Do people with recurrent back pain constrain spinal motion during seated horizontal and downward reaching?

Background: Although the effect of symptomatic back pain on functional movement has been investigated, changes to spinal movement patterns in essentially pain-free people with a history of recurrent back pain are largely unreported. Reaching activities, important for everyday and occupational function, often present problems to such people, but have not been considered in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare the amplitude and timing of spinal and hip motions during two, seated reaching activities in people with and without a history of recurrent low back pain (RLBP).Methods: Spinal and hip motions during reaching downward and across the body, in both directions, were tracked using electromagnetic sensors. Analyses were conducted to explore the amplitudes, velocities and timings of 3D segmental movements and to compare controls with subjects with recurrent, but asymptomatic lumbar or lumbosacral pain.Findings: We detected significant differences in the amplitude and timing of movement in the lower thoracic region, with the RLBP group restricting movement and demonstrating compensatory increased motion at the hip. The lumbar region displayed no significant between-group differences. The order in which the spinal segments achieved peak velocity in cross-reaching was reversed in RLBP compared to controls, with lumbar motion leading in controls and lagging in RLBP.Interpretation: Subjects with a history of RLBP show a number of altered kinematic features during reaching activities which are not related to the presence or intensity of pain, but which suggest adaptive changes to movement control. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Coordination of spinal motion in the transverse and frontal planes during walking in people with and without recurrent low back pain

STUDY DESIGN. Observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE. To investigate spinal coordination during preferred and fast speed walking in pain-free subjects with and without a history of recurrent low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. Dynamic motion of the spine during walking is compromised in the presence of back pain (LBP), but its analysis often presents some challenges. The coexistence of significant symptoms may change gait because of pain or adaptation of the musculoskeletal structures or both. A history of LBP without the overlay of a current symptomatic episode allows a better model in which to explore the impact on spinal coordination during walking. METHODS. Spinal and lower limb segmental motions were tracked using electromagnetic sensors. Analyses were conducted to explore the synchrony and spatial coordination of the segments and to compare the control and subjects with LBP. RESULTS. We found no apparent differences between the groups for either overall amplitude of motion or most indicators of coordination in the lumbar region; however, there were significant postural differences in the mid-stance phase and other indicators of less phase locking in controls compared with subjects with LBP. The lower thoracic spinal segment was more affected by the history of back pain than the lumbar segment. CONCLUSION. Although small, there were indicators that alterations in spinal movement and coordination in subjects with recurrent LBP were due to adaptive changes rather than the presence of pain. © 2013, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

The course of chronic and recurrent low back pain in the general population

Using latent class analysis (LCA), a previous study on patients attending primary care identified four courses of low back pain (LBP) over the subsequent 6 months. To date, no studies have used longitudinal pain recordings to examine the "natural" course of recurrent and chronic LBP in a population-based sample of individuals. This study examines the course of LBP in the general population and elaborates on the stability and criterion-related validity of the clusters derived. A random sample of 400 individuals reporting LBP in a population-based study was asked to complete a comprehensive questionnaire at the start and end of the year's survey, and 52 weekly pain diaries in between. The latter were analyzed using LCA. 305 individuals returned more than 50% of the diaries. Four clusters were identified (severe persistent, moderate persistent, mild persistent, and fluctuating). The clusters differed significantly with regards to pain and disability. Assessment of cluster stability showed that a considerable proportion of patients in the "fluctuating" group changed their classification over time. Three of the four clusters describing the typical course of pain matched the clusters described previously for patients in primary care. Due to the population-based design, this study achieves, for the first time, a close insight into the "natural" course of chronic and recurrent low back pain, including individuals that did not necessarily visit the general practitioner. The findings will help to understand better the nature of this pain in the general population.

Pregnancy-related low back pain and pelvic girdle pain approximately 14 months after pregnancy : pain status, self-rated health and family situation

Background: Pelvic girdle pain (PGP) in pregnancy is distinct from pregnancy-related low back pain (PLBP). However, women with combined PLBP and PGP report more serious consequences in terms of health and function. PGP has been estimated to affect about half of pregnant women, where 25% experience serious pain and 8% experience severe disability. To date there are relatively few studies regarding persistent PLBP/PGP postpartum of more than 3 months, thus the main objective was to identify the prevalence of persistent PLBP and PGP as well as the differences over time in regard to pain status, self-rated health (SRH) and family situation at 12 months postpartum. Methods: The study is a 12 month follow-up of a cohort of pregnant women developing PLBP and PGP during pregnancy, and who experienced persistent pain at 6 month follow-up after pregnancy. Women reporting PLBP/PGP (n = 639) during pregnancy were followed up with a second questionnaire at approximately six month after delivery. Women reporting recurrent or persistent LBP/PGP at the second questionnaire (n = 200) were sent a third questionnaire at 12 month postpartum. Results: A total of 176 women responded to the questionnaire. Thirty-four women (19.3%) reported remission of LBP/PGP, whereas 65.3% (n = 115) and 15.3% (n = 27), reported recurrent LBP/PGP or continuous LBP/PGP, respectively. The time between base line and the 12 months follow-up was in actuality 14 months. Women with previous LBP before pregnancy had an increased odds ratio (OR) of reporting 'recurrent pain' (OR = 2.47) or 'continuous pain' (OR = 3.35) postpartum compared to women who reported 'no pain' at the follow-up. Women with 'continuous pain' reported statistically significant higher level of pain at all measure points (0, 6 and 12 months postpartum). Non-responders were found to report a statistically significant less positive scoring regarding relationship satisfaction compared to responders. Conclusions: The results from this study demonstrate that persistent PLBP/PGP is a major individual and public health issue among women 14 months postpartum, negatively affecting their self-reported health. However, the perceived relationship satisfaction seems to be stable between the groups.

Predicting the transition from acute to persistent low back pain

BACKGROUND: Most people experience low back pain (LBP) at least once in their lifetime. Only a minority of them go on to develop persistent LBP. However, the socioeconomic costs of persistent LBP significantly exceed the costs of the initial acute LBP episode. AIMS: To identify factors that influence the progression of acute LBP to the persistent state at an early stage. METHODS: Prospective inception cohort study of patients attending a health practitioner for their first episode of acute LBP or recurrent LBP after a pain free period of at least 6 months. Patients were assessed at baseline addressing occupational and psychological factors as well as pain, disability, quality of life and physical activity and followed up at 3, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months. Variables were combined to the three indices 'working condition', 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' and 'pain and quality of life'. RESULTS: The index 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' was found to be a significant baseline predictor for persistent LBP up to 6 months (OR 5.1; 95% CI: 1.04-25.1). Overall predictive accuracy of the model was 81%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with acute LBP in a primary care setting psychological factors at baseline correlated with a progression to persistent LBP up to 6 months. The benefit of including factors such as 'depression and maladaptive cognition' in screening tools is that these factors can be addressed in primary and secondary prevention.

Predicting the transition from acute to persistent low back pain

BACKGROUND: Most people experience low back pain (LBP) at least once in their lifetime. Only a minority of them go on to develop persistent LBP. However, the socioeconomic costs of persistent LBP significantly exceed the costs of the initial acute LBP episode. AIMS: To identify factors that influence the progression of acute LBP to the persistent state at an early stage. METHODS: Prospective inception cohort study of patients attending a health practitioner for their first episode of acute LBP or recurrent LBP after a pain free period of at least 6 months. Patients were assessed at baseline addressing occupational and psychological factors as well as pain, disability, quality of life and physical activity and followed up at 3, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months. Variables were combined to the three indices 'working condition', 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' and 'pain and quality of life'. RESULTS: The index 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' was found to be a significant baseline predictor for persistent LBP up to 6 months (OR 5.1; 95% CI: 1.04-25.1). Overall predictive accuracy of the model was 81%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with acute LBP in a primary care setting psychological factors at baseline correlated with a progression to persistent LBP up to 6 months. The benefit of including factors such as 'depression and maladaptive cognition' in screening tools is that these factors can be addressed in primary and secondary prevention.

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.

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.

French good practice guidelines for medical and occupational surveillance of the low back pain risk among workers exposed to manual handling of loads

International audience

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.

Moving tele-monitoring and tele-treatment from promise to practice : a business model approach for a chronic lower back pain application

The availability of new information and communication technologies creates opportunities for new, mobile tele-health services. While many promising tele-health projects deliver working R&D prototypes, they often do not result in actual deployment. We aim to identify critical issues than can increase our understanding and enhance the viability of the mobile tele-health services beyond the R&D phase by developing a business model. The present study describes the systematic development and evaluation of a service-oriented business model for tele-monitoring and -treatment of chronic lower back pain patients based on a mobile technology prototype. We address challenges of multi-sector collaboration and disruptive innovation.

Physical activity amongst people with chronic back pain : an investigation of perceived barriers and facilitators to inform intervention development

Previous research has indicated people with non-specific low back pain who are physically inactive face a poorer prognosis than people with back pain who participate in low or moderate intensity physical activity. They also face a greater risk of other lifestyle related health conditions, such as diabetes and heart disease. For these reasons, contemporary non-surgical interventions for low back pain aim to incorporate a return to physical activity. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence supporting physical activity interventions for this purpose. It is likely that people with low back pain face additional challenges when trying to commence (or return to) regular physical activity. This exploratory qualitative research aimed to map out perceived barriers and facilitators to undertaking physical activity among people with non-specific low back pain to inform future intervention development.

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.