Intensive, dynamic back-muscle exercises, conventional physiotherapy, or placebo-control treatment of low-back pain. A randomized, observer-blind trial

Efficacy of Core-Strengthening and Intensive Dynamic Back Exercises on Pain, Core Muscle Endurance, and Functional Disability in Patients with Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Chronic back pains are progressively disabling working individuals, including 60-80% of the general population, for which their diagnosis is challenging to healthcare workers worldwide, thereby becoming a burden to nations.

PURPOSE

The study aimed to investigate the efficacy of core strengthening exercise (CSE) and intensive dynamic back exercise (IDBE) on pain, core muscle endurance, and functional disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

The study was based on a three-arm parallel-group randomized control design. Forty-five participants with chronic non-specific LBP were recruited and randomly divided into the CSE, IDBE, and Control groups. The CSE and IDBE groups received CSE and IDBE, respectively. However, the Control group received no intervention. Numeric pain rating scale, Oswestry Disability Index, core flexors, extensors, and side bridge tests assessed pain intensity, functional disability, and endurance of core muscles. Outcome scores for the dependent variables were collected at baseline (pre-intervention) and six-week post-intervention. There were no follow-up measurements in this study. A one-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to analyze the intervention effects on the outcomes within groups and between groups, respectively; keeping the significance-level alpha at 95%, i.e., p < 0.05. A univariate F-test was performed to observe the superiority of one treatment over another. Pearson's correlation coefficient test was conducted to determine a relation between the dependent variables. In all statistical analyses, the level of significance α was kept at 0.05.

RESULTS

All forty-five out of sixty-three participants with chronic non-specific low back pain (male, 32 and female, 23; average age, 20.24 ± 1.46 years; average pain duration, 19.6 ± 5.42 weeks) completed the study and their data were analyzed. The MANCOVA test showed a significant difference between the treatment groups on the combined multiple endurance tests for the core muscles (flexors, extensors, side bridge tests to the right and left), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores after controlling for baseline scores of all the dependent variables: F (6, 12) = 23.381; p < 0.05; Wilks' Λ = 0.033; partial η2 = 0.819. A post hoc pair-wise comparison followed by a univariate F-test indicated that a significant improvement was found between the CSE vs. IDBE vs. Control groups on the post-test scores of all the dependent variables except VAS and EET (CSE vs. IDBE only). A Pearson's correlation coefficient test revealed a notable relation between the dependent variables.

CONCLUSIONS

The experimental group CSE was found to be more effective than IDBE on improving functional disability, cores' flexors, and side bridges' endurance tests than IDBE. The magnitude of this improvement exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), suggesting a clinically relevant enhancement in functional disability, core flexors, and side bridge endurance for participants engaged in CSE. However, CSE vs. IDBE revealed non-significant differences on reducing pain and core extensors' endurance. The absence of statistically significant differences suggests that the observed changes did not exceed the established MCID for pain intensity and core extensors' endurance. In addition, partial eta-squared value revealed the superiority of CSE over IDBE and Control groups. This suggests that the observed differences between the two interventions are not only statistically significant, but also clinically relevant, surpassing the established MCID.

Individualized Exercise in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Exercise Alone or in Combination with Psychological Interventions on Pain and Disability

This systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression investigated the effects of individualized interventions, based on exercise alone or combined with psychological treatment, on pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low-back-pain. Databases were searched up to January 31, 2022 to retrieve respective randomized controlled trials of individualized and/or personalized and/or stratified exercise interventions with or without psychological treatment compared to any control. Fifty-eight studies (n = 10084) were included. At short-term follow-up (12 weeks), low-certainty evidence for pain intensity (SMD -0.28 [95%CI -0.42 to -0.14]) and very low-certainty evidence for disability (-0.17 [-0.31 to -0.02]) indicates effects of individualized versus active exercises, and very low-certainty evidence for pain intensity (-0.40; [-0.58 to -0.22])), but not (low-certainty evidence) for disability (-0.18; [-0.22 to 0.01]) compared to passive controls. At long-term follow-up (1 year), moderate-certainty evidence for pain intensity (-0.14 [-0.22 to -0.07]) and disability (-0.20 [-0.30 to -0.10]) indicates effects versus passive controls. Sensitivity analyses indicates that the effects on pain, but not on disability (always short-term and versus active treatments) were robust. Pain reduction caused by individualized exercise treatments in combination with psychological interventions (in particular behavioral-cognitive therapies) (-0.28 [-0.42 to -0.14], low certainty) is of clinical importance. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to evidence of risk of bias, publication bias and inconsistency that could not be explained. Individualized exercise can treat pain and disability in chronic non-specific low-back-pain. The effects at short term are of clinical importance (relative differences versus active 38% and versus passive interventions 77%), especially in regard to the little extra effort to individualize exercise. Sub-group analysis suggests a combination of individualized exercise (especially motor-control based treatments) with behavioral therapy interventions to booster effects. PERSPECTIVE: The relative benefit of individualized exercise therapy on chronic low back pain compared to other active treatments is approximately 38% which is of clinical importance. Still, sustainability of effects (> 12 months) is doubtable. As individualization in exercise therapies is easy to implement, its use should be considered. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021247331.

Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain has been the leading cause of disability globally for at least the past three decades and results in enormous direct healthcare and lost productivity costs.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of exercise treatment on pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo and other conservative treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Back and Neck trials register), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), and conducted citation searching of relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies. The review includes data for trials identified in searches up to 27 April 2018. All eligible trials have been identified through searches to 7 December 2020, but have not yet been extracted; these trials will be integrated in the next update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed exercise treatment compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo or other conservative treatment on the outcomes of pain or functional limitations for a population of adult participants with chronic non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened and assessed studies independently, with consensus. We extracted outcome data using electronic databases; pain and functional limitations outcomes were re-scaled to 0 to 100 points for meta-analyses where 0 is no pain or functional limitations. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence. When required, we contacted study authors to obtain missing data. To interpret meta-analysis results, we considered a 15-point difference in pain and a 10-point difference in functional limitations outcomes to be clinically important for the primary comparison of exercise versus no treatment, usual care or placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 249 trials of exercise treatment, including studies conducted in Europe (122 studies), Asia (38 studies), North America (33 studies), and the Middle East (24 studies). Sixty-one per cent of studies (151 trials) examined the effectiveness of two or more different types of exercise treatment, and 57% (142 trials) compared exercise treatment to a non-exercise comparison treatment. Study participants had a mean age of 43.7 years and, on average, 59% of study populations were female. Most of the trials were judged to be at risk of bias, including 79% at risk of performance bias due to difficulty blinding exercise treatments. We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise treatment is more effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons for pain outcomes at earliest follow-up (MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2), a clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to heterogeneity. For the same comparison, there was moderate-certainty evidence for functional limitations outcomes (MD -6.8 (95% CI -8.3 to -5.3); this finding did not meet our prespecified threshold for minimal clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to some evidence of publication bias.  Compared to all other investigated conservative treatments, exercise treatment was found to have improved pain (MD -9.1, 95% CI -12.6 to -5.6) and functional limitations outcomes (MD -4.1, 95% CI -6.0 to -2.2). These effects did not meet our prespecified threshold for clinically important difference. Subgroup analysis of pain outcomes suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than education alone (MD -12.2, 95% CI -19.4 to -5.0) or non-exercise physical therapy (MD -10.4, 95% CI -15.2 to -5.6), but with no differences observed for manual therapy (MD 1.0, 95% CI -3.1 to 5.1). In studies that reported adverse effects (86 studies), one or more adverse effects were reported in 37 of 112 exercise groups (33%) and 12 of 42 comparison groups (29%). Twelve included studies reported measuring adverse effects in a systematic way, with a median of 0.14 (IQR 0.01 to 0.57) per participant in the exercise groups (mostly minor harms, e.g. muscle soreness), and 0.12 (IQR 0.02 to 0.32) in comparison groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise is probably effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo for pain. The observed treatment effect for the exercise compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons is small for functional limitations, not meeting our threshold for minimal clinically important difference. We also found exercise to have improved pain (low-certainty evidence) and functional limitations outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence) compared to other conservative treatments; however, these effects were small and not clinically important when considering all comparisons together. Subgroup analysis suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than advice or education alone, or electrotherapy, but with no differences observed for manual therapy treatments.

Effects of Rehabilitation Exercise on Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Muscle Cross-Sectional Area in Overweight Patients with Low Back Pain

Limited studies exist on the effects of exercise therapy on obese and normal-weight patients. Herein, we investigated the effect of a 12-week rehabilitation exercise program on cardiovascular risk factors, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and change in the cross-sectional area (CSA) of lumbar muscles in patients with obesity and normal-weight low back pain (LBP). LBP patients were allocated to the overweight LBP group (OLG; n = 15) and normal-weight LBP group (NLG; n = 15). They performed a rehabilitation exercise program three times per week for 12 weeks. Cardiovascular risk factors, ODI score, and lumbar muscle CSA were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Body composition, body weight (p < 0.001), and body mass index (p < 0.001) significantly improved after the exercise intervention in OLG. Body fat percentage significantly decreased in both groups, but OLG (p < 0.001) showed slightly greater improvement than NLG (p = 0.034). Total cholesterol (p = 0.013) and low-density lipoprotein (p = 0.002) significantly improved in OLG. ODI score improved significantly in both groups (p = 0.000). Lumbar muscle CSA showed a significant difference in the context of the time result (p = 0.008). OLG showed a significant improvement post-intervention (p = 0.003). The rehabilitation exercise program was more beneficial on cardiovascular risk factors and change in lumbar muscle CSA in OLG, suggesting an intensive exercise intervention needed for overweight patients with LBP.

Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects and reliability of sham procedures in manual therapy (MT) trials in the treatment of back pain (BP) in order to provide methodological guidance for clinical trial development.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Different databases were screened up to 20 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving adults affected by BP (cervical and lumbar), acute or chronic, were included.Hand contact sham treatment (ST) was compared with different MT (physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, massage, kinesiology and reflexology) and to no treatment. Primary outcomes were BP improvement, success of blinding and adverse effect (AE). Secondary outcomes were number of drop-outs. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using risk ratio (RR), continuous using mean difference (MD), 95% CIs. The minimal clinically important difference was 30 mm changes in pain score.

RESULTS

24 trials were included involving 2019 participants. Very low evidence quality suggests clinically insignificant pain improvement in favour of MT compared with ST (MD 3.86, 95% CI 3.29 to 4.43) and no differences between ST and no treatment (MD -5.84, 95% CI -20.46 to 8.78).ST reliability shows a high percentage of correct detection by participants (ranged from 46.7% to 83.5%), spinal manipulation being the most recognised technique.Low quality of evidence suggests that AE and drop-out rates were similar between ST and MT (RR AE=0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.28, RR drop-outs=0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.25). A similar drop-out rate was reported for no treatment (RR=0.82, 95% 0.43 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

MT does not seem to have clinically relevant effect compared with ST. Similar effects were found with no treatment. The heterogeneousness of sham MT studies and the very low quality of evidence render uncertain these review findings.Future trials should develop reliable kinds of ST, similar to active treatment, to ensure participant blinding and to guarantee a proper sample size for the reliable detection of clinically meaningful treatment effects.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020198301.

Gender differences in use of prolonged non-operative therapies prior to index ACDF surgery

Prior to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery, patients suffering from cervical stenosis traditionally trial non-operative treatments for pain management. There is a paucity of data evaluating gender disparities in the prolonged utilization of conservative therapy prior to ACDF surgery. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess for gender-based differences in the utilization and cost of maximal non-operative therapy (MNT) for cervical stenosis prior to ACDF surgery. Medical records from patients with symptomatic cervical stenosis undergoing 1, 2, or 3-level index ACDF procedures between 2007 and 2016 were gathered from an insurance database consisting of 20.9 million covered lives. The utilization of MNTs within 5 years prior to index ACDF surgery was assessed. A total of 2254 patients (females: 53.1%) underwent an index ACDF surgery. There were a significantly greater percentage of female patients that utilized NSAIDs (p < 0.0001), opioids (p = 0.0019), muscle relaxants (p < 0.0001), cervical epidural steroid injections (p = 0.0428), and physical therapy/occupational therapy treatments (p < 0.0001). The total direct cost associated with all MNT prior to index ACDF was $4,833,384. On average, $2028.01 was spent per male patient while $2247.29 was spent per female patient. When normalized by number of pills billed per patient utilizing therapy, female patients utilized more NSAIDs (males: 591.8 pills, females: 669.3 pills), opioids (male: 1342.0 pills, female: 1650.1 pills), and muscle relaxants (males: 823.7 pills, females: 1211.1 pills). The results suggest that there may be gender differences in the utilization of non-operative therapies for symptomatic cervical stenosis prior to ACDF surgery.

Multidisciplinary Pain Management of Chronic Back Pain: Helpful Treatments from the Patients' Perspective

Multidisciplinary pain management programs (MPMP) for patients suffering from chronic back pain include a variety of treatment modalities. The patients’ perceived helpfulness of these treatment modalities remains unclear. The aims of this prospective observational cohort study were to assess (i) the patients’ perceived helpfulness of different treatment modalities, (ii) the influence of sociodemographic characteristics on the patient’s perspective and (iii) whether treatment outcomes are affected by helpfulness ratings. Treatment modalities of this three-week MPMP consisted of individual physiotherapy, group-based physiotherapy, relaxation therapy, aquatic therapy, back education, medical training therapy, biofeedback, psychological pain therapy and music therapy. The study comprised 395 patients. The main outcome was the patients’ perceived treatment helpfulness at the end of the program measured by a self-reported questionnaire ranging from 1 (not at all helpful) to 6 (extremely helpful). Secondary outcomes were treatment effects on pain, pain related disability, functional ability and level of depressive symptoms measured by self-reported questionnaires (NRS, PDI, FFbH-R, ADS-L). A total of 276 patients (22–64 years, 57% female) were available for overall analysis. Multivariate-analysis-of-variance- (MANOVA-) related results revealed that perceived treatment helpfulness (range 1–6) differed significantly between treatment modalities: individual physiotherapy (M = 5.00), group-based physiotherapy (M = 4.87), relaxation therapy (M = 4.6), aquatic therapy (M = 4.54), back education (M = 4.43), medical training therapy (M = 3.38), biofeedback (M = 3.31), psychological pain therapy (M = 3.15), music therapy (M = 3.02). Pain, pain related disability and levels of depressive symptoms significantly improved after the program (p < 0.001) whereas functional ability decreased (p < 0.01). Significant correlations were found between helpfulness ratings and sociodemographic data indicating that perceived treatment helpfulness was influenced by patient-related factors. Importantly, the degree of pain-related improvements was affected by the patients’ perceived treatment helpfulness. In conclusion, patients’ perceived treatment helpfulness differs significantly between treatment modalities and corresponds to treatment outcome.

Do sociodemographic features, pain sensitivity or pain catastrophizing relate to clinic-based adherence to physiotherapy in people suffering from chronic spinal pain? Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

Examining whether socio-demographic variables, pain or functionality are related to the degree of clinic-based therapy adherence in patients suffering from nonspecific chronic spinal pain (nCSP).

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

University hospital of Ghent and Brussels.

METHODS

Dutch speakers, 18-65 years old, experiencing nCSP for at least 3 months. 120 participants were randomly allocated to two interventional groups, of which 94 completed all therapy sessions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Degree of clinic-based adherence, defined as the amount of completed therapy sessions.

RESULTS

Demographic data (sex, age or education) were not significantly associated with adherence in the total sample or the neuroscience group. For the traditional physiotherapy group, educational level was associated with attendance of at least 50% of the therapy sessions. Regarding pain-, belief- and function-related measures, only the association between change in kinesiophobia and adherence was significant for the traditional physiotherapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors related to therapy adherence in the total group or the neuroscience group could not be found. Educational level and change in kinesiophobia were however related to therapy adherence in the traditional physiotherapy group.

Feasibility of high intensity training in nonspecific chronic low back pain: A clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Although low to moderate intensity exercise therapy is a predominant part of rehabilitation in nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP), effect sizes are small and optimal exercise modalities/intensities are unclear. Conversely, effects of high intensity training have not yet been investigated in this population.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility of high intensity training (HIT) and to explore the magnitude of the effects of a HIT program on exercise capacity and disease related outcome measures compared to conventional therapy for persons with NSCLBP.

METHODS

In this non-randomized controlled feasibility study, treatment satisfaction, adherence, disability, pain, physical activity, body composition, exercise capacity and self-reported motivation, were assessed in persons with NSCLBP, before (PRE) and after (POST) 6 weeks (12 sessions, 1.5 hours/session, 2 x/week) of high intensity cardiovascular (100% VO2Max) and high load resistance (80% 1RM) training (HIT, n= 10) and compared to average intensity/load (60% VO2max) conventional physical therapy (CON, n= 10).

RESULTS

At PRE, CON and HIT did not differ, except for gender ratio and lean mass. Compared to CON, HIT retained motivation to rehabilitate better (HIT: +3%; CON: -25%) and had higher therapy adherence (+16%) during the study course. No adverse events were noted in both groups. Whereas disability reduced in both groups (HIT: -10.4%; CON: -8.3%), peak workload (+7.0%), time to exhaustion (+9.5%), and activity level (+5.6%) only improved in HIT.

CONCLUSIONS

High intensity exercise therapy appears to be a feasible rehabilitation approach in NSCLBP. Outcomes improved following the HIT protocol, warranting the investigation of its effectiveness in future large scale RCT studies.

Pain and functional outcomes after outpatient physiotherapy in patients with low back pain

BACKGROUND

Physiotherapy treatment programs are recommended in the rehabilitation of low back pain (LBP). Rehabilitation institutions are increasingly asked to demonstrate the outcomes of their intensive physiotherapy services.

AIM

To describe pain and functional outcome measures following a 6-month outpatient physiotherapy treatment program in patients with LBP.

METHODS

A total of 85 patients were analysed after being treated with a combination of physiotherapeutic treatment modalities 2-3 days weekly. Pain and disability were measured before, 3 and 6 months after the onset of treatment. Isometric trunk muscle strength for flexion and extension and flexibility of dorsal trunk and thigh structures were measured before and 6 months after treatment.

RESULTS

After 6 months, pain at rest decreased from a median of 4.0 to 0.0 (p < 0.01) and pain during activity from a median of 5.5 to 2.0 on the numeric rating scale (p < 0.001). The Roland-Morris Disability (RMDQ) score decreased from a median of 7.0 to 3.0 (p < 0.001). Mean trunk muscle flexion strength increased from 133.7 to 156.0 Nm and for extension from 235.5 to 278.3 Nm (p < 0.001). Flexibility was improved from a mean of -5.9 to -1.4 cm (p < 0.001). A moderate correlation between pain at rest and RMDQ score was found after 3 (r = 0.532, p < 0.01) and 6 months (r = 0.508, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with LBP who were treated with the physiotherapeutic treatment program showed a clinically relevant reduction of pain and disability with improved trunk muscle strength and flexibility. Reductions in pain and disability do not seem to correlate with increased trunk muscle strength and flexibility. No conclusions can be declared about long-term changes after the intervention.

Identifying back pain subgroups: developing and applying approaches using individual patient data collected within clinical trials

Background

There is good evidence that therapist-delivered interventions have modest beneficial effects for people with low back pain (LBP). Identification of subgroups of people with LBP who may benefit from these different treatment approaches is an important research priority.

Aim and objectives

To improve the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LBP treatment by providing patients, their clinical advisors and health-service purchasers with better information about which participants are most likely to benefit from which treatment choices. Our objectives were to synthesise what is already known about the validity, reliability and predictive value of possible treatment moderators (patient factors that predict response to treatment) for therapist-delivered interventions; develop a repository of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) testing therapist-delivered interventions for LBP; determine which participant characteristics, if any, predict clinical response to different treatments for LBP; and determine which participant characteristics, if any, predict the most cost-effective treatments for LBP. Achieving these objectives required substantial methodological work, including the development and evaluation of some novel statistical approaches. This programme of work was not designed to analyse the main effect of interventions and no such interpretations should be made.

Methods

First, we reviewed the literature on treatment moderators and subgroups. We initially invited investigators of trials of therapist-delivered interventions for LBP with > 179 participants to share their data with us; some further smaller trials that were offered to us were also included. Using these trials we developed a repository of individual participant data of therapist-delivered interventions for LBP. Using this data set we sought to identify which participant characteristics, if any, predict response to different treatments (moderators) for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes. We undertook an analysis of covariance to identify potential moderators to apply in our main analyses. Subsequently, we developed and applied three methods of subgroup identification: recursive partitioning (interaction trees and subgroup identification based on a differential effect search); adaptive risk group refinement; and an individual participant data indirect network meta-analysis (NWMA) to identify subgroups defined by multiple parameters.

Results

We included data from 19 RCTs with 9328 participants (mean age 49 years, 57% females). Our prespecified analyses using recursive partitioning and adaptive risk group refinement performed well and allowed us to identify some subgroups. The differences in the effect size in the different subgroups were typically small and unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Increasing baseline severity on the outcome of interest was the strongest driver of subgroup identification that we identified. Additionally, we explored the application of Bayesian indirect NWMA. This method produced varying probabilities that a particular treatment choice would be most likely to be effective for a specific patient profile.

Conclusions

These data lack clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness justification for the use of baseline characteristics in the development of subgroups for back pain. The methodological developments from this work have the potential to be applied in other clinical areas. The pooled repository database will serve as a valuable resource to the LBP research community.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme. This project benefited from facilities funded through Birmingham Science City Translational Medicine Clinical Research and Infrastructure Trials Platform, with support from Advantage West Midlands (AWM) and the Wolfson Foundation.

Comparison of effectiveness of different exercise programs in treatment of failed back surgery syndrome: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a condition characterized by persistent pain following back surgeries.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of different exercises programs in FBSS.

METHODS

A Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial designed. One hundred participants with failed back surgery syndrome were randomly assigned to three different exercises groups (Isokinetic, Dynamic lumbar stabilization (DLS), and home exercises (HE) groups) and a control group. Patients were evaluated before and after 8-week exercise program and follow-ups at the 3rd and 6th months after the exercise program. Finger-floor distance and lumbar Schober for lumbar mobility, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, modified Oswestry disability index, Beck depression inventory, fear-avoidance attitudes survey, and progressive-isoinertial weight lifting test were used as follow-up parameters. Lumbar muscle strength was assessed with the isokinetic dynamometer.

RESULTS

VAS levels were decreased from 67.7 to 22.8 in isokinetic and from 68.7 to 25.0 in DLS and from 64.6 to 47.1 in HE groups at the end of the program (p< 0.05). Also, all of other follow-up parameters of the isokinetic and DLS exercise groups viewed significant improvements compared to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our results either isokinetic or DLS exercises are more effective in FBSS patients.

A Controlled and Retrospective Study of 144 Chronic Low Back Pain Patients to Evaluate the Effectiveness of an Intensive Functional Restoration Program in France

STUDY DESIGN

A controlled and retrospective study of 144 chronic low back pain patients to evaluate the effectiveness of an intensive functional restoration program in France.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluating the efficiency of an intensive, dynamic and multidisciplinary functional restoration program in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP), during 6 and 12 months follow up.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Chronic low back pain disease has a multifactor nature, involving physical, psychological professional and social factors. A functional restoration program (FRP) has been included in a multidisciplinary training program which provides an efficient therapeutic solution. However, the effectiveness of an FRP has not been yet established.

METHODS

144 subjects (71 males, 73 females) with chronic low back pain were included in a functional restoration program. The FRP includes physiotherapy and occupational therapy interventions together with psychological counselling. Patients participated as in- or outpatients 6 h per day, 5 days a week over 5 weeks. Pain intensity, trunk flexibility, trunk strength, lifting ability, quality of life and return to work were recorded before, immediately after, and at 6 months and 12 months after the treatment period.

RESULTS

All outcome measures were significantly higher just after the FRP (144 patients) and at 6 and 12 months (from available data in 31 subjects) compared to pre-treatment values. This FRP for chronic low back pain maintained its benefits whatever the patient's activities.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects reflected on all outcome measures, both on short and long term follow-up. The multidisciplinary FRP for chronic low back pain patients durably stopped the de-conditioning syndrome and involved new life-style habits for the patient, daily pain management and a return to work.

Efficacy of classification-specific treatment and adherence on outcomes in people with chronic low back pain. A one-year follow-up, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

It is unknown if low back pain (LBP) outcomes are enhanced by classification-specific treatment based on the Movement System Impairment classification system. The moderating effect of adherence to treatment also is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

Compare the efficacy of a classification-specific treatment (CS) and a non classification-specific (NCs) treatment and examine the moderating effect of adherence on outcomes.

DESIGN

2 center, 2 parallel group, prospective, randomized, clinical trial.

METHOD

Participants with chronic LBP were classified and randomized. Self-report data was obtained at baseline, post-treatment, and 6 and 12 months post-treatment. The primary outcome was the modified Oswestry Disability Index (mODI; 0-100%). Treatment effect modifiers were exercise adherence and performance training adherence. An intention to treat approach and hierarchical linear modeling were used.

RESULTS

47 people received CS treatment, 54 people received NCs treatment. Treatment groups did not differ in mODI scores (p > 0.05). For both groups, scores improved with treatment (p < 0.05), plateaued at 6 months (p > 0.05), and minimally regressed at 12 months (p < 0.05). Performance training adherence had a unique, independent effect on mODI scores above and beyond the effect of exercise adherence (p < 0.05). There were no treatment group effects on the relationship between mODI scores and the two types of adherence (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in function between the two treatment groups (CS and NCs). In both treatment groups, people with chronic LBP displayed clinically important long-term improvements in function. When both forms of adherence were considered, the improvements were uniquely related to adherence to performance training.

Motor control exercise for acute non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Motor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Assessment of chiropractic treatment for active duty, U.S. military personnel with low back pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is highly prevalent and one of the most common causes of disability in U.S. armed forces personnel. Currently, no single therapeutic method has been established as a gold standard treatment for this increasingly prevalent condition. One commonly used treatment, which has demonstrated consistent positive outcomes in terms of pain and function within a civilian population is spinal manipulative therapy provided by doctors of chiropractic. Chiropractic care, delivered within a multidisciplinary framework in military healthcare settings, has the potential to help improve clinical outcomes for military personnel with low back pain. However, its effectiveness in a military setting has not been well established. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate changes in pain and disability in active duty service members with low back pain who are allocated to receive usual medical care plus chiropractic care versus treatment with usual medical care alone.

METHODS/DESIGN

This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial will enroll 750 active duty service members with low back pain at three military treatment facilities within the United States (250 from each site) who will be allocated to receive usual medical care plus chiropractic care or usual medical care alone for 6 weeks. Primary outcomes will include the numerical rating scale for pain intensity and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire at week 6. Patient reported outcomes of pain, disability, bothersomeness, and back pain function will be collected at 2, 4, 6, and 12 weeks from allocation.

DISCUSSION

Because low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability among U.S. military personnel, it is important to find pragmatic and conservative treatments that will treat low back pain and preserve low back function so that military readiness is maintained. Thus, it is important to evaluate the effects of the addition of chiropractic care to usual medical care on low back pain and disability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial discussed in this article was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the NCT01692275 Date of registration: 6 September 2012.

Motor control exercise for chronic non-specific low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is a common condition. It is reported to be a major health and socioeconomic problem associated with work absenteeism, disability and high costs for patients and society. Exercise is a modestly effective treatment for chronic LBP. However, current evidence suggests that no single form of exercise is superior to another. Among the most commonly used exercise interventions is motor control exercise (MCE). MCE intervention focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and co-ordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles. While there are previous systematic reviews of the effectiveness of MCE, recently published trials justify an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. We also performed citation tracking and searched the reference lists of reviews and eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. We included trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment or that added MCE as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We considered function, quality of life, return to work or recurrence as secondary outcomes. All outcomes must have been measured with a valid and reliable instrument.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. A third independent review author resolved any disagreement. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group expanded 12-item criteria (Furlan 2009). We extracted mean scores, standard deviations and sample sizes from the included trials, and if this information was not provided we calculated or estimated them using methods recommended in the Cochrane Handbook. We also contacted the authors of the trials for any missing or unclear information. We considered the following time points: short-term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation); and long-term (12 months or more after randomisation) follow-up. We assessed heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by calculating the Chi(2) test and the I(2) statistic. We combined results in a meta-analysis expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 trials (n = 2431) in this review. The study sample sizes ranged from 20 to 323 participants. We considered a total of 76.6% of the included trials to have a low risk of bias, representing 86% of all participants. There is low to high quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. When compared with minimal intervention, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for improving pain at short, intermediate and long-term follow-up with medium effect sizes (long-term, MD -12.97; 95% CI -18.51 to -7.42). There was also a clinically important difference for the outcomes function and global impression of recovery compared with minimal intervention. There is moderate to high quality evidence that there is no clinically important difference between MCE and manual therapy for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. Finally, there is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPA) for pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life with medium to large effect sizes (pain at short term, MD -30.18; 95% CI -35.32 to -25.05). Minor or no adverse events were reported in the included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low to moderate quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with a minimal intervention for chronic low back pain. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with exercise plus EPA. There is moderate to high quality evidence that MCE provides similar outcomes to manual therapies and low to moderate quality evidence that it provides similar outcomes to other forms of exercises. Given the evidence that MCE is not superior to other forms of exercise, the choice of exercise for chronic LBP should probably depend on patient or therapist preferences, therapist training, costs and safety.

Effect of frequent WBC treatments on the back pain therapy in elderly men

Cryotherapy is the application of a stimulus of a cryotherapeutic temperature below -100 °C in a period of 1-3 min in order to stimulate and use physiological reactions of human body to cold. It can be applied to specific body parts or to a whole body. Whole-body cryotherapy is a treatment method applied in treatment of motor organ issues, nervous system diseases, psychiatry, dermatology and laryngology. The research group consisted of 80 male in the age range of 65-77 suffering from chronic, lasting more than 3 months, lower back pain. The subjects qualified to the research were divided into two groups. Group A consisted of 40 patients who participated in whole-body cryotherapy (WBC) twice a week. Group B also contained 40 patients who participated in WBC whole week. Examinations were conducted twice. The first one was conducted before the commencement of the treatment while the second one after the therapy was over. The results of the research did not show any statistically significant improvement in patients from Group A. However, the results obtained by Group B have proven significant condition improvement and enable the researchers to conclude that WBC is effective in treating patients with lower back pain.

Evaluating the quality of subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials of therapist-delivered interventions for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality, conduct, and reporting of subgroup analyses performed in randomized controlled trials of therapist-delivered interventions for nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Randomized controlled trials of therapist-delivered interventions for NSLBP to date have, at best, shown small to moderate positive effects. Identifying subgroups is an important research priority. This review evaluates the quality, conduct, and reporting of subgroup analyses performed in the NSLBP literature.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of therapist-delivered interventions for NSLBP. Of the identified articles, only articles reporting subgroup analyses (confirmatory or exploratory) were included in the final review. Methodological criteria were used to evaluate the quality of subgroup analyses. The quality of conduct and reporting was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine articles were included in the final review. Of these, only 3 (8%) tested hypotheses about moderators (confirmatory findings), 18 (46%) generated hypotheses about moderators to inform future research (exploratory findings), and 18 (46%) provided insufficient findings. The appropriate statistical test for interaction was performed in 27 of the articles, of which 10 reported results from interaction tests, 4 incorrectly reported results within individual subgroups, and the remaining articles reported either P values or nothing at all.

CONCLUSION

Subgroup analyses performed in NSLBP trials have been severely underpowered, are only able to provide exploratory or insufficient findings, and have rather poor quality of reporting. Using current approaches, few definitive trials of subgrouping in back pain are very likely to be performed. There is a need to develop new approaches to subgroup identification in back pain research.

"I know it's changed": a mixed-methods study of the meaning of Global Perceived Effect in chronic neck pain patients

PURPOSE

Global Perceived Effect (GPE) is a commonly used outcome measure for musculoskeletal conditions like neck pain; however, little is known regarding the factors patients take into account when determining their GPE. The overall objective of this work was to describe the thematic variables, which comprise the GPE from the patient's perspective.

METHODS

This was a mixed-methods study in which qualitative data were collected within a randomized clinical trial assessing exercise and manual therapy for chronic neck pain. A consecutive sample of 106 patients who completed the trial intervention took part in semi-structured interviews querying the meaning of GPE. Quantitative measures were collected through self-report questionnaires. Interview transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes, which were then quantified to assess potential relationships.

RESULTS

A model of GPE for chronic neck pain emerged comprised of five main themes: neck symptoms (cited by 85%), biomechanical performance (38%), activities of daily living (31%), self-efficacy (10%), and need for other treatment (6%). Influencing factors included those contributing to GPE: treatment process (64%), biomechanical performance (51%), self-efficacy (16%), and the nature of the condition (8%). Factors, which detracted from GPE or prevented recovery included perceived nature of condition (58%), required daily activities (10%), lack of diagnosis (5%), and history of failed treatment (5%).

CONCLUSIONS

GPE appears to capture chronic neck pain patient perceptions of change in different domains important to their individual pain experiences that may not be captured by other outcome instruments. Thus, GPE is a suitable patient-oriented outcome that can complement other measures in research and clinical practice. Importantly, many chronic neck pain patients believe it impossible to reach complete recovery because of a perceived intractable aspect of their neck condition; this has important implications regarding long-term disability and health-seeking behaviors.

Evidence-based risk assessment and recommendations for physical activity: arthritis, osteoporosis, and low back pain

We systematically reviewed the safety of physical activity (PA) for people with arthritis, osteoporosis, and low back pain. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Sport Discus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1966 through March 2008) for relevant articles on PA and adverse events. A total of 111 articles met our inclusion criteria. The incidence for adverse events during PA was 3.4%-11% (0.06%-2.4% serious adverse events) and included increased joint pain, fracture, and back pain for those with arthritis, osteoporosis, and low back pain, respectively. Recommendations were based on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, which applies Levels of Evidence based on type of study ranging from high-quality randomized controlled trials (Level 1) to anecdotal evidence (Level 4) and Grades from A (strong) to C (weak). Our main recommendations are that (i) arthritic patients with highly progressed forms of disease should avoid heavy load-bearing activities, but should participate in non-weight-bearing activities (Level 2, Grade A); and (ii) patients with osteoporosis should avoid trunk flexion (Level 2, Grade A) and powerful twisting of the trunk (Level 3, Grade C); (iii) patients with acute low back pain can safely do preference-based PA (i.e., PA that does not induce pain), including low back extension and flexion (Level 2, Grade B); (iv) arthritic patients with stable disease without progressive joint damage and patients with stable osteoporosis or low back pain can safely perform a variety of progressive aerobic or resistance-training PAs (Level 2, Grades A and B). Overall, the adverse event incidence from reviewed studies was low. PA can safely be done by most individuals with musculoskeletal conditions.

Physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy to reduce sickness absence for workers with back pain

BACKGROUND

Physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy aims to improve work status for workers on sick leave due to back pain. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review (originally titled 'Work conditioning, work hardening and functional restoration for workers with back and neck pain') first published in 2003, updated in 2010, and updated again in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy in reducing time lost from work and improving work status for workers with back pain. Further, to assess which aspects of physical conditioning are related to a faster return to work for workers with back pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to March 2012: CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1966), EMBASE (from 1980), CINAHL (from 1982), PsycINFO (from 1967), and PEDro.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs that studied workers with work disability related to back pain and who were included in physical conditioning programmes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 articles reporting on 25 RCTs with 4404 participants. Risk of bias was low in 16 studies.Three studies involved workers with acute back pain, eight studies workers with subacute back pain, and 14 studies workers with chronic back pain.In 14 studies, physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy was compared to usual care. The physical conditioning mostly consisted of graded activity with work-related exercises aimed at increasing back strength and flexibility, together with a set date for return to work. The programmes were divided into a light version with a maximum of five sessions, or an intense version with more than five sessions up to full time or as inpatient treatment.For acute back pain, there was low quality evidence that both light and intense physical conditioning programmes made little or no difference in sickness absence duration compared with care as usual at three to 12 months follow-up (3 studies with 340 workers).For subacute back pain, the evidence on the effectiveness of intense physical conditioning combined with care as usual compared to usual care alone was conflicting (four studies with 395 workers). However, subgroup analysis showed low quality evidence that if the intervention was executed at the workplace, or included a workplace visit, it may have reduced sickness absence duration at 12 months follow-up (3 studies with 283 workers; SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.18).For chronic back pain, there was low quality evidence that physical conditioning as part of integrated care management in addition to usual care may have reduced sickness absence days compared to usual care at 12 months follow-up (1 study, 134 workers; SMD -4.42, 95% CI -5.06 to -3.79). What part of the integrated care management was most effective remained unclear. There was moderate quality evidence that intense physical conditioning probably reduced sickness absence duration only slightly compared with usual care at 12 months follow-up (5 studies, 1093 workers; SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.03).Physical conditioning compared to exercise therapy showed conflicting results for workers with subacute and chronic back pain. Cognitive behavioural therapy was probably not superior to physical conditioning as an alternative or in addition to physical conditioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy in reducing sick leave for workers with back pain, compared to usual care or exercise therapy, remains uncertain. For workers with acute back pain, physical conditioning may have no effect on sickness absence duration. There is conflicting evidence regarding the reduction of sickness absence duration with intense physical conditioning versus usual care for workers with subacute back pain. It may be that including workplace visits or execution of the intervention at the workplace is the component that renders a physical conditioning programme effective. For workers with chronic back pain physical conditioning has a small effect on reducing sick leave compared to care as usual after 12 months follow-up. To what extent physical conditioning as part of integrated care management may alter the effect on sick leave for workers with chronic back pain needs further research.

Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica

BACKGROUND

Traction has been used to treat low-back pain (LBP), often in combination with other treatments. We included both manual and machine-delivered traction in this review. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1995, and previously updated in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of traction compared to placebo, sham traction, reference treatments and no treatment in people with LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Back Review Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2012, Issue 8), MEDLINE (January 2006 to August 2012), EMBASE (January 2006 to August 2012), CINAHL (January 2006 to August 2012), and reference lists of articles and personal files. The review authors are not aware of any important new randomized controlled trial (RCTs) on this topic since the date of the last search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs involving traction to treat acute (less than four weeks' duration), subacute (four to 12 weeks' duration) or chronic (more than 12 weeks' duration) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. As there were insufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a descriptive analysis. We did not find any case series that identified adverse effects, therefore we evaluated adverse effects that were reported in the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs involving 2762 participants in this review. We considered 16 trials, representing 57% of all participants, to have a low risk of bias based on the Cochrane Back Review Group's 'Risk of bias' tool.For people with mixed symptom patterns (acute, subacute and chronic LBP with and without sciatica), there was low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction may make little or no difference in pain intensity, functional status, global improvement or return to work when compared to placebo, sham traction or no treatment. Similarly, when comparing the combination of physiotherapy plus traction with physiotherapy alone or when comparing traction with other treatments, there was very-low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction may make little or no difference in pain intensity, functional status or global improvement.For people with LBP with sciatica and acute, subacute or chronic pain, there was low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction probably has no impact on pain intensity, functional status or global improvement. This was true when traction was compared with controls and other treatments, as well as when the combination of traction plus physiotherapy was compared with physiotherapy alone. No studies reported the effect of traction on return to work.For chronic LBP without sciatica, there was moderate-quality evidence that traction probably makes little or no difference in pain intensity when compared with sham treatment. No studies reported on the effect of traction on functional status, global improvement or return to work.Adverse effects were reported in seven of the 32 studies. These included increased pain, aggravation of neurological signs and subsequent surgery. Four studies reported that there were no adverse effects. The remaining studies did not mention adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that traction, either alone or in combination with other treatments, has little or no impact on pain intensity, functional status, global improvement and return to work among people with LBP. There is only limited-quality evidence from studies with small sample sizes and moderate to high risk of bias. The effects shown by these studies are small and are not clinically relevant. Implications for practice To date, the use of traction as treatment for non-specific LBP cannot be motivated by the best available evidence. These conclusions are applicable to both manual and mechanical traction. Implications for research Only new, large, high-quality studies may change the point estimate and its accuracy, but it should be noted that such change may not necessarily favour traction. Therefore, little priority should be given to new studies on the effect of traction treatment alone or as part of a package.

Supervised exercise with and without spinal manipulation performs similarly and better than home exercise for chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial using mixed methods.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative effectiveness of high-dose supervised exercise with and without spinal manipulation and low-dose home exercise for chronic neck pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Neck pain is a common global health care complaint with considerable social and economic impact. Systematic reviews have found exercise therapy (ET) to be effective for neck pain, either alone or in combination with spinal manipulation. However, it is unclear to what extent spinal manipulation adds to supervised exercise or how supervised high-dose exercise compares with low-dose home exercise.

METHODS

Two hundred and seventy patients with chronic neck pain were studied at an outpatient clinic. Patients were randomly assigned one of the following interventions: (1) high-dose supervised strengthening exercise with spinal manipulation (exercise therapy combined with spinal manipulation therapy [ET + SMT]), (2) high-dose supervised strengthening exercise (ET) alone, or (3) low-dose home exercise and advice (HEA). The primary outcome was patient-rated pain at baseline and at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. Secondary measures were disability, health status, global perceived effect, medication use, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

At 12 weeks, there was a significant difference in patient-rated pain between ET + SMT and HEA (1.3 points, P < 0.001) and ET and HEA (1.1 points, P = 0.001). Although there were smaller group differences in patient-rated pain at 52 weeks (ET + SMT vs. HEA, 0.2 points, P > 0.05; ET vs. HEA, 0.3 points, P > 0.05), linear mixed model analyses incorporating all time points yielded a significant advantage for the 2 supervised exercise groups (ET + SMT vs. HEA, P = 0.03; ET vs. HEA, P = 0.02). Similar results were observed for global perceived effect and satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Supervised strengthening exercise with and without spinal manipulation performed similarly, yielding better outcomes than home exercise particularly in the short term. Various stakeholders' perspectives should be considered carefully when making recommendations regarding these therapies, taking into account side effects, preferences, and costs.

Sex and pain perception and analgesia

Sex is an important factor in painful experience modulation. Large volume of evidence shows that experience is different for males and females, as well as the answer to some classes of analgesics. Laboratory experiments suggest that women have a lower pain threshold than men related to pain from noxious stimuli such as heat, cold, pressure and electrical stimulation. Pain is a dynamic phenomenon under the influence of various mechanisms of excitatory and inhibitory control. The differences in pain perception related to sex may be associated with hyperalgesia in women, but also to the hypoactivity of the inhibitory system of pain in females. The purpose of this review besides showing some relationship for gonadal hormones, central nervous system and pain is to provide reference points for the discussion of one of the most intriguing aspects of the pathophysiology of pain: the differences in the presence of painful stimuli related to gender.

Gender Differences in Modifying Lumbopelvic Motion during Hip Medial Rotation in People with Low Back Pain

Reducing increased or early lumbopelvic motion during trunk or limb movements may be an important component of low back pain treatment. The ability to reduce lumbopelvic motion may be influenced by gender. The purpose of the current study was to examine the effect of gender on the ability of people with low back pain to reduce lumbopelvic motion during hip medial rotation following physical therapy treatment. Lumbopelvic rotation and hip rotation before the start of lumbopelvic rotation were assessed pre- and posttreatment for 16 females and 15 males. Both men and women decreased lumbopelvic rotation and completed more hip rotation before the start of lumbopelvic rotation post-treatment compared to pre-treatment. Men demonstrated greater lumbopelvic rotation and completed less hip rotation before the start of lumbopelvic rotation than women both pre- and post-treatment. Both men and women reduced lumbopelvic motion relative to their starting values, but, overall, men still demonstrated greater and earlier lumbopelvic motion. These results may have important implications for understanding differences in the evaluation and treatment of men and women with low back pain.

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic back pain in an outpatient setting: A controlled randomized trial

Based on existing models for pain chronicity and effective treatment strategies for patients with chronic low back pain, a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for an outpatient group setting was developed. The main treatment components address the patient's physical functional capacity (functional restoring), cognitive and affective processes (pain management strategies), and behavioural and ergonomical aspects (back school elements). Short-term (immediately after intervention) and long-term effects (at 6-months follow-up) of the intervention were assessed in a randomized controlled study. Dependent variables were pain measures, functional capacity, disability, muscular strength and endurance, pain and posture-related self-efficacy, attitudes, depression, well-being, behavioural habits and posture assessed by a standardized behavioural observation method. Immediately after the intervention, patients in the treatment group (n=36) showed significant improvement over patients in the control group (n=29) in all variables except depression and muscular strength and endurance. At 6-months follow-up, compared to pretreatment scores, patients continued to show beneficial effects in pain intensity and frequency, posture, posture-related self-efficacy and well-being. In contrast to post-treatment results, there were also significant improvements in strength and endurance. Overall results testify to the effectiveness of the intervention programme. Future studies (with larger sample sizes) should aim at a further improvement of functional capacity and disability perception, an analysis of differential treatment effects, and strategies for an improved long-term maintenance of the changes induced by the programme.

Use of a multimodal conservative management protocol for the treatment of a patient with cervical radiculopathy

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to describe and discuss the treatment of a cervical disk herniation using a sequential multimodal conservative management approach.

CLINICAL FEATURES

A 40-year-old man had complaints of headache and severe sharp neck pain radiating to his left shoulder down to his arm, forearm, and hand. Results of electromyography/nerve conduction studies were abnormal. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a large disk protrusion at C5-C6 with indentation of the thecal sac and a spur at the posterior margin. Moderate left neural foraminal narrowing was present at C5-C6 with narrowed intervertebral disk space at C5-C6 and C6-C7.

INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME

High-velocity, low-amplitude chiropractic manipulation; electrotherapy; ice; and exercise were used for treatment. The Neck Disability Index was used as a primary and electromyography/nerve conduction studies as a secondary outcome measurement. Based on the Neck Disability Index, there was an overall 89.65% symptoms improvement from the baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

This case study demonstrated possible beneficial effects of the multimodal treatment approach in a patient with cervical radiculopathy.

Exercise therapy for low back pain: a narrative review of the literature

PURPOSE

Exercise therapy has become an expected modality in the treatment of low back pain but there are no clear evidence based guidelines available. The purpose of this review is to analyze the available literature in regard to demonstrated efficacy of various types of exercise therapy for low back pain.

METHOD

A search was made on PubMed for exercise and low back pain that found 28 citations in English including 23 randomized controlled clinical trials published between 1993 and 2004 and 5 literature reviews published in 2000 through 2002.

RESULTS

Previous reviews have stated that the literature does not support the use of exercise therapy for acute low back pain but it does give qualified support to exercise therapy for chronic low back pain. More recent studies have divided subjects based on functional rather than temporal characteristics, specifically, taking into consideration the directional preference of the patient and addressing muscle groups that augment stabilization of the "neutral zone." Such approaches yield effective clinical response in both acute and chronic patients within 2 weeks with 6 visits and provide lasting benefit up to 3 years after intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

By identifying specific functional characteristics of individual patients, providers should be able to design exercise therapies that will provide more effective clinical intervention for low back pain patients.

Chiropractic and self-care for back-related leg pain: design of a randomized clinical trial

Background

Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is a common variation of low back pain (LBP), with lifetime prevalence estimates as high as 40%. Often disabling, BRLP accounts for greater work loss, recurrences, and higher costs than uncomplicated LBP and more often leads to surgery with a lifetime incidence of 10% for those with severe BRLP, compared to 1-2% for those with LBP.

In the US, half of those with back-related conditions seek CAM treatments, the most common of which is chiropractic care. While there is preliminary evidence suggesting chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is beneficial for patients with BRLP, there is insufficient evidence currently available to assess the effectiveness of this care.

Methods/Design

This study is a two-site, prospective, parallel group, observer-blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT). A total of 192 study patients will be recruited from the Twin Cities, MN (n = 122) and Quad Cities area in Iowa and Illinois (n = 70) to the research clinics at WHCCS and PCCR, respectively.

It compares two interventions: chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus home exercise program (HEP) to HEP alone (minimal intervention comparison) for patients with subacute or chronic back-related leg pain.

Discussion

Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is a costly and often disabling variation of the ubiquitous back pain conditions. As health care costs continue to climb, the search for effective treatments with few side-effects is critical. While SMT is the most commonly sought CAM treatment for LBP sufferers, there is only a small, albeit promising, body of research to support its use for patients with BRLP.

This study seeks to fill a critical gap in the LBP literature by performing the first full scale RCT assessing chiropractic SMT for patients with sub-acute or chronic BRLP using important patient-oriented and objective biomechanical outcome measures.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00494065

Indicators of adherence to physiotherapy attendance among Saudi female patients with mechanical low back pain: a clinical audit

Background

Among current musculoskeletal interventions used to treat low back pain (LBP), physiotherapy exercise has the highest evidence of effectiveness in avoiding recurrence and chronic disability. However, effectiveness of physiotherapy is thought to be directly related to the patients' adherence to physiotherapy. Since adherence is reported to be directly influenced by socio-cultural factors, this study was conducted to investigate factors related to patients' adherence in a group of Saudi female patients with LBP.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted on female LBP patients referred to the department of physiotherapy at a local tertiary hospital over a 12 month period. A total of 98 charts were reviewed. Two physiotherapists specialized in musculoskeletal rehabilitation collected information from the medical files. Data were classified in three categories: patients' personal demographics, patients' medical condition and history, and type of physiotherapy administered. Contingency tables and chi-square test were computed to test for differences in proportions. Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated to examine relationships among variables.

Results

Subjects who attended their scheduled appointments were classified as adherent (40%), and those who failed to attend 2 consecutive scheduled appointments and got discharged were classified as non-adherent (60%). Factors that significantly correlated with adherence included: age (r = 0.7, p < 0.05), initial pain intensity (r = 0.5, p < 0.05), and subjective report of improvement (r = 0.7, p < 0.01). Adherence did not correlate with the type of LBP, patient occupation, experience or nationality of the physiotherapist.

Conclusion

This study reveals an alarming level of non-adherence to physiotherapy among patients with LBP. It remains unclear as to what level of adherence is required to achieve beneficial effect of treatment. It is quite evident however, that early withdrawal from treatment would not allow the therapeutic benefits of the treatment to be realized. Future research should be directed toward developing strategies to improve adherence.

Treatment of chronic low back pain: a randomized, clinical trial comparing group-based multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation and intensive individual therapist-assisted back muscle strengthening exercises

STUDY DESIGN

A stratified randomized single-blinded clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacies of 2 active therapies for chronic low back pain (CLBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Both a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation program and an intensive individual therapist-assisted back muscle strengthening exercise program used in Denmark have been reported to be effective for the treatment of CLBP.

METHODS

A total of 286 patients with CLBP were randomized to either a group-based 12-week program comprising 73 hours of therapist exposure (approximately 12 h/patient): 35 hours of hard physical exercise, 22 hours of light exercise/occupational therapy, and 16 hours of education (group A) or a 12-week program comprising 1 hour of personal training twice a week, i.e., therapist exposure 24 h/patient (group B). At baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, patients filled out questionnaires on pain (visual analogue scale [VAS]-pain average, which was the primary outcome measure), Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, global perceived outcome, and 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey. Data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

Of the 286 patients, 14 patients did not start treatment. Of the remaining patients, 25 (9%) dropped out of therapy. The 2 groups were comparable regarding baseline characteristic. After treatment, significant improvements were observed with regard to pain, disability, and most of the quality of life dimensions. These effects were sustained over the 24-month follow-up period. There were some statistically significant differences between the 2 groups relating to secondary end points, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, and in the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey the "physical functioning" dimension and the "physical component summary."

CONCLUSION

Both groups showed long-term improvements in pain and disability scores, with only minor statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. The minor outcome difference in favor of the group-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation program is hardly of clinical interest for individual patients.

Physical conditioning programs for improving work outcomes in workers with back pain

BACKGROUND

Physical conditioning programs aim to improve work status for workers on sick leave. This is an update of a Cochrane Review (Work conditioning, work hardening and functional restoration for workers with back and neck pain) first published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of physical conditioning programs in reducing time lost from work for workers with back pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases to June/July 2008: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3), MEDLINE from 1966, EMBASE from 1980, CINAHL from 1982, PsycINFO from 1967, and PEDro.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs that studied workers with work disability related to back pain and who were included in physical conditioning programs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-seven references, reporting on 23 RCTs (3676 workers) were included, 13 of which had a low risk of bias. In 14 studies, physical conditioning programs were compared to usual care. In workers with acute back pain, there was no effect on sickness absence. For workers with subacute back pain, we found conflicting results, but subgroup analysis showed a positive effect of interventions with workplace involvement. In workers with chronic back pain, pooled results of five studies showed a small effect on sickness absence at long-term follow-up (SMD: -0.18 (95% CI: -0.37 to 0.00)). In workers with chronic back pain, physical conditioning programs were compared to other exercise therapy in six studies, with conflicting results. The addition of cognitive behavioural therapy to physical conditioning programs was not more effective than the physical conditioning alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of physical conditioning programs in reducing sick leave when compared to usual care or than other exercises in workers with back pain remains uncertain. In workers with acute back pain, these programs probably have no effect on sick leave, but there may be a positive effect on sick leave for workers with subacute and chronic back pain. Workplace involvement might improve the outcome. Better understanding of the mechanism behind physical conditioning programs and return-to-work is needed to be able to develop more effective interventions.

The association of physical deconditioning and chronic low back pain: A hypothesis-oriented systematic review

PURPOSE

Does physical deconditioning (loss of cardiovascular capacity and strength/endurance of paraspinal muscles) exist in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and are treatments specifically aimed to reduce these signs effective?

METHOD

Systematic literature search in PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO until December 2004 to identify observational studies regarding deconditioning signs and high quality RCTs regarding the effectiveness of cardiovascular and/or muscle strengthening exercises. Internal validity of the RCTs was assessed by using a checklist of nine methodology criteria in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

There is conflicting evidence that cardiovascular deconditioning is present in CLBP and limited evidence for wasting of the multifidus muscle. No study examined the effectiveness of cardiovascular training specifically. General and lumbar muscle strengthening are equally effective as other active treatments. Only moderate evidence is available for the effectiveness of intensive low back extensor muscle strengthening compared to less intensive strengthening.

CONCLUSION

Probably reactivation caused by active treatment and not the reconditioning itself is the important factor in the reduction of disability. Further prospective and evaluative research into the role of physical deconditioning is necessary. It seems more promising to further explore the interplay between biological, social and psychological factors.

Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings

Sex-related influences on pain and analgesia have become a topic of tremendous scientific and clinical interest, especially in the last 10 to 15 years. Members of our research group published reviews of this literature more than a decade ago, and the intervening time period has witnessed robust growth in research regarding sex, gender, and pain. Therefore, it seems timely to revisit this literature. Abundant evidence from recent epidemiologic studies clearly demonstrates that women are at substantially greater risk for many clinical pain conditions, and there is some suggestion that postoperative and procedural pain may be more severe among women than men. Consistent with our previous reviews, current human findings regarding sex differences in experimental pain indicate greater pain sensitivity among females compared with males for most pain modalities, including more recently implemented clinically relevant pain models such as temporal summation of pain and intramuscular injection of algesic substances. The evidence regarding sex differences in laboratory measures of endogenous pain modulation is mixed, as are findings from studies using functional brain imaging to ascertain sex differences in pain-related cerebral activation. Also inconsistent are findings regarding sex differences in responses to pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic pain treatments. The article concludes with a discussion of potential biopsychosocial mechanisms that may underlie sex differences in pain, and considerations for future research are discussed.

PERSPECTIVE

This article reviews the recent literature regarding sex, gender, and pain. The growing body of evidence that has accumulated in the past 10 to 15 years continues to indicate substantial sex differences in clinical and experimental pain responses, and some evidence suggests that pain treatment responses may differ for women versus men.

Efficacy and treatment compliance of a home-based rehabilitation programme for chronic low back pain: a randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and treatment compliance of a home-based rehabilitation programme for chronic low back pain (CLBP).

POPULATION

CLBP outpatients treated in a Physical Medicine Rehabilitation or Rheumatology unit within a university hospital.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, comparative study. The participants were randomly assigned to either a home-based rehabilitation programme (Gp A) or a standard physical therapy (Gp B). The programme included four weekly sessions. In each group, we measured pain intensity (on a visual analogue scale, VAS), flexibility and muscle endurance (the Schöber MacRae test, finger-to-floor distance, thigh-leg angle, the Shirado and Sorensen test), functional and psychological repercussions (the Quebec functional index and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale) and handicap (on a VAS). Follow-up examinations took place at baseline and four weeks and three, six and 12 months later.

RESULTS

One hundred and seven patients (82 women) with a mean+/-standard deviation (S.D.) age of 35.7+/-0.8 years were included (with 54 patients in Gp A). At four weeks, a significant improvement (relative to baseline) was observed for all parameters in both study groups but with a significantly greater difference in Gp A, which was maintained at one year (despite an observed regression of the improvement at six months). At one year, compliance with the home-based rehabilitation programme was good (68.1%) and 59.5% of the patients regarded the programme as useful.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that a home-based rehabilitation programme is as effective as standard physical therapy. However, this type of programme requires patient motivation and regular follow-up.

Physiotherapy and low back pain in the injured worker: an examination of current practice during the subacute phase of healing

PURPOSE

To describe current physiotherapy practice for injured workers with subacute low back pain (SA-LBP).

METHOD

A chart audit of discharged workers was conducted over three episodes of care: 4-6 weeks (T1), 6-8 weeks (T2), and 8-10 weeks (T3) post-injury. The prevalence and reproducibility of parameters for common interventions were calculated as the percentage of active charts over time. Focus groups were used to validate audit results and deepen our understanding of practice.

RESULTS

In all, 164 charts were audited. The most prevalent interventions were (1) for manual therapy, joint mobilization and traction; (2) for electrophysical agents (EPAs), heat, ultrasound, and interferential therapy; and (3) for exercise, core stabilization exercises. Transcript analyses revealed that participants viewed injured workers with SA-LBP in a positive light, emphasized the importance of physiotherapy, and discussed SA-LBP in five themes: time frame, non-specific diagnosis, mixed client outlook, change in pain presentation, and the transition from a passive to a more active treatment approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The pattern of decreasing passive and increasing active interventions is consistent with the focus-group participants' description of how they approach treatment of clients with SA-LBP. Also noted was a higher prevalence of interventions poorly supported by evidence and lower prevalence of interventions well supported by evidence.