physical therapist and physician, if applicable.^ Although 259 patients were entered into the study, 210 patient logs were available for analysis. Results indicated that generally, there was no difference in cost or outcome as measured by the final functional score, change between the initial and final functional scores, or the therapist-rated outcome between the patients who were managed by physicians or physical therapists when controlling for age and length of time the patient was experiencing pain. Patients were more satisfied with care received from physical therapists as compared to physicians. Age and length of pain were good predictors of the type of referral patients received according to a logistic regression procedure. The initial disability score (IRS) and the time spent in the facility predicted therapist-rated outcome, a good or poor final disability score (FRS), and a good or poor change score. In addition, age predicted FRS and change scores. The time that the therapist spent in direct contact with the patient also predicted the change score.^ These findings of no difference in the cost and outcome of care were discussed as they relate to the practice of medicine and physical therapy. ^