Classification-Specific Treatment Improves Pain, Disability, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs, and Erector Spinae Muscle Activity During Walking in Patients With Low Back Pain Exhibiting Lumbar Extension-Rotation Pattern: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Role of kinesiophobia in the selective motor control during gait in patients with low back-related leg pain

Fear of movement has been related to changes in motor function in patients with low back pain, but little is known about how kinesiophobia affects selective motor control during gait (ability of muscles performing distinct mechanical functions) in patients with low back-related leg pain (LBLP). The aim of the study was to determine the association between kinesiophobia and selective motor control in patients with LBLP. An observational cross-sectional study was performed on 18 patients. Outcome included: kinesiophobia using the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia; pain mechanism using Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Signs and Symptoms; disability using Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire; mechanosensitivity using Straight Leg Raise. Surface electromyography was used to assess selective motor control during gait by examining the correlation and coactivation in muscle pairs involved in the stance phase. Pairs included vastus medialis (VM) and medial gastrocnemius (MG), causing opposite moments around the knee joint, and gluteus medius (GM) and MG, as muscles with distinct mechanical functions (weight acceptance vs. propulsion). A strong association was observed between kinesiophobia and correlation (r = 0.63; p = 0.005) and coactivation (r = 0.69; p = 0.001) between VM versus MG. A moderate association was observed between kinesiophobia and correlation (r = 0.58; p = 0.011) and coactivation (r = 0.55; p = 0.019) between GM versus MG. No significant associations were obtained for other outcomes. A high kinesiophobia is associated with low selective motor control of the muscles involved in the weight acceptance and propulsion phases during gait in patients with LBLP. Fear of movement was better associated with decreased neuromuscular control than other clinical variables such as pain mechanism, disability, and mechanosensitivity.

Home Exercise Programs Are Infrequently Prescribed in Trials of Supervised Exercise for Individuals With Low Back Pain: A Scoping Review of 292 Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES: To (1) determine how often home exercise programs (HEPs) are prescribed in supervised exercise trials for low back pain (LBP) and (2) describe characteristics of the HEP programs (design, purpose, dose, and adherence). DESIGN: Scoping review. LITERATURE SEARCH: PubMed, CINAHL, and Ovid MEDLINE were searched from January 1, 2010, to August 17, 2021. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that included adults with LBP who received exercise interventions. DATA SYNTHESIS: The presence or absence of a prescribed HEP and any details of the HEP including design, dose, and adherence were extracted and summarized. RESULTS: Of 2689 potentially relevant trials, 292 were eligible for inclusion. Ninety-four trials (32%) included a HEP. The most commonly prescribed home exercises were core stability, trunk strengthening, and motor control exercises. There was great variation in the frequency and duration with which HEPs were prescribed. Adherence to HEPs was measured in fewer than half of the trials, and the methods for measuring adherence were inconsistent. Adherence to HEPs ranged from 29% to 82% in the 21 trials that reported adherence. CONCLUSION: Home exercise programs are not regularly prescribed in supervised exercise trials for LBP. There was considerable variation in prescribing HEPs and monitoring exercise adherence in trials of exercise-based treatments for adults with LBP. There is no consistent method used to measure participants' adherence to HEPs, and adherence percentages vary widely. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(3):120-142. Epub: 16 January 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11448.

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.

Classification Approaches for Treating Low Back Pain Have Small Effects That Are Not Clinically Meaningful: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 21, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (eg, the McKenzie method or the STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (eg, fractures or tumors) were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity, and disability. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random-effects meta-analysis, with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik- Jonkman adjustment, to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD; Hedges' g) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses explored classification system, comparator type, pain type, and pain duration.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing subclasses were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at the end of intervention for LBP intensity (SMD, -0.31; 95% CI: -0.54, -0.07; P = .014, n = 4416, n = 21 trials) and disability (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI: -0.46, -0.07; P = .011, n = 4809, n = 24 trials), favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSION

For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems over generalized interventions when managing LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):67-84. Epub 15 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10761.

Interventions for the Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: Revision 2021

Low back pain (LBP) remains a musculoskeletal condition with an adverse societal impact. Globally, LBP is highly prevalent and a leading cause of disability. This is an update to the 2012 Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy (AOPT), formerly the Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), clinical practice guideline (CPG) for LBP. The overall objective of this update was to provide recommendations on interventions delivered by physical therapists or studied in care settings that included physical therapy providers. It also focused on synthesizing new evidence, with the purpose of making recommendations for specific nonpharmacologic treatments. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):CPG1-CPG60. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0304.

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.