Lumbar range of motion in chronic low back pain is predicted by task-specific, but not by general measures of pain-related fear

Movement, posture and low back pain. How do they relate? A replicated single-case design in 12 people with persistent, disabling low back pain

BACKGROUND

Movement and posture are commonly believed to relate to non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). While people with NSLBP appear to move and posture themselves differently from those without NSLBP, changes in movement and posture infrequently relate to improvements in NSLBP when analysed at a group-level. Additionally, little is known about how movement or posture change when clinical outcome improves.

METHODS

Within-person relationships were investigated using a replicated, repeated measures, single-case design in 12 people with persistent, disabling NSLBP. Individually relevant movement and posture were captured using wearable sensors on up to 20 occasions over a 22-week period (5-week baseline, 12-week physiotherapy-led intervention, 5-week follow-up), while pain and activity limitation were collected concomitantly. A series of cross-correlation analyses estimated the presence, strength, and direction of relationships.

RESULTS

Many participants (n = 10/12) had strong (e.g. r = 0.91, p = <0.001) relationships between changes in movement or posture and changes in pain and activity limitation, while some showed no strong association. Where relationships were observed, clinical improvement predominantly (93% or 57/61 relationships) related to increased spinal movement range and velocity during forward bending and lifting, reduced lumbar muscle EMG activity at maximum voluntary flexion, and increased posterior-pelvic-tilt during sitting and standing.

CONCLUSION

Within-person changes to individually relevant movement and posture appear to often relate to clinical outcome, but not always. When changes were related, movement and posture appear to return towards being 'less protective', however causal directions remain unknown. Important activities, movements, and postural parameters varied across the participants, highlighting the potential importance of individualized management.

SIGNIFICANCE

Changes to individually relevant movement and posture appear to often relate to clinical outcome, but not always. Patient-specific activities, and movement or postural parameters that related to improved pain and activity limitation, varied across the 12 participants, highlighting the potential importance of individualised management. Where clinical improvements were related to changes in movement or posture, participants consistently returned towards being 'less protective' (increased range and speed of movement, increased posterior-pelvic-tilt during sitting and standing). Mechanisms and generalizability remain unclear.

Walking and running with non-specific chronic low back pain: What about the lumbar lordosis angle?

Non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) is a major health problem, affecting about one fifth of the population worldwide. To avoid further pain or injury, patients with NSCLBP seem to adopt a stiffer movement pattern during everyday living activities. However, it remains unknown how NSCLBP affects the lumbar lordosis angle (LLA) during repetitive activities such as walking or running. This pilot study therefore aimed at exploring possible NSCLBP-related alterations in LLAs during walking and running by focusing on discrete parameters as well as continuous data. Thirteen patients with NSCLBP and 20 healthy pain-free controls were enrolled and underwent a full-body movement analysis involving various everyday living activities such as standing, walking and running. LLAs were derived from markers placed on the spinous processes of the vertebrae L1-L5 and S1. Possible group differences in discrete (average and range of motion (ROM)) and continuous LLAs were analyzed descriptively using mean differences with confidence intervals ranging from 95% to 75%. Patients with NSCLBP indicated reduced average LLAs during standing, walking and running and a tendency for lower LLA-ROM during walking. Analyses of continuous data indicated the largest group differences occurring around 25% and 70% of the walking and 25% and 75% of the running cycle. Furthermore, patients indicated a reversed movement pattern during running, with increasing instead of a decreasing LLAs after foot strike. This study provides preliminary evidence that NSCLBP might affect LLAs during walking and running. These results can be used as a basis for future large-scale investigations involving hypothesis testing.

Are there differences in lifting technique between those with and without low back pain? A systematic review

Background and aims

To systemically review the literature to compare freestyle lifting technique, by muscle activity and kinematics, between people with and without low back pain (LBP).

Methods

Five databases were searched along with manual searches of retrieved articles by a single reviewer. Studies were included if they compared a freestyle lifting activity between participants with and without LBP. Data were extracted by two reviewers, and studies were appraised using the CASP tool for case-control studies.

Results

Nine studies were eligible. Heterogeneity did not allow for meta-analysis. Most studies (n = 8 studies) reported that people with LBP lift differently to pain-free controls. Specifically, people with LBP lift more slowly (n = 6 studies), use their legs more than their back especially when initiating lifting (n = 3 studies), and jerk less during lifting (n = 1 studies). Furthermore, the four larger studies involving people with more severe LBP also showed that people with LBP lift with less spinal range of motion and greater trunk muscle activity for a longer period.

Conclusions

People with LBP move slower, stiffer, and with a deeper knee bend than pain-free people during freestyle lifting tasks. Interestingly, such a lifting style mirrors how people, with and without LBP, are often told how to lift during manual handling training. The cross-sectional nature of the comparisons does not allow for causation to be determined.

Implications

The changes described may show embodiment of cautious movement, and the drive to protect the back. There may be value in exploring whether adopting a lifting style closer to that of pain-free people could help reduce LBP.