Prevalence and correlates of low back pain among occupational therapy students in Northern Queensland

Background: Although low back pain (LBP) is an important issue for the health profession, few studies have examined LBP among occupational therapy students. Purpose. To investigate the prevalence and distribution of LBP, its adverse sequelae; and to identify potential risk factors.----------- Methods: In 2005, a self-reported questionnaire was administered to occupational therapy students in Northern Queensland.----------- Findings: The 12-month period-prevalence of LBP was 64.6%. Nearly half (46.9%) had experienced pain for over 2 days, 38.8% suffered LBP that affected their daily lives, and 24.5% had sought medical treatment. The prevalence of LBP ranged from 45.5 to 77.1% (p=0.004), while the prevalence of LBP symptoms persisting longer than two days was 34.1 to 62.5% (p=0.020). Logistic regression analysis indicated that year of study and weekly computer usage were statistically-significant LBP risk factors.----------- Implications: The occupational therapy profession will need to further investigate the high prevalence of student LBP identified in this study.

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.

The effect of hip muscle strengthening on pain and disability for individuals with non-specific low back pain : a randomized controlled trial

Introduction Clinical guidelines for the treatment of chronic low back pain suggest the use of supervised exercise. Motor control (MC) based exercise is widely used within clinical practice but its efficacy is equivalent to general exercise therapy. MC exercise targets the trunk musculature. Considering the mechanical links between the hip, pelvis, and lumbar spine, surprisingly little focus has been on investigating the contribution of the hip musculature to lumbopelvic support. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of two exercise programs for the treatment of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Methods Eighty individuals aged 18-65 years of age were randomized into two groups to participate in this trial. The primary outcome measures included self-reported pain intensity (0-100mm VAS) and percent disability (Oswestry Disability Index V2). Bilateral measures of hip strength (N/kg) and two dimensional frontal plane mechanics (º) were the secondary outcomes. Outcomes were measured at baseline and following a six-week home based exercise program including weekly sessions of real-time ultrasound imaging. Results Within group comparisons revealed clinically meaningful reductions in pain for both groups. The MC exercise only (N= 40, xˉ =-20.9mm, 95%CI -25.7, -16.1) and the combined MC and hip exercise (N= 40, xˉ = -24.9mm, 95%CI -30.8, -19.0). There was no statistical difference in the change of pain (xˉ =-4.0mm, t= -1.07, p=0.29, 95%CI -11.5, 3.5) or disability (xˉ =-0.3%, t=-0.19, p=0.85, 95%CI -11.5, 3.5) between groups. Conclusion Both exercise programs had similar and positive effects on NSLBP which support the use of the home based exercise programs with weekly supervised visits. However, the addition of specific hip strengthening exercises to a MC based exercise program did not result in significantly greater reductions in pain or disability. Trial Registration NCTO1567566 Funding: Worker’s Compensation Board Alberta Research Grant.

The effect of the addition of hip strengthening exercises to a lumbopelvic exercise programme for the treatment of non-specific low back pain : a randomized controlled trial

Objectives To compare the efficacy of two exercise programs in reducing pain and disability for individuals with non-specific low back pain and to examine the underlying mechanical factors related to pain and disability for individuals with NSLBP. Design A single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Methods: Eighty participants were recruited from eleven community-based general medical practices and randomized into two groups completing either a lumbopelvic motor control or a combined lumbopelvic motor control and progressive hip strengthening exercise therapy program. All participants received an education session, 6 rehabilitation sessions including real time ultrasound training, and a home based exercise program manual and log book. The primary outcomes were pain (0-100mm visual analogue scale), and disability (Oswestry Disability Index V2). The secondary outcomes were hip strength (N/kg) and two-dimensional frontal plane biomechanics (°) measure during the static Trendelenburg test and while walking. All outcomes were measured at baseline and at 6-week follow up. Results There was no statistical difference in the change in pain (xˉ = -4.0mm, t= -1.07, p =0.29, 95%CI -11.5, 3.5) or disability (xˉ = -0.3%, t= -0.19, p =0.85, 95%CI -3.5, 2.8) between groups. Within group comparisons revealed clinically meaningful reductions in pain for both Group One (xˉ =-20.9mm, 95%CI -25.7, -16.1) and Group Two (xˉ =-24.9, 95%CI -30.8, -19.0). Conclusion Both exercise programs had similar efficacy in reducing pain. The addition of hip strengthening exercises to a motor control exercise program does not appear to result in improved clinical outcome for pain for individuals with non-specific low back pain.

The mechanical and inflammatory low back pain (MIL) index: development and validation

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was the development of a valid and reliable “Mechanical and Inflammatory Low Back Pain Index” (MIL) for assessment of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). This 7-item tool assists practitioners in determining whether symptoms are predominantly mechanical or inflammatory. Methods Participants (n = 170, 96 females, age = 38 ± 14 years-old) with NSLP were referred to two Spanish physiotherapy clinics and completed the MIL and the following measures: the Roland Morris Questionnaire (RMQ), SF-12 and “Backache Index” (BAI) physical assessment test. For test-retest reliability, 37 consecutive patients were assessed at baseline and three days later during a non-treatment period. Face and content validity, practical characteristics, factor analysis, internal consistency, discriminant validity and convergent validity were assessed from the full sample. Results A total of 27 potential items that had been identified for inclusion were subsequently reduced to 11 by an expert panel. Four items were then removed due to cross-loading under confirmatory factor analysis where a two-factor model yielded a good fit to the data (χ2 = 14.80, df = 13, p = 0.37, CFI = 0.98, and RMSEA = 0.029). The internal consistency was moderate (α = 0.68 for MLBP; 0.72 for ILBP), test-retest reliability high (ICC = 0.91; 95%CI = 0.88-0.93) and discriminant validity good for either MLBP (AUC = 0.74) and ILBP (AUC = 0.92). Convergent validity was demonstrated through similar but weak correlations between the ILBP and both the RMQ and BAI (r = 0.34, p < 0.001) and the MLBP and BAI (r = 0.38, p < 0.001). Conclusions The MIL is a valid and reliable clinical tool for patients with NSLBP that discriminates between mechanical and inflammatory LBP. Keywords: Low back pain; Psychometrics properties; Pain measurement; Screening tool; Inflammatory; Mechanical

Ability to discriminate between healthy and low back pain sufferers using ultrasound during maximum lumbar extension

Objective To analyze the ability to discriminate between healthy individuals and individuals with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) by measuring the relation between patient-reported outcomes and objective clinical outcome measures of the erector spinae (ES) muscles using an ultrasound during maximal isometric lumbar extension. Design Cross-sectional study with screening and diagnostic tests with no blinded comparison. Setting University laboratory. Participants Healthy individuals (n=33) and individuals with CNLBP (n=33). Interventions Each subject performed an isometric lumbar extension. With the variables measured, a discriminate analysis was performed using a value ≥6 in the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ) as the grouping variable. Then, a logistic regression with the functional and architectural variables was performed. A new index was obtained from each subject value input in the discriminate multivariate analysis. Main Outcome Measures Morphologic muscle variables of the ES muscle were measured through ultrasound images. The reliability of the measures was calculated through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The relation between patient-reported outcomes and objective clinical outcome measures was analyzed using a discriminate function from standardized values of the variables and an analysis of the reliability of the ultrasound measurement. Results The reliability tests show an ICC value >.95 for morphologic and functional variables. The independent variables included in the analysis explained 42% (P=.003) of the dependent variable variance. Conclusions The relation between objective variables (electromyography, thickness, pennation angle) and a subjective variable (RMDQ ≥6) and the capacity of this relation to identify CNLBP within a group of healthy subjects is moderate. These results should be considered by clinicians when treating this type of patient in clinical practice.

The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy for nonspecific chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been widely used to relieve pain caused by different musculoskeletal disorders. Though widely used, its reported therapeutic outcomes are varied and conflicting. Results similarly conflict regarding its usage in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). This study investigated the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for the treatment of NSCLBP by a systematic literature search with meta-analyses on selected studies. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from January 2000 to November 2014. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) written in English that compared LLLT with placebo treatment in NSCLBP patients. The efficacy effect size was estimated by the weighted mean difference (WMD). Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used, and inconsistency was evaluated by the I-squared index (I(2)). RESULTS: Of 221 studies, seven RCTs (one triple-blind, four double-blind, one single-blind, one not mentioning blinding, totaling 394 patients) met the criteria for inclusion. Based on five studies, the WMD in visual analog scale (VAS) pain outcome score after treatment was significantly lower in the LLLT group compared with placebo (WMD = -13.57 [95 % CI = -17.42, -9.72], I(2) = 0 %). No significant treatment effect was identified for disability scores or spinal range of motion outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that LLLT is an effective method for relieving pain in NSCLBP patients. However, there is still a lack of evidence supporting its effect on function.

Randomized controlled trial of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for acute low back pain.

Study Design. A multi-center assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted. Objectives. To investigate the relative effectiveness of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for patients with acute low back pain when used as sole treatments and in combination. Summary of Background Data. Both manipulative therapy and interferential therapy are commonly used treatments for low back pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulative therapy is available only for the short term. There is no evidence for interferential therapy and no study has investigated the effectiveness of interferential therapy combined with manipulative therapy. Methods. Consenting subjects (n=240) were randomly assigned to receive a copy of the Back Book and either manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80) or combined manipulative therapy and interferential therapy (CT; n=80). Follow-up outcome questionnaires were posted at discharge, 6 and 12 months. Results. The groups were balanced at baseline for low back pain and demographic characteristics. All interventions were found to significantly reduce functional disability and pain and increase quality of life at discharge and to maintain these improvements at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences were found between groups for reported LBP recurrence, work absenteeism, medication consumption, exercise participation and healthcare use at 12 months. Conclusions. For acute low back pain, interferential therapy whether used in isolation or in combination with manipulative therapy was as effective as manipulative therapy alone (in addition to the Back Book).

A descriptive study of the usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques within a randomised clinical trial in acute low back pain

The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately de?ned the terms ‘mobilization’ and ‘manipulation’, nor distinguished between these terms in reporting the trial interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the spinal manipulative therapy techniques utilized within a RCT of manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80), and a combination of both (CT; n=80) for people with acute low back pain (LBP). Spinal manipulative therapy was de?ned as any ‘mobilization’ (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or ‘manipulation’ (high velocity
thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax.
The 16 physiotherapists, all members of the Society of Orthopaedic Medicine, utilized three spinal manipulative therapy patterns in the RCT: Maitland Mobilization (40.4%, n=59), Maitland Mobilization/Cyriax Manipulation (40.4%, n=59) and Cyriax Manipulation (19.1%, n=28). There was a signi?cant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (w2=9.178; df=2;P=0.01); subjects randomized to the CT group received three times more Cyriax Manipulation (29.2%, n=21/72) than those randomized to the MT group (9.5%, n=7/74; df=1; P=0.003).
The use of mobilization techniques within the trial was comparable with their usage by the general population of physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland for LBP management. However, the usage of manipulation techniques was considerably higher than reported in physiotherapy surveys and may re?ect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.