Influence of paravertebral muscles training on brain plasticity and postural control in chronic low back pain

Efficacy of specific exercises in general population with non-specific low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Localized exercises are employed to activate, train, or restore the function of particular muscles and they are usually considered as part of treating individuals suffering low back pain. So, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of specific exercises in general population with non-specific low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), and Google scholar from January 1990 to June 2021. Initially, 47,740 records were identified. Following the removal of duplicates, 32,138 records were left. After reviewing titles and abstracts, 262 papers were chosen for thorough assessment. Among these, 208 studies were excluded, resulting in 54 trials meeting the inclusion criteria for this study. Additionally, 46 of these trials were randomized controlled trials and were further evaluated for the meta-analysis. We included trials investigating the effectiveness of exercise therapy, including isometric activation of deep trunk muscles, strengthening exercises, stabilization exercises, stretching exercises, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation exercises (PNF) in LBP patients. The primary outcome was pain intensity, measured using tools such as the visual analogue scale (VAS) and numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). The secondary outcome was disability, assessed through instruments such as the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The quality of the eligible studies was assessed using the Verhagen tool, and the level of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Based on the Verhagen tool, 46 trials (85.2%) were categorized as having low methodological quality, while 8 studies (14.8%) were considered to have medium methodological quality. The meta-analysis indicated a small efficacy in favor of isometric activation of deep trunk muscles (-0.37, 95% CI: -0.88 to 0.13), a moderate efficacy in favor of stabilization exercises (-0.53, 95% CI: -1.13 to 0.08), and a large efficacy in favor of PNF exercises (-0.91, 95% CI: -1.62 to -0.2) for reducing pain intensity as assessed by VAS or NPRS tools. Moreover, the meta-analysis revealed a moderate efficacy for isometric activation of deep trunk muscles (-0.61, CI: -1.02 to -0.19), and a large efficacy for PNF exercises (-1.26, 95% CI: -1.81 to -0.72) in improving disability, assessed using RMDQ or ODI questionnaires. The level of certainty in the evidence, as determined by the GRADE approach, was very low to low.

CONCLUSION

These findings emphasize the importance of incorporating localized therapeutic exercises as a fundamental aspect of managing non-specific LBP. Clinicians should consider utilizing localized therapeutic exercise tailored to individual patient needs. Furthermore, further research investigating optimal exercise therapy, optimal dose of the exercises, durations, and long-term adherence is warranted to enhance the precision and efficacy of exercise-based interventions for non-specific LBP.

Sensorimotor Integration in Chronic Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) impacts on spine movement. Altered sensorimotor integration can be involved. Afferents from the lumbo-pelvic area might be processed differently in CLBP and impact on descending motor control. This study aimed to determine whether afferents influence the corticomotor control of paravertebral muscles in CLBP. Fourteen individuals with CLBP (11 females) and 13 pain-free controls (8 females) were tested with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to measure the motor-evoked potential [MEP] amplitude of paravertebral muscles. Noxious and non-noxious electrical stimulation, and magnetic stimulation in the lumbo-sacral area were used as afferent stimuli and triggered 20 to 200 ms prior to TMS. EMG modulation elicited by afferent stimulation alone was measured to control net motoneuron excitability. MEP/EMG ratio was used as a measure of corticospinal excitability with control of net motoneuron excitability. MEP/EMG ratio was larger at 60, 80 and 100-ms intervals in CLBP compared to controls, and afferent stimulations alone reduced EMG amplitude greater in CLBP than controls at 100 ms. Our results suggest alteration in sensorimotor integration in CLBP highlighted by a greater facilitation of the descending corticospinal input to paravertebral muscles. Our results can help to optimise interventions by better targeting mechanisms.

Scapula-Focused Exercises With or Without Biofeedback and Corticospinal Excitability in Recreational Overhead Athletes With Shoulder Impingement

CONTEXT

Individuals with shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS) exhibit changes in corticospinal excitability, scapular kinematics, and scapular muscle-activation patterns. To restore the scapular kinematics and muscle-activation patterns in individuals with SIS, treatment protocols usually include scapula-focused exercises, such as scapular-orientation and strength training.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether scapular-orientation and strength training can reverse the altered corticospinal excitability of recreational overhead athletes with SIS.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled clinical trial.

SETTING

University laboratory.

PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Forty-one recreational overhead athletes with SIS: 20 in the scapular-orientation group (age = 26.45 ± 4.13 years, height = 171.85 ± 7.88 cm, mass = 66.70 ± 10.68 kg) and 21 in the strengthening group (age = 26.43 ± 5.55 years, height = 171.62 ± 5.87 cm, mass = 68.67 ± 10.18 kg).

INTERVENTION(S)

Both groups performed a 30-minute training protocol consisting of 3 exercises to strengthen the lower trapezius (LT) and serratus anterior muscles without overactivating the upper trapezius muscles. Participants in the scapular-orientation group were instructed to consciously activate their scapular muscles with electromyographic biofeedback and cues, whereas the strengthening group did not receive biofeedback or cues for scapular motion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Corticospinal excitability was assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Scapular kinematics and muscle activation during arm elevation were also measured.

RESULTS

After training, both groups demonstrated an increase in motor-evoked potentials in the LT (P = .004) and increases in scapular upward rotation (P = .03), LT activation (P < .001), and serratus anterior activation (P < .001) during arm elevation. Moreover, the scapular-orientation group showed higher LT activation levels during arm elevation after training than the strengthening group (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

With or without biofeedback and cues, scapula-focused exercises improved scapular control and increased corticospinal excitability. Adding biofeedback and cues for scapular control during exercise helped facilitate greater LT activation, so feedback and cues are recommended during scapula-focused training.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Combined with Sling Exercise Modulates the Motor Cortex in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

The study aims to explore the effects of combining repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) with sling exercise (SE) intervention in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). This approach aims to directly stimulate brain circuits and indirectly activate trunk muscles to influence motor cortex plasticity. However, the impact of this combined intervention on motor cortex organization and clinical symptom improvement is still unclear, as well as whether it is more effective than either intervention alone. To investigate this, patients with CLBP were randomly assigned to three groups: SE/rTMS, rTMS alone, and SE alone. Motor cortical organization, numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and postural balance stability were measured before and after a 2-week intervention. The results showed statistically significant differences in the representative location of multifidus on the left hemispheres, as well as in NPRS and ODI scores, in the combined SE/rTMS group after the intervention. When compared to the other two groups, the combined SE/rTMS group demonstrated significantly different motor cortical organization, sway area, and path range from the rTMS alone group, but not from the SE alone group. These findings highlight the potential benefits of a combined SE/rTMS intervention in terms of clinical outcomes and neuroadaptive changes compared to rTMS alone. However, there was no significant difference between the combined intervention and SE alone. Therefore, our research does not support the use of rTMS as a standalone treatment for CLBP. Our study contributed to optimizing treatment strategies for individuals suffering from CLBP.

Spinal magnetic stimulation to treat chronic back pain: a feasibility study in veterans

Aim: Chronic low back pain represents a significant societal problem leading to increased healthcare costs and quality of life. This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of non-invasive spinal electromagnetic simulation (SEMS) to treat nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods: A single-site prospective study was conducted to evaluate SEMS in reducing pain and improving disability. A total of 17 patients received SEMS two to three sessions a week. The Numeric Rating Scale and the Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire were used to assess pain and disability. Results: Participants receiving SEMS exhibited statistically significant reductions in pain and disability. Conclusion: Current results suggest that non-invasive SEMS can be an effective treatment in reducing pain and improving disability associated with CLBP.

Multifidus dysfunction and restorative neurostimulation: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is multifactorial in nature, with recent research highlighting the role of multifidus dysfunction in a subset of nonspecific CLBP. This review aimed to provide a foundational reference that elucidates the pathophysiological cascade of multifidus dysfunction, how it contrasts with other CLBP etiologies and the role of restorative neurostimulation.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature.

RESULTS

In total, 194 articles were included, and findings were presented to highlight emerging principles related to multifidus dysfunction and restorative neurostimulation. Multifidus dysfunction is diagnosed by a history of mechanical, axial, nociceptive CLBP and exam demonstrating functional lumbar instability, which differs from other structural etiologies. Diagnostic images may be used to grade multifidus atrophy and assess other structural pathologies. While various treatments exist for CLBP, restorative neurostimulation distinguishes itself from traditional neurostimulation in a way that treats a different etiology, targets a different anatomical site, and has a distinctive mechanism of action.

CONCLUSIONS

Multifidus dysfunction has been proposed to result from loss of neuromuscular control, which may manifest clinically as muscle inhibition resulting in altered movement patterns. Over time, this cycle may result in potential atrophy, degeneration and CLBP. Restorative neurostimulation, a novel implantable neurostimulator system, stimulates the efferent lumbar medial branch nerve to elicit repetitive multifidus contractions. This intervention aims to interrupt the cycle of dysfunction and normalize multifidus activity incrementally, potentially restoring neuromuscular control. Restorative neurostimulation has been shown to reduce pain and disability in CLBP, improve quality of life and reduce health care expenditures.

The effects of Pilates exercise in comparison to other forms of exercise on pain and disability in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of Pilates exercise (PE) with other forms of exercise on pain and disability in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) and to inform clinical practice and future research.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis conducted and reported in line the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Six electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2021.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of PE with other forms of exercise for adults with CNSLBP on pain and disability.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias of the trials, guided by the Cochrane RoB2 tool. Available data were extracted for meta-analysis with subgroup analysis. Pilates exercise was compared to general exercise (GE), direction-specific exercise (DSE) and spinal stabilisation exercise (SSE). Certainty of evidence was interpreted following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs were included. A low certainty of evidence supported PE was more effective than GE in pain reduction [Effect size (ES) 0.44]. Moreover, very low levels of certainty were revealed for effectiveness of PE compared with DSE for pain reduction (ES 0.65) and equivalence of PE and SSE for pain and disability.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found no strong evidence for using one type of exercise intervention over another when managing patients with CNSLBP. Existing evidence does not allow this review to draw definitive recommendations. In the absence of a superior exercise form clinicians should work collaboratively with the patient, using the individual's goals and preferences to guide exercise selection. Further appropriately designed research is warranted to explore this topic further.

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.

Associations between primary motor cortex organization, motor control and sensory tests during the clinical course of low back pain. A protocol for a cross-sectional and longitudinal case-control study

Background

In people with low back pain (LBP), altered motor control has been related to reorganization of the primary motor cortex (M1). Sensory impairments in LBP have also been suggested to be associated with reorganization of M1. Little is known about reorganization of M1 over time in people with LBP, and whether it relates to changes in motor control and sensory impairments and recovery. This study aims to investigate 1) differences in organization of M1 of trunk muscles between people with and without LBP, and whether the organization of M1 relates to motor control and sensory impairments (cross-sectional component) and 2) reorganization of M1 over time and its relation with changes in motor control and sensory impairments and experienced recovery (longitudinal component).

Methods

A case-control study with a cross-sectional and five-week longitudinal component is conducted in participants with LBP (N = 25) and participants without LBP (N = 25). Participants with LBP received usual care physiotherapy. Various tests were administered at baseline and follow-up. Following an anatomical MRI, organization of M1 (Center of Gravity and Area of the cortical representation of trunk muscles) was determined using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Quantitative sensory testing, a spiral-tracking motor control test, graphesthesia, two-point discrimination threshold and various self-reported questionnaires were also assessed. Multivariate multilevel analysis will be used for statistical analysis.

Conclusion

We will address the gaps in knowledge about the association between reorganization of M1 and motor control and sensory tests during the clinical course of LBP. This study is registered at DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/5C8ZG.

•

We assess relations between the organization of M1 and motor and sensory tests.

•

This study provides insight in the organization of M1 in LBP in relation to recovery.

•

The organization of M1 is assessed via TMS.

•

We used whole-brain MRI's for high accuracy of representation of muscles on M1.

•

We will use multivariate mixed model analysis to relate M1, motor and sensory tests.

The influence of experimental low back pain on neural networks involved in the control of lumbar erector spinae muscles

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) often modifies spine motor control, but the neural origin of these motor control changes remains largely unexplored. This study aimed to determine the impact of experimental low back pain on the excitability of cortical, subcortical, and spinal networks involved in the control of back muscles.

METHOD

Thirty healthy subjects were recruited and allocated to Pain (capsaicin and heat) or Control (heat) groups. Corticospinal excitability (motor-evoked potential-MEP) and intracortical networks were assessed by single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, respectively. Electrical vestibular stimulation was applied to assess vestibulospinal excitability (vestibular MEP-VMEP), and the stretch reflex for excitability of the spinal or supraspinal loop (R1 and R2, respectively). Evoked back motor responses were measured before, during and after pain induction. Nonparametric rank-based ANOVA determined if pain modulated motor neural networks.

RESULTS

A decrease of R1 amplitude was present after the pain disappearance (p=0.01) whereas an increase was observed in the control group (p=0.03) compared to the R1 amplitude measured at pre-pain and pre-heat period, respectively (Group x Time interaction - p<0.001). No difference in MEP and VMEP amplitude was present during and after pain (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

During experimental LBP, no change in cortical, subcortical, or spinal networks was observed. After pain disappearance, the reduction of the R1 amplitude without modification of MEP and VMEP amplitude suggest a reduction in spinal excitability potentially combined with an increase in descending drives. The absence of effect during pain needs to be further explored.

Can training of a skilled pelvic movement change corticomotor control of back muscles? Comparison of single and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation

Evidence suggests excitability of the motor cortex (M1) changes in response to motor skill learning of the upper limb. Few studies have examined immediate changes in corticospinal excitability and intra‐cortical mechanisms following motor learning in the lower back. Further, it is unknown which transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) paradigms are likely to reveal changes in cortical function in this region. This study aimed to (1) compare corticospinal excitability and intra‐cortical mechanisms in the lower back region of M1 before and after a single session of lumbopelvic tilt motor learning task in healthy people and (2) compare these measures between two TMS coils and two methods of recruitment curve (RC) acquisition. Twenty‐eight young participants (23.6 ± 4.6 years) completed a lumbopelvic tilting task involving three 5‐min blocks. Single‐pulse (RC from 70% to 150% of active motor threshold) and paired‐pulse TMS measures (ICF, SICF and SICI) were undertaken before (using 2 coils: figure‐of‐8 and double cone) and after (using double cone coil only) training. RCs were also acquired using a traditional and rapid method. A significant increase in corticospinal excitability was found after training as measured by RC intensities, but this was not related to the RC slope. No significant differences were found for paired‐pulse measures after training. Finally, there was good agreement between RC parameters when measured with the two different TMS coils or different acquisition methods (traditional vs. rapid). Changes in corticospinal excitability after a single session of lumbopelvic motor learning task are seen, but these changes are not explained by changes in intra‐cortical mechanisms.

Effects of different modalities of afferent stimuli of the lumbo-sacral area on control of lumbar paravertebral muscles

Somatosensory feedback to the central nervous system is essential to plan, perform and refine spine motor control. However, the influence of somatosensory afferent input from the trunk on the motor output to trunk muscles has received little attention. The objective was to compare the effects of distinct modalities of afferent stimulation on the net motoneuron and corticomotor excitability of paravertebral muscles. Fourteen individuals were recruited. Modulation of corticospinal excitability (motor-evoked potential [MEP]) of paravertebral muscles was measured when afferent stimuli (cutaneous noxious and non-noxious, muscle contraction) were delivered to the trunk at 10 intervals prior to transcranial magnetic stimulation. Each peripheral stimulation was applied alone, and subsequent EMG modulation was measured to control for net motoneuron excitability. MEP modulation and MEP/EMG ratio were used as measures of corticospinal excitability with and without control of net motoneuron excitability, respectively. MEP and EMG modulation were smaller after evoked muscle contraction than after cutaneous noxious and non-noxious stimuli. MEP/EMG ratio was not different between stimulation types. Both MEP and EMG amplitudes were reduced after evoked muscle contraction, but not when expressed as MEP/EMG ratio. Noxious and non-noxious stimulation had limited impact on all variables. Distinct modalities of peripheral afferent stimulation of the lumbo-sacral area differently modulated responses of paravertebral muscles, but without an influence on corticospinal excitability with control of net motoneuron excitability. Muscle stimulation reduced paravertebral activity and was best explained by spinal mechanisms. The impact of afferent stimulation on back muscles differs from the effects reported for limb muscles.

Wrist, but Not Back, Isometric Contraction Induced Widespread Hypoalgesia in Healthy Participants

Objective: Exercise may reduce pain sensitivity. This phenomenon called exercise-induced hypoalgesia is observed in different types of exercises and involves the activation of endogenous pain modulation systems. Although the effect of limb exercise on pain sensitivity has often been tested, few studies explored the impact of back exercises that are often used to treat low back pain. The main objective is to measure the effect of back-muscle exercise on pain sensitivity and compare it to the effect of a limb-muscle exercise.

Methods: Twenty-three participants who were pain-free performed a 4-min wrist flexion isometric contraction followed by a 4-min low back extension, separated by a 20-min break. Pressure pain thresholds were tested at two low back (S1 spinous process, lumbar erector spinae muscle) and two wrist (capitate bone, wrist flexor muscles) sites before and after each exercise. For each exercise, sites were considered as remote or local in relation to the muscles contracted during the exercise. An independent sample of 11 participants was recruited to confirm the influence of low back extension on pain sensitivity.

Results: Wrist exercise induced a larger increase in pain sensitivity than back exercise at the remote site. Only wrist exercise induced a hypoalgesia effect at both the local and the remote sites. Back exercise induced a similar effect in the independent sample.

Conclusions: This study showed that back and wrist exercises induced a distinct effect on pain sensitivity in participants who were pain-free. The wrist exercise induced a systemic reduction in pain sensitivity (locally and remotely), whereas the back exercise did not. This differential effect may be present because wrist exercise induced most fatigue compared with the back exercise.

Pain's Adverse Impact on Training-Induced Performance and Neuroplasticity: A Systematic Review

Motor training is a widely used therapy in many pain conditions. The brain’s capacity to undergo functional and structural changes i.e., neuroplasticity is fundamental to training-induced motor improvement and can be assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). The aim was to investigate the impact of pain on training-induced motor performance and neuroplasticity assessed by TMS. The review was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA-guidelines and a Prospero protocol (CRD42020168487). An electronic search in PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane until December 13, 2019, identified studies focused on training-induced neuroplasticity in the presence of experimentally-induced pain, 'acute pain' or in a chronic pain condition, 'chronic pain'. Included studies were assessed by two authors for methodological quality using the TMS Quality checklist, and for risk of bias using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The literature search identified 231 studies. After removal of 71 duplicates, 160 abstracts were screened, and 24 articles were reviewed in full text. Of these, 17 studies on acute pain (n = 7) or chronic pain (n = 10), including a total of 258 patients with different pain conditions and 248 healthy participants met the inclusion criteria. The most common types of motor training were different finger tasks (n = 6). Motor training was associated with motor cortex functional neuroplasticity and six of seven acute pain studies and five of ten chronic pain studies showed that, compared to controls, pain can impede such trainings-induced neuroplasticity. These findings may have implications for motor learning and performance and with putative impact on rehabilitative procedures such as physiotherapy.

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.

Motor Responses of Lumbar Erector Spinae Induced by Electrical Vestibular Stimulation in Seated Participants

Introduction: The study of motor responses induced by electrical vestibular stimulation (EVS) may help clarify the role of the vestibular system in postural control. Although back muscles have an important role in postural control, their EVS-induced motor responses were rarely studied. Moreover, the effects of EVS parameters, head position, and vision on EVS-induced back muscles responses remain little explored. Objectives: To explore the effects of EVS parameters, head position, and vision on lumbar erector spinae muscles EVS-induced responses. Design: Exploratory, cross-sectional study. Materials and Methods: Ten healthy participants were recruited. Three head positions (right, left and no head rotation), 4 intensities (2, 3, 4, 5 mA), and 4 EVS durations (5, 20, 100, 200 ms) were tested in sitting position with eyes open or closed. EVS usually induced a body sway toward the anode (placed on the right mastoid). EMG activity of the right lumbar erector spinae was recorded. Variables of interest were amplitude, occurrence, and latency of the EVS-induced modulation of the EMG activity. Results: The short-latency response was inhibitory and the medium-latency response was excitatory. Increased EVS current intensity augmented the occurrence and the amplitude of the short- and medium-latency responses (more inhibition and more excitation, respectively). EVS duration influenced the medium-latency response differently depending on the position of the head. Right head rotation produced larger responses amplitude and occurrence than left head rotation. Opposite head rotation (left vs. right) did not induce a reversal of the short- and medium-latency responses (i.e., the inhibition did not become an excitation), as typically reported in lower legs muscles. The eyes open condition did not modulate muscle responses. Conclusion: Modulation of EVS parameters (current intensity and duration of EVS) affects the amplitude and occurrence of the lumbar erector spinae responses. In contrast, vision did not influence the responses, suggesting its minimal contribution to vestibulomotor control in sitting. The lack of response reversal in sagittal plane may reflect the biomechanical role of lumbar erector spinae to fine-tune the lumbar lordosis during the induced body sway. This hypothesis remains to be further tested.

Effectiveness of motor control exercise on non-specific chronic low back pain, disability and core muscle morphological characteristics: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) has been recognized as the leading cause of disability. Up to 90% of patients with CLBP are classified as having non-specific CLBP (NSCLBP). Motor control exercise (MCE) is one of the most popular and widespread treatment options, and has many advantages in alleviating pain and disability. This meta-analysis is aimed to investigate the effectiveness of MCE on NSCLBP, disability, and core muscles reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched from inception to August 2020. Articles were eligible if they were RCTs that evaluated MCE against sham or other treatments in isolation and measured outcomes including pain intensity and disability or core muscles morphologic characteristics.

RESULTS

Two authors independently extracted the data. Eighteen studies of 897 studies with a total of 1333 individuals with NSCLBP were retained for the meta-analysis. Compared with other conservative treatments, MCE was better in reducing pain and disability posttreatment and was better in reducing pain at the 6-month follow-up period. However, it had comparable effects on pain reduction at 12-month and 24-month follow-up period, and on disability at the 6-month, 12-month and 24-month follow-up period. MCE resulted in comparable effects to other treatments in improving the core muscle thickness posttreatment. However, other important outcomes, such as the function, strength and endurance of core muscles, which could hamper a comprehensive understanding of the effects of MCE on NSCLBP.

LIMITATIONS

Publication bias was not assessed in several comparisons due to the scarcity of data in published literature. This might downgrade the strength of the evidence. The protocol of this meta-analysis was reviewed by an expert committee, but was not registered in a public trial registry.

CONCLUSIONS

Low to very low quality of evidence supported that MCE resulted in a greater reduction of pain and disability posttreatment, and a greater reduction of pain at the 6-month follow-up than other treatments for NSCBLP. The findings in this review further support that MCE may be more effective than other treatments at short-term followups, and at least has equivalent long-term effects to other forms of treatments in NSCLBP.

Effect of exercise on pain processing and motor output in people with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Guidelines recommend exercise as a core treatment for knee osteoarthritis. However, it is unclear how exercise affects measures of pain processing and motor function. The aim was to evaluate the effect of exercise on measures of pain processing and motor function in people with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) for studies on knee osteoarthritis, of any design, evaluating pain processing and motor function before and after exercise. Data were pooled with random-effects meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed using the Downs and Black and quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were eligible and 16 were included. Following acute exercise, pressure pain threshold increased local to the study limb (standardised mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.26, [0.02, 0.51], n = 159 from 5 studies), but there was no statistically significant change remote from the study limb (0.09, [-0.11, 0.29], n = 90 from 4 studies). Following an exercise program (range 5-12 weeks) there were no statistically significant changes in pressure pain threshold (local 0.23, [-0.01, 0.47], n = 218 from 8 studies; remote 0.33 [-0.13, 0.79], n = 76 from 4 studies), temporal pain summation (0.38 [-0.08, 0.85], n = 122 from 3 studies) or voluntary quadriceps muscle activation (4.23% [-1.84 to 10.30], n = 139 from 4 studies).

CONCLUSION

Very-low quality evidence suggests that pressure pain threshold increases following acute exercise. Very-low quality evidence suggests that pressure pain threshold, temporal pain summation or voluntary quadriceps activation do not change statistically significantly following exercise programs.

Corticomotor reorganization during short-term visuomotor training in the lower back: A randomized controlled study

INTRODUCTION

Accumulating evidence suggests that motor skill training is associated with structural and functional reorganization of the primary motor cortex. However, previous studies have focussed primarily upon the upper limb, and it is unclear whether comparable reorganization occurs following training of other regions, such as the lower back. Although this holds important implications for rehabilitation, no studies have examined corticomotor adaptations following short-term motor training in the lower back.

METHOD

The aims of this study were to (a) determine whether a short-term lumbopelvic tilt visuomotor task induced reorganization of the corticomotor representations of lower back muscles, (b) quantify the variability of corticomotor responses to motor training, and (c) determine whether any improvements in task performance were correlated with corticomotor reorganization. Participants were allocated randomly to perform a lumbopelvic tilt motor training task (n = 15) or a finger abduction control task involving no lumbopelvic movement (n = 15). Transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to map corticomotor representations of the lumbar erector spinae before, during, and after repeated performance of the allocated task.

RESULTS

No relationship between corticomotor reorganization and improved task performance was identified. Substantial variability was observed in terms of corticomotor responses to motor training, with approximately 50% of participants showing no corticomotor reorganization despite significant improvements in task performance.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that short-term improvements in lower back visuomotor task performance may be driven by changes in remote subcortical and/or spinal networks rather than adaptations in corticomotor pathways. However, further research using tasks of varying complexities and durations is required to confirm this hypothesis.

Assessing sensorimotor control of the lumbopelvic-hip region using task-based functional MRI

Recent brain imaging studies have suggested that cortical remodeling within sensorimotor regions are associated with persistent low back pain and may be a driving mechanism for the impaired neuromuscular control associated with this condition. This paper outlines a new approach for investigating cortical sensorimotor integration during the performance of small-amplitude lumbopelvic movements with functional MRI. Fourteen healthy right-handed participants were instructed in the lumbopelvic movement tasks performed during fMRI acquisition. Surface electromyography (EMG) collected on 8 lumbopelvic and thigh muscles captured organized patterns of muscle activation during the movement tasks. fMRI data were collected on 10 of 14 participants. Sensorimotor cortical activation across the tasks was identified using a whole brain analysis and further explored with regional analyses of key components of the cortical sensorimotor network. Head motion had low correlation to the tasks (r = -0.101 to 0.004) and head translation averaged 0.98 (0.59 mm) before motion correction. Patterns of activation of the key lumbopelvic and thigh musculature (average amplitude normalized 2-17%) were significantly different across tasks (P > 0.001). Neuroimaging demonstrated activation in key sensorimotor cortical regions that were consistent with motor planning and sensory feedback needed for performing the different tasks. This approach captures the specificity of lumbopelvic sensorimotor control using goal-based tasks (e.g., "lift your hip" vs. "contract your lumbar multifidus to 20% of maximum") performed within the confines of the scanner. Specific patterns of sensorimotor cortex activation appear to capture differences between bilateral and unilateral tasks during voluntary control of multisegmental movement in the lumbopelvic region.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We demonstrated the feasibility of using task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) protocols for acquiring the blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) response of key sensorimotor cortex regions during voluntary lumbopelvic movements. Our approach activated lumbopelvic muscles during small-amplitude movements while participants were lying supine in the scanner. Our data supports these tasks can be done with limited head motion and low correlation of head motion to the task. The approach provides opportunities for assessing the role of brain changes in persistent low back pain.

Electrical Stimulation of Back Muscles Does Not Prime the Corticospinal Pathway

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether peripheral electrical stimulation (PES) of back extensor muscles changes excitability of the corticospinal pathway of the stimulated muscle and synergist trunk muscles.

METHODS

In 12 volunteers with no history of low back pain (LBP), intramuscular fine-wire electrodes recorded electromyography (EMG) from the deep multifidus (DM) and longissimus muscles. Surface electrodes recorded general EMG from the erector spinae and abdominal muscles. Single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) paradigms tested corticospinal excitability, short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI-2 and 3 ms), and intracortical facilitation (ICF) optimized for recordings of DM. Active motor threshold (aMT) to evoke a motor-evoked potential (MEP) in DM was determined and stimulation was applied at 120% of this intensity. PES was provided via electrodes placed over the right multifidus. The effect of 20-min PES (ramped motor activation) was studied.

RESULTS

Mean aMT for DM was 42.7 ± 10% of the maximal stimulator output. No effects of PES were found on MEP amplitude (single-pulse TMS) for any trunk muscles examined. There was no evidence for changes in SICI or ICF; that is, conditioned MEP amplitude was not different between trials after PES.

CONCLUSION

Results indicate that, unlike previous reports that show increased corticospinal excitability of limb muscles, PES of back muscles does not modify the corticospinal excitability. This difference in response of the motor pathway of back muscles to PES might be explained by the lesser importance of voluntary cortical drive to these muscles and the greater role of postural networks. Whether PES influences back muscle training remains unclear, yet the present results suggest that potential effects are unlikely to be explained by the effects of PES at corticospinal level with the parameters used in this study.

Revisiting the Corticomotor Plasticity in Low Back Pain: Challenges and Perspectives

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a recurrent debilitating condition that costs billions to society. Refractoriness to conventional treatment, lack of improvement, and associated movement disorders could be related to the extensive brain plasticity present in this condition, especially in the sensorimotor cortices. This narrative review on corticomotor plasticity in CLBP will try to delineate how interventions such as training and neuromodulation can improve the condition. The review recommends subgrouping classification in CLBP owing to brain plasticity markers with a view of better understanding and treating this complex condition.

Paired-Pulse TMS and Fine-Wire Recordings Reveal Short-Interval Intracortical Inhibition and Facilitation of Deep Multifidus Muscle Fascicles

Objective

Paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (ppTMS) is used to probe inhibitory and excitatory networks within the primary motor cortex (M1). These mechanisms are identified for limb muscles but it is unclear whether they share properties with trunk muscles. The aim was to determine whether it was possible to test the intracortical inhibition and facilitation of the deep multifidus muscle fascicles (DM) and at which inter-stimulus intervals (ISI).

Methods

In ten pain-free individuals, TMS was applied over M1 and motor evoked potentials (MEP) were recorded using fine-wire electrodes in DM. MEPs were conditioned with subthreshold stimuli at ISIs of 1 to 12 ms to test short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and at 15 ms for long-interval intracortical facilitation. Short-interval facilitation (SICF) was tested using 1-ms ISI.

Results

SICI of DM was consistently obtained with ISI of 1-, 3-, 4- and 12-ms. Facilitation of DM MEP was only identified using SICF paradigm.

Conclusions

A similar pattern of MEP modulation with ISI changes for deep trunk and limb muscles implies that M1 networks share some functional properties.

Significance

The ppTMS paradigm presents a potential to determine how M1 inhibitory and excitatory mechanisms participate in brain re-organization in back pain that affects control of trunk muscles.