Classifying Subgroups of Chronic Low Back Pain Patients Based on Lifting Patterns

How do people with chronic low back pain pick a pencil off the floor?

BACKGROUND

Picking objects off the floor is provocative for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). There are no clinically applicable methods evaluating movement strategies for this task. The relationship between strategy and multidimensional profiles is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

Develop a movement evaluation tool (MET) to examine movement strategies in people with CLBP (n = 289) picking a pencil off the floor. Describe those movement strategies, and determine reliability of the MET. Explore differences across multidimensional profiles and movement strategies.

METHODS

An MET was developed using literature and iterative processes, and its inter-rater agreement determined. Latent class analysis (LCA) derived classes demonstrating different strategies using six movement parameters as indicator variables. Differences between classes across multidimensional profiles were investigated using analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, or chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Six movement parameters were evaluated. There was substantial inter-rater agreement (Cohen's Kappa = 0.39-0.79) across parameters. LCA derived three classes with different strategies: Class 1 (71.8%) intermediate trunk inclination/knee flexion; Class 2 (24.5%) greater forward trunk inclination, lower knee flexion; Class 3 (3.7%) lower forward trunk inclination, greater knee flexion. Pain duration differed across all classes (p ≤ .001). Time taken to complete forward bends differed between Class 3 and other classes (p = .024).

CONCLUSIONS

Movement strategies can be reliably assessed using the MET. Three strategies for picking lightweight objects off the floor were derived, which differed across pain duration and speed of movement.

Heat Stress Increases Movement Jerk During Physical Exertion

Objective: Movement efficiency can be quantified during physical tasks by measuring the rate of change of acceleration (jerk). Jerk captures the smoothness of a motion and has been used to quantify movement for upper extremity and torso-based tasks. We collected triaxial accelerometer data during four physical tasks commonly performed in the work place to determine if jerk increases with physiologic strain.

Methods: Participants completed a circuit of activities that mimicked the demands of manual labor in hot (40°C) and temperate (18°C) conditions. The circuit included walking on a treadmill carrying a load on the shoulder, lifting objects from the floor to the table, using a dead blow to strike the end of a heavy steel beam, and a kneeling rope pull. After the 9 min circuit, the participant had a standing rest for 1 min before repeating the circuit 3 additional times. Participants were instrumented with four 3-axis accelerometers (Actigraph wGT3X) secured to the torso, wrist, and upper arm.

Results: There were 20 trials in the hot condition and 12 trials in the temperate condition. Heart rate and core body temperature increased during both protocols (p < 0.001). Measures of jerk varied by accelerometer location and activity. During treadmill walking, the wrist, torso, arm accelerometers measured higher jerk during the fourth circuit in the hot condition. During the lifting task, mean jerk increased in the hot condition in all accelerometers. Max jerk increased in the temperate condition in the arm accelerometer and jerk cost increased in the hot condition in the torso and arm accelerometers.

Conclusions: Forty minutes of paced work performed in the heat resulted in increased acceleration and jerk in accelerometers placed on the torso, arm, and wrist. The accelerometers most consistently reporting these changes were task specific and suggest that a limited number of worn sensors could identify the onset of fatigue and increased injury risk.

The effects of familiarization with loading, weight and size of loading on neuromuscular responses during sudden upper limb loading in chronic low back pain patients

BACKGROUND

Changes in the motor control of the spine were found in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Sudden loading of the spine is supposed to be the cause of about 12% of lower back injuries. However, some aspects of this problem, such as alterations in the sensory-motor control of the spine, remain questionable.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of familiarization with loading, weight and size of loading on neuromuscular responses during sudden upper limb loading in CLBP patients.

METHODS

In this quasi-experimental study surface electromyography of the erector spinae (ES) and transverses abdominis/internal oblique (TrA/IO) and external oblique (EOA) muscles were recorded in 7 men and 13 women with CLBP and 20 asymptomatic subjects (10 men and 10 women) aged 18-45 years from the general community familiarization. Moreover, investigating control of the posture measurements of the center of pressure (COP) and vertical ground reaction force (GRF) or Fz were recorded using a force plate. Data were analyzed using paired t-test and independent t-test with the significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

Data analyses were performed using SPSS version 18. Some electromyography and force plate variables were significantly different for different conditions in each group and between the asymptomatic and low back pain groups (p⩽ 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Several motor control changes were observed in the CLBP patients. These patients showed decreased trunk muscle activity as well as too early and too delayed responses compared to asymptomatic subjects.

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.

How do manual handling advisors and physiotherapists construct their back beliefs, and do safe lifting posture beliefs influence them?

BACKGROUND

The Back-Pain Attitudes (Back-PAQ) questionnaire measures back beliefs across 6 domains. Our previous study showed that manual handling advisors (MHAs) have more negative beliefs than physiotherapists (PTs), and those who think straight back lifting is safer than a rounder back have more negative beliefs. However, exactly which domains of the Back-PAQ are most negative is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

Gain deeper understanding of how MHAs and PTs construct their back beliefs, and relate this safe lifting posture beliefs.

DESIGN

Data was collected via an electronic survey.

METHOD

Participants' back beliefs were collected via the Back-PAQ. They were also asked to select the safest lifting posture from four options: two with a straight back; two with a rounder back. Back beliefs were analysed in the 6 domains that construct the Back-PAQ. Relationships were investigated using multiple linear and regression models.

RESULTS

400 PTs and MHAs completed the survey. MHAs scored higher (more negative beliefs) than PTs across all 6 domains, and those who perceive straight back lifting as safest scored higher across five of the 6 domains. The belief to keep active with back pain was common among all groups, but MHAs and those who prefer straight back lifting believe the back is vulnerable and more in need of protection.

CONCLUSION

While all believe staying active is beneficial for back pain, residual negative beliefs regarding the vulnerability of the spine persist. Education campaigns may need to emphasise a 'trust your back' message rather than a 'protect your back' message while encouraging activity.

Identifying Subgroups of Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain Based on a Multifactorial Approach: Protocol For a Prospective Study

Background

Low back pain, especially nonspecific chronic low back pain (LBP), the leading cause of disability worldwide, represents both social and economic problems. Different therapeutic management techniques can be used, but their effects vary. Clinicians and researchers attribute the variation in the efficacy of therapeutic and management techniques to the heterogeneity of the nonspecific chronic low back pain population, and they agree that nonspecific chronic LBP must be subgrouped.

Objective

This study aims to identify nonspecific chronic LBP subgroups based on a multifactorial approach, including biomechanical, physical, and psychosocial data.

Methods

A total of 100 nonspecific chronic LBP patients and 30 healthy participants aged between 18 and 60 years will be recruited for this prospective study. A psychosocial profile will be established using questionnaires on anxiety, depression, functional disability, pain, fear of pain, avoidance belief, and physical activity. A physical capacity evaluation will be conducted. It will evaluate flexibility of the hips, lumbar spine, and lateral thoracolumbar segment, as well as trunk (extensor and flexor) muscle endurance. The subjects will perform functional daily life activities, such as walking, object lifting, forward bending, sit-to-stand, stand-to-sit, balance, and usual postures. Full body kinematics, kinetics, and surface electromyography of the trunk and hip muscles will be assessed during these tasks. The clustering classification methods for the statistical analysis will be determined according to the data and will be used to identify the subgroups of nonspecific chronic LBP patients.

Results

Data collection started in September 2017 and will be completed with the inclusion of all the participants (100 nonspecific chronic LBP and 30 control). The study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant international conferences.

Conclusions

Numerous studies have showed that the therapeutic management of nonspecific chronic LBP is difficult and has inconstant effects caused by the complexity and heterogeneity of nonspecific chronic LBP. Identifying subgroups with a multifactorial approach is more comprehensive and closer to the pathophysiology of nonspecific chronic LBP. It also represents benefit interests and a challenge both clinically and socially. The perspective of this study is expected to support clinicians for a more adapted therapeutic management for each subgroup.

What do physiotherapists and manual handling advisors consider the safest lifting posture, and do back beliefs influence their choice?

BACKGROUND

It is commonly believed lifting is dangerous and the back should be straight during lifting. These beliefs may arise from healthcare professionals, yet no study has evaluated the lifting and back beliefs of manual handling advisors (MHAs) and physiotherapists (PTs).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate (i) what lifting technique MHAs and PTs perceive as safest, and why, and (ii) the back pain beliefs of MHAs and PTs.

DESIGN

Data was collected via an electronic survey.

METHOD

Participants selected the safest lifting posture from four options: two with a straight back and two with a more rounded back, with justification. Back beliefs were collected via the Back-Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ). Relationships were investigated using multiple linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

400 PTs and MHAs completed the survey. 75% of PTs and 91% of MHAs chose a straight lifting posture as safest, mostly on the basis that it avoided rounding of the back. MHAs scored significantly higher than PTs on the Back-PAQ instrument (mean difference = 33.9), indicating more negative back beliefs. Those who chose the straight back position had significantly more negative back beliefs (mean 81.9, SD 22.7) than those who chose a round back lift (mean 61.7, SD 21.1).

CONCLUSION

Avoiding rounding the back while lifting is a common belief in PTs and MHAs, despite the lack of evidence that any specific spinal posture is a risk factor for low back pain. MHAs, and those who perceived a straight back position as safest, had significantly more negative back beliefs.