New physical examination tests for lumbar spondylolisthesis and instability: low midline sill sign and interspinous gap change during lumbar flexion-extension motion

Diagnosis Value of Patient Evaluation Components Applicable in Primary Care Settings for the Diagnosis of Low Back Pain: A Scoping Review of Systematic Reviews

Low back pain ranks as the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Although best practice guidelines share a consistent diagnostic approach for the evaluation of patients with low back pain, confusion remains as to what extent patient history and physical examination findings can inform management strategies. The aim of this study was to summarize evidence investigating the diagnostic value of patient evaluation components applicable in primary care settings for the diagnosis of low back pain. To this end, peer-reviewed systematic reviews were searched in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane databases from 1 January 2000 to 10 April 2023. Paired reviewers independently reviewed all citations and articles using a two-phase screening process and independently extracted the data. Of the 2077 articles identified, 27 met the inclusion criteria, focusing on the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis, radicular syndrome, non- specific low back pain and specific low back pain. Most patient evaluation components lack diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of low back pain when considered in isolation. Further research is needed to develop evidence-based and standardized evaluation procedures, especially for primary care settings where evidence is still scarce.

Examination of Thoracic and Lumbosacral Spine Guide for Neurosurgery Residents

Background

This paper outlines a summary of examination techniques for the thoracic and lumbosacral spine. It starts with observation, palpation and a range of movements followed by various special tests to identify thoracic and lumbosacral spine pathology.

Methods

Bedside instruments used include a measuring tape, scoliometer and back range of motion instrument (BROM II).

Discussion

Back flexion-extension, lateral flexion and rotation were assessed with bedside instruments. This would aid in increasing the accuracy and precision of objective measurement while conducting a clinical examination to determine the back range motion. Specific tests were used to localise specific anatomical locations and identify the spine pathology that can help the clinician to diagnose and treat the disease.

Comparison of Concordance between Chuna Manual Therapy Diagnostic Methods (Palpation, X-ray, Artificial Intelligence Program) in Lumbar Spine: An Exploratory, Cross-Sectional Clinical Study

Before Chuna manual therapy (CMT), a manual therapy applied in Korean medicine, CMT spinal diagnosis using palpation or X-ray is performed. However, studies on the inter-rater concordance of CMT diagnostic methods, concordance among diagnostic methods, and standard CMT diagnostic methods are scarce. Moreover, no clinical studies have used artificial intelligence (AI) programs for X-ray image-based CMT diagnosis. Therefore, this study sought a feasible and standard CMT spinal diagnostic method and explored the clinical applicability of the CMT-AI program. One hundred participants were recruited, and the concordance within and among different diagnostic modalities was analyzed by dividing them into manual diagnosis (MD), X-ray image-based diagnosis (XRD) by experts and non-experts, and XRD using a CMT-AI program by non-experts. Regarding intra-group concordance, XRD by experts showed the highest concordance (used as a gold standard when comparing inter-group concordance), followed by XRD using the AI program, XRD by non-experts, and then MD. Comparing diagnostic results between the groups, concordance with the gold standard was the highest for XRD using the AI program, followed by XRD by non-experts, and MD. Therefore, XRD is a more reasonable CMT diagnostic method than MD. Furthermore, the clinical applicability of the CMT-AI program is high.

Prevalence of Lumbar Segmental Instability in Young Individuals with the Different Types of Lumbar Disc Herniation-Preliminary Report

Lumbar segmental instability (LSI) can cause pain and disability, and its background can be related to lumbar disc herniation (LDH). This retrospective study was conducted to analyze the prevalence of lumbar segmental instability (LSI) in young patients with different types of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). The study evaluated 133 individuals (18−25 years old) who suffered from LDH and underwent MRI and flexion-extension X-rays. Two groups were created: protrusion (PRO) and extrusion (EXT). LSI was scored positive when translatory motion was greater than 4 mm anteriorly or 2 mm posteriorly at the level of herniation. Statistica 13 was used to perform statistics. The LSI overall prevalence was 18.33% in PRO and 21.92% in EXT (p > 0.05). Out of all LSI positives, higher LSI incidence was observed in females compared to males; in PRO: 63.64%; in EXT: 68.75% (p > 0.05). LSI correlated positively with the passive lumbar extension test (PLE) (R = 0.32; p = 0.01) in the PRO group only. In summary, the results showed that the overall incidence of LSI was higher with severer disc damage. In addition, females were more prone to this pathology. However, the different types of LDH do not significantly affect the prevalence of LSI in young individuals.

Research progress of diagnosing methodology for lumbar segmental instability: A narrative review

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar segmental instability (LSI) is due to a pathologic movement of the vertebral body on the vertebra below and often causes clinical symptoms. The study was to achieve the research progress of diagnosing methodology for lumbar segmental instability and help clinicians make treatment choices.

METHODS

The data for this study were collected from the MEDLINE, Springer, Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, VIP, and CNKI. The search terms were integrated as follows: "(∗lumbar instability∗ OR ∗lumbar spondylolisthesis∗) and (∗image∗ or ∗diagnosis∗)". Studies without clear radiographic instable criteria, case reports, letter, and basic research were excluded.

RESULT

In total, 39 articles published met our inclusion criteria. The various modalities were used to diagnosis LSI in these studies included radiographs, facet joint degeneration and physical examination tests.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there have been a variety of researches to develop the diagnosing methodology for LSI, and many have been successful, although no consensus has been reached yet. However, it is believed that the diagnosis of LSI will become easier and more accurate in the near future.

Comparison of concordance between chuna manual therapy diagnosis methods (palpation, X-ray, artificial intelligence program) in lumbar spine: An exploratory, cross-sectional, prospective observational study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Chuna manual therapy (CMT) is a type of manual medicine practiced by Korean medical doctors in South Korea. Spinal diagnosis in CMT uses a system that applies manual diagnostic and X-ray tests to detect specific vertebral malpositions, based on the relative alignment across vertebral bodies. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) programs have been developed to assist in the radiological diagnosis of CMT using X-ray images. Nevertheless, a few clinical studies have reported on the concordance between diagnosticians, diagnostics methodologies, and the use of AI programs for diagnosing CMT. At present, the evidence to support CMT diagnosis is insufficient. This study thus aims to overcome such limitations by collecting and comparing CMT diagnostic data from experts and non-experts through manual diagnosis, X-ray test, and images obtained using an AI program. The study aims to search for CMT diagnosis methods with more outstanding rationality and consistency and to explore the potential use of AI-based CMT diagnosis programs.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study will be conducted as an exploratory, cross-sectional, prospective observational study that will recruit 100 non-specialist subjects. Each subject will submit a signed consent after the screening test and undergo L-spine standing AP & lateral X-ray imaging. Manual CMT diagnosis will be performed by 3 CMT experts according to the standard operation procedure (SOP). The X-ray images of the 100 subjects will subsequently be used to make the CMT radiological diagnoses according to the same SOP by the CMT expert group (n = 3) and CMT non-expert group (n = 3). Among the subjects, those in the non-expert group will receive another CMT radiological diagnosis with spinal data obtained using the AI program, approximately 1 month from after initial diagnosis.Based on the collected diagnostic data, within- and between-group concordance levels will be assessed for each diagnostic method. The verified level of concordance will be used to test the potential use of CMT diagnostic method and CMT AI programs with high levels of rationality and consistency.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial has received complete ethical approval from the Wonkwang University Korean Medicine Hospital (IRB 2021-8). We intend to submit the results of the trial to a peer-reviewed journal and/or conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do?search_lang=E&search_page=M&pageSize=10&page=undefined&seq=20613&status=5&seq_group=20613, Identifier: KCT0006707.

A diagnostic tool for people with lumbar instability: a criterion-related validity study

BACKGROUND

Several clinical tests used to identify patients with lumbar instability have reported diagnostic accuracy in separate studies with conflicting results. To augment the diagnostic process, tests that are better able to identify lumbar instability suitable for use in the clinical setting are required. The aim of this study was to identify the probability to diagnose patients with lumbar instability, using x-ray imaging as the reference standard.

METHODS

This study was a cross-sectional, diagnostic validity study. One hundred forty participants with chronic low back pain underwent an x-ray assessment and 14 clinical examinations. Data were analysed using multivariate regression methods to determine which clinical tests were most diagnostic for lumbar instability when they were applied together.

RESULTS

Eighteen (12.85%) participants had radiological lumbar instability. Three clinical tests i) interspinous gap change during flexion-extension, ii) passive accessory intervertebral movement tests, iii) posterior shear test demonstrated an ability to diagnose lumbar instability of 67% when they were all positive. At this probability threshold, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), and negative likelihood ratio (-LR) were 5.56, 99.18%, 6.78, and 0.95.

CONCLUSIONS

These 3 clinical tests could be useful in identifying patients with lumbar instability in the general community. These three tests are simple to perform by physical therapists, reliable to use in a clinical setting, and safe for patients. We recommend physical therapists use these three tests to assess patients who are suspected of having lumbar instability, in the absence of an x-ray assessment, to receive appropriate targeted intervention or referral for further investigation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Thai Clinial Trial Registry (TCTR 20180820001; 19th August 2018).

Validity of a Screening Tool for Patients with a Sub-Threshold Level of Lumbar Instability: A Cross-Sectional Study

Lumbar instability (LI) comprises one subgroup of those with chronic low back pain (CLBP); it indicates the impairment of at least one of the spinal stabilizing systems, and radiographic criteria of translation and rotation are used for its diagnosis. Previous studies have developed and tested a screening tool for LI where patients with sub-threshold lumbar instability (STLI) were detected in the initial stage of lumbar pathology using radiographs as a gold standard for diagnosis. The radiographic measurement in STLI lies between the range of translation and rotation of the LI and asymptomatic lumbar motion. However, there are no studies indicating the validity and cut-off points of the screening tool for STLI. The current study aimed to determine the validity of an LI screening tool to support the diagnostic process in patients with STLI. This study design was cross-sectional in nature. A total of 135 participants with CLBP, aged between 20 and 60 years, who had undergone flexion and extension radiographs, answered a screening tool with 14 questions. The cut-off score for identifying STLI using the screening tool was at least 6/14 positive responses to the LI questions. The findings suggested that the LI screening tool we tested is effective for the detection of STLI. The tool can be used in outpatient settings.

Lumbar spondylolisthesis: STATE of the art on assessment and conservative treatment

Introduction

There is weak relationship between the presence of lumbar spondylolisthesis [SPL] and low back pain that is not always associated with instability, either at the involved lumbar segment or at different spinal levels. Therefore patients with lumbar symptomatic SPL can be divided into stable and unstable, based on the level of mobility during flexion and extension movements as general classifications for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Different opinions persist about best treatment (conservative vs. surgical) and among conservative treatments, on the type, dosage, and progression of physical therapy procedures.

Purpose and importance to practice

The aim of this Masterclass is to provide clinicians evidence-based indications for assessment and conservative treatment of SPL, taking into consideration some subgroups related to specific clinical presentations.

Clinical implications

This Masterclass addresses the different phases of the assessment of a patient with SPL, including history, imaging, physical exam, and questionnaires on disability and cognitive-behavioral components. Regarding conservative treatment, self- management approaches and graded supervised training, including therapeutic relationships, information and education, are explained. Primary therapeutic procedures for pain control, recovery of the function and the mobility through therapeutic exercise, passive mobilization and antalgic techniques are suggested. Moreover, some guidance is provided on conservative treatment in specific clinical presentations (lumbar SPL with radiating pain and/or lumbar stenosis, SPL complicated by other factors, and SPL in adolescents) and the number/duration of sessions.

Future research priorities

Some steps to improve the diagnostic-therapeutic approach in SPL are to identify the best cluster of clinical tests, define different lumbar SPL subgroups, and investigate the effects of treatments based on that classification, similarly to the approach already proposed for non-specific LBP.

A Screening Tool for Patients With Lumbar Instability: A Criteria-related Validity of Thai Version

STUDY DESIGN

The study is a cross-sectional, diagnostic validity study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the performance characteristics and validity of an existing lumbar instability questionnaire as a screening tool for lumbar instability among chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar instability is an initial stage of more severe spinal pathology. Early screening for this condition should help prevent more structural damage. To meet this need, the present study developed numerical cutoff scores for the lumbar instability screening tool.

METHODS

Lumbar instability screening tool responses and x-ray assessments were reviewed from a sample of 110 patients with CLBP (aged 20-59 years). Receiver operator curves were constructed to optimize sensitivity and specificity of the tool.

RESULTS

Fourteen (12.73%) patients had radiological lumbar instability. These patients reported a higher mean lumbar instability questionnaire score than those without radiological lumbar instability. A questionnaire score of at least 7 had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 100-100) and a specificity of 26.04% (95% CI = 17.84-34.24) for detecting lumbar instability when compared with x-ray examination. Receiver operator curve analysis revealed the lumbar instability screening had an area under the curve of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.47-0.77).

CONCLUSION

A lumbar instability screening tool total score of at least 7 was ruled out lumbar instability in CLBP patients. This cutoff score may be used as a marker of conservative treatment response. The sample size of patients with lumbar instability in this study was small, which may hinder the reliability of the data. Further studies are needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Does the awareness of having a lumbar spondylolisthesis influence self-efficacy and kinesiophobia? A retrospective analysis

Background

High pain self-efficacy and low kinesiophobia seem related to a better prognosis in patients complaining of low back pain (LBP). The literature stresses the potential negative effects of anatomical defect diagnosis (e.g. lumbar spondylolisthesis) on the psychological profile. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationships between awareness of having a spondylolisthesis, pain self-efficacy and kinesiophobia.

Methods

A secondary retrospective analysis was done. Ninety-eight subjects with subacute and chronic LBP were included: 49 subjects with diagnosed symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis and 49 subjects with diagnosed non-specific LBP. The pain self-efficacy measured with the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and the fear of movement measured with the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia were considered variables to investigate, whereas diagnosis and demographic/clinical variables were considered predictors or potential confounders.

Results

By comparing the two groups, the awareness of having a spondylolisthesis did not significantly influence neither pain self-efficacy (p = 0.82), nor kinesiophobia (p = 0.75). Higher perceived pain reduces pain self-efficacy and increases kinesiophobia in both groups (p = 0.002 and p = 0,031 respectively).

Conclusions

It seems that the awareness of an anatomical defect as spondylolisthesis does not significantly affect the beliefs of carry out activities and movements despite the pain. Other studies with wider samples are required, to confirm these preliminary results.

Automatic Lumbar Spine Tracking Based on Siamese Convolutional Network

Deep learning has demonstrated great success in various computer vision tasks. However, tracking the lumbar spine by digitalized video fluoroscopic imaging (DVFI), which can quantitatively analyze the motion mode of the spine to diagnose lumbar instability, has not yet been well developed due to the lack of steady and robust tracking method. The aim of this work is to automatically track lumbar vertebras with rotated bounding boxes in DVFI sequences. Instead of distinguishing vertebras using annotated lumbar images or sequences, we train a full-convolutional siamese neural network offline to learn generic image features with transfer learning. The siamese network is trained to learn a similarity function that compares the labeled target from the initial frame with the candidate patches from the current frame. The similarity function returns a high score if the two images depict the same object. Once learned, the similarity function is used to track a previously unseen object without any adapting online. Our tracker is performed by evaluating the candidate rotated patches sampled around the previous target's position and presents rotated bounding boxes to locate the lumbar spine from L1 to L4. Results indicate that the proposed tracking method can track the lumbar vertebra steadily and robustly. The study demonstrates that the lumbar tracker based on siamese convolutional network can be trained successfully without annotated lumbar sequences.

Clinical classification in low back pain: best-evidence diagnostic rules based on systematic reviews

Background

Clinical examination findings are used in primary care to give an initial diagnosis to patients with low back pain and related leg symptoms. The purpose of this study was to develop best evidence Clinical Diagnostic Rules (CDR] for the identification of the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine; i.e. intervertebral discs, sacroiliac joints, facet joints, bone, muscles, nerve roots, muscles, peripheral nerve tissue, and central nervous system sensitization.

Methods

A sensitive electronic search strategy using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases was combined with hand searching and citation tracking to identify eligible studies. Criteria for inclusion were: persons with low back pain with or without related leg symptoms, history or physical examination findings suitable for use in primary care, comparison with acceptable reference standards, and statistical reporting permitting calculation of diagnostic value. Quality assessments were made independently by two reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Clinical examination findings that were investigated by at least two studies were included and results that met our predefined threshold of positive likelihood ratio ≥ 2 or negative likelihood ratio ≤ 0.5 were considered for the CDR.

Results

Sixty-four studies satisfied our eligible criteria. We were able to construct promising CDRs for symptomatic intervertebral disc, sacroiliac joint, spondylolisthesis, disc herniation with nerve root involvement, and spinal stenosis. Single clinical test appear not to be as useful as clusters of tests that are more closely in line with clinical decision making.

Conclusions

This is the first comprehensive systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluate clinical examination findings for their ability to identify the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine. In some diagnostic categories we have sufficient evidence to recommend a CDR. In others, we have only preliminary evidence that needs testing in future studies. Most findings were tested in secondary or tertiary care. Thus, the accuracy of the findings in a primary care setting has yet to be confirmed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1549-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Diagnostic utility of patient history and physical examination data to detect spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in athletes with low back pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

In adolescent athletes, low back pain has a 1-year prevalence of 57% and causes include spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. An accurate diagnosis enables healing, prevention of progression and return to sport.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic utility of patient history and physical examination data to identify spondylolysis and/or spondylolisthesis in athletes.

DESIGN

Systematic review was undertaken according to published guidelines, and reported in line with PRISMA.

METHOD

Key databases were searched up to 13/11/15.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

athletic population with LBP, patient history and/or physical examination accuracy data for spondylolysis and/or spondylolisthesis, any study design including raw data. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias (ROB) using QUADAS-2. A data extraction sheet was pre-designed. Pooling of data and investigation for heterogeneity enabled a qualitative synthesis of data across studies.

RESULTS

Of the eight included studies, two were assessed as low ROB, one of which also had no concerns regarding applicability. Age (<20 years) demonstrated 81% sensitivity and 44% specificity and gender (male) 73% sensitivity and 57% specificity for spondylolysis. Difficulty falling asleep, waking up because of pain, pain worse with sitting and walking all have sensitivity >75% for spondylolisthesis. Step-deformity palpation demonstrated 60-88% sensitivity and 87-100% specificity for spondylolisthesis. The one-legged hyperextension test was not supported for spondylolysis (sensitivity 50-73%, specificity 0-87%).

CONCLUSION

No recommendations can be made utilising patient history data. Based on one low ROB study, step deformity palpation may be useful in diagnosing spondylolisthesis. No physical tests demonstrated diagnostic utility for spondylolysis. Further research is required.