Centralization as a predictor of provocation discography results in chronic low back pain, and the influence of disability and distress on diagnostic power

Frequency of use of discography findings for the diagnosis of low back pain of discogenic origin. Systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

There are different techniques and interpretations of discography findings to determine it positive for the diagnosis of discogenic pain. This study aims to evaluate the frequency of use of discography findings for the diagnosis of low back pain of discogenic origin.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of the last 17 years was performed in MEDLINE and BIREME. A total of 625 articles were identified, 555 were excluded for duplicates, title and abstract. We obtained 70 full texts of which 36 were included in the analysis after excluding 34 for not meeting the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Among the criteria in discography to determine it as positive, 8 studies used only the pain response to the procedure, 28 studies used more than one criterion during discography to consider it as positive, the evaluation of at least one adjacent intervertebral disc with a negative result was necessary in 26 studies to consider a discography as positive. Five studies formally expressed the use of the technique described by SIS/IASP to determine a discography as positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain in response to contrast medium injection, assessed with the visual analog pain scale≥6, was the most used criterion in the studies included in this review. Although there are already criteria to determine a discography as positive, the use of different techniques and interpretations of discography findings to determine a positive discography for low back pain of discogenic origin persists.

[Translated article] Frequency of use of discography findings for the diagnosis of low back pain of discogenic origin. Systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

There are different techniques and interpretations of discography findings to determine it positive for the diagnosis of discogenic pain. This study aims to evaluate the frequency of use of discography findings for the diagnosis of low back pain of discogenic origin.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of the last 17 years was performed in MEDLINE and BIREME. A total of 625 articles were identified, 555 were excluded for duplicates, title and abstract. We obtained 70 full texts of which 36 were included in the analysis after excluding 34 for not meeting the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Among the criteria in discography to determine it as positive, 8 studies used only the pain response to the procedure, 28 studies used more than one criterion during discography to consider it as positive, the evaluation of at least one adjacent intervertebral disc with a negative result was necessary in 26 studies to consider a discography as positive. Five studies formally expressed the use of the technique described by SIS/IASP to determine a discography as positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain in response to contrast medium injection, assessed with the visual analogue pain scale ≥6, was the most used criterion in the studies included in this review. Although there are already criteria to determine a discography as positive, the use of different techniques and interpretations of discography findings to determine a positive discography for low back pain of discogenic origin persists.

Sustained versus repetitive standing trunk extension results in greater spinal growth and pain improvement in back pain:A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

McKenzie standing trunk extension exercises have been used for the management of low back pain (LBP). However, no study to date has investigated the effect of standing trunk extension postures on spinal height and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate in subjects with LBP following a period of trunk loading how spinal height, pain, symptoms' centralization and function outcome measures respond to two standing postures interventions: (1) repetitive trunk extension (RTE) and (2) sustained trunk extension (STE).

METHODS

A consecutive sample of convenience of people with LBP were recruited to participate in 2-session physical therapy using either RTE or STE in standing.

RESULTS

Thirty participants (18 women) with a mean age of 53 ± 17.5 years completed the study. The first session resulted in spinal height increase (spinal growth) of 2.07 ± 1.32 mm for the RTE intervention and 4.54 ± 1.61 mm for the STE group (p< 0.001; ES = 1.67), while the second session (2-week following the first session) resulted in spinal growth of 2.39 ± 1.46 mm for the RTE group and 3.91 ± 2.06 mm for the STE group (p= 0.027; ES = 0.85). The STE group presented with the larger reduction in most pain from 6 to 2 as compared to the RTE group from 6 to 4 between Session 1 and Session 2 (p< 0.001). There was no difference between the groups in Modified Oswestry score and symptoms centralization (p= 0.88 and p= 0.77, respectively).

CONCLUSION

People with LBP experienced greater spine growth and improvements of pain during standing STE as compared to RTE. People with LBP could use such postures and movements to alleviate their LBP and improve spine height while in a weight bearing position.

Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging findings among sciatica patients classified as centralizers or non-centralizers

OBJECTIVE

To compare if the degenerative findings from MRI differ between the sciatica patients classified as centralizers (CEN) and non-centralizers (Non-CEN) according to the McKenzie Method of mechanical diagnosis and therapy.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Patients (N = 100) referred to a spine clinic of a single tertiary hospital for specialist consultation for sciatica. The McKenzie-based assessment was performed by the mechanical diagnosis and therapy-trained physiotherapists. Clinical data and prevalence of lumbar MRI findings were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in leg pain intensity between the groups. The Non-CEN had significantly more intense back pain, mean 56 (SD 30) and were more disabled 44 (SD 15) compared to the CEN mean 41 (SD 25) and mean 31 (11), measured with a visual analogue scale (0-100), and the Oswestry Disability Index (0-100), respectively. The CEN had more severe degenerative findings on MRI than the Non-CEN: vertebral end-plate changes were 63% and 43%; mean Pfirrmann's disc degeneration lumbar summary score was 12.8, and 10.6; and severity score of total damage was 12.0 and 10.1, respectively. There were differences neither in disc contour changes nor nerve root stenosis on MRI.

CONCLUSIONS

Sciatica patients classified as non-centralizers had significantly more severe back pain, and were significantly more disabled than centralizers, who instead had more severe degenerative findings on MRI. Thus, classification to non-centralizers by the McKenzie method seems not predict higher incidence of degenerative findings on MRI compared to centralizers.

Low back pain of disc, sacroiliac joint, or facet joint origin: a diagnostic accuracy systematic review

Background

The accuracy of diagnostic tests available in primary care to identify the disc, sacroiliac joint, and facet joint as the source of low back pain is uncertain.

Methods

Systematic review of diagnostic tests available in primary care. MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched between March 2006 and 25th January 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently screened all studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2. Pooling was performed for homogenous studies. Positive likelihood ratios (+LR) ≥2 and negative likelihood ratios (-LR) ≤0.5 were considered informative. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020169828).

Findings

We included 62 studies: 35 investigated the disc, 14 the facet joint, 11 the sacroiliac joint, and 2 investigated all three structures in patients with persistent low back pain. For risk of bias, the domain 'reference standard' scored worst, however approximately half the studies were of low risk of bias for every other domain. For the disc, pooling demonstrated MRI findings of disc degeneration and annular fissure resulted in informative +LRs: 2.53 (95% CI: 1.57-4.07) and 2.88 (95% CI: 2.02-4.10) and -LRs: 0.15 (95% CI: 0.09-0.24) and 0.24 (95% CI: 0.10-0.55) respectively. Pooled results for Modic type 1, Modic type 2, and HIZ on MRI, and centralisation phenomenon yielded informative +LRs: 10.00 (95% CI: 4.20-23.82), 8.03 (95% CI: 3.23-19.97), 3.10 (95% CI: 2.27-4.25), and 3.06 (95% CI: 1.44-6.50) respectively, but uninformative -LRs: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.74-0.96), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.80-0.96), 0.61 (95% CI: 0.48-0.77), and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.52-0.84) respectively. For the facet joint, pooling demonstrated facet joint uptake on SPECT resulted in informative +LRs: 2.80 (95% CI: 1.82-4.31) and -LRs: 0.44 (95% CI: 0.25-0.77). For the sacroiliac joint, a combination of pain provocation tests and absence of midline low back pain resulted in informative +LRs of 2.41 (95% CI: 1.89-3.07) and 2.44 (95% CI: 1.50-3.98) and -LRs of 0.35 (95% CI: 0.12-1.01) and 0.31 (95% CI: 0.21-0.47) respectively. Radionuclide imaging yielded an informative +LR 7.33 (95% CI: 1.42-37.80) but an uninformative -LR 0.74 (95% CI: 0.41-1.34).

Interpretation

There are informative diagnostic tests for the disc, sacroiliac joint, and facet joint (only one test). The evidence suggests a diagnosis may be possible for some patients with low back pain, potentially guiding targeted and specific treatment approaches.

Funding

There was no funding for this study.

Nonsurgical Interventional Spine Pain Procedures: Outcomes and Complications

»

Nonsurgical interventional spine pain procedures provide an additional treatment option for lower back pain at the traditional bifurcation of conversative vs. operative management.

»

Transforaminal epidural steroid injections, radiofrequency ablations, intrathecal drug delivery, and spinal cord stimulation were found to be effective and safe techniques when applied to their specific indication.

»

Thermal annuloplasty and minimally invasive lumbar decompression showed mixed support.

»

Discography, sacroiliac joint injections, and spinous process spacers lacked sufficient evidence to support efficacy.

»

Medial branch blocks and facet joint injections were found to be useful diagnostic tools.

Efficacy of the Gelstix nucleus augmentation device for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain: protocol for a randomised, sham-controlled, double-blind, multicentre trial

INTRODUCTION

Discogenic pain is the cause of pain in 26%-40% of patients with for low back pain. Consensus about treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain is lacking and most treatment alternatives are supported by limited evidence. The percutaneous implantation of hydrogels into the nucleus pulposus represents a promising regenerative intradiscal therapy. The hydrogel 'GelStix' is composed primarily of hydrolyzed polyacrylonitrile and acts as a reservoir of hydration, producing increased pressure and improved pH balance, potentially leading to disc preservation. We hypothesise that treatment with GelStix will lead to greater reduction in pain intensity at 6 months post-treatment compared with patients receiving sham treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a parallel group, randomised sham-controlled double-blind, multicentre trial to assess whether the GelStix device is superior to sham in reducing pain intensity in patients with chronic discogenic low back pain. The study will be conducted in two regional hospitals in Europe. Seventy-two participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome will be the change in pain intensity between preoperative baseline and at 6 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes were disability, quality of life, the patient's global impression of change scale, the use of pain medication and the disc degeneration process assessed by means of MRI. For change in pain intensity, disability, health-related quality of life and disc height, mean values will be compared between groups using linear regression analysis, adjusted for treatment centre.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Canton Ticino, Switzerland (CE2982) and by the Medical Ethical Committee Arnhem-Nijmegen, the Netherlands (2016-2944). All patients that agree to participate will be asked to sign an informed consent form. Results will be disseminated through international publications in peer-reviewed journals, in addition to international conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02763956.

PROTOCOL VERSION

7.1, 18 November 2020.

Quantitative MRI to Characterize the Nucleus Pulposus Morphological and Biomechanical Variation According to Sagittal Bending Load and Radial Fissure, an ex vivo Ovine Specimen Proof-of-Concept Study

Background and context: Low back pain is a dramatic burden worldwide. Discography studies have shown that 39% of chronic low back pain patients suffer from discogenic pain due to a radial fissure of intervertebral disc. This can have major implications in clinical therapeutic choices. The use of discography is restricted because of its invasiveness and interest in it remains low as it represents a static condition of the disc morphology. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) appears to be less invasive but does not describe the biomechanical dynamic behavior of the fissure. Purpose: We aimed to seek a quantitative MRI protocol combined with ex vivo sagittal loading to analyze the morphological and biomechanical changes of the intervertebral disc structure and stress distribution. Study design: Proof of concept. Methods: We designed a proof-of-concept ovine study including 3 different 3.0 T-MRI sequences (T₂-weighted, T₁ and T₂ mapping). We analyzed 3 different mechanical states (neutral, flexion and extension) on a fresh ovine spine specimen to characterize an intervertebral disc before and after puncturing the anterior part of the annulus fibrosus. We used a mark tracking method to calculate the bending angles and the axial displacements of the discal structures. In parallel, we created a finite element model to calculate the variation of the axial stress and the maximal intensity shear stress, extrapolated from our experimental boundary conditions. Results: Thanks to an original combination of specific nuclear relaxation time quantifications (T₁, T₂) of the discal tissue, we characterized the nucleus movement/deformation into the fissure according to the synchronous mechanical load. This revealed a link between disc abnormality and spine segment range of motion capability. Our finite element model highlighted significant variations within the stress distribution between intact and damaged disc. Conclusion: Quantitative MRI appears to provide a new opportunity to characterize intra-discal structural morphology, lesions and stress changes under the influence of mechanical load. This preliminary work could have substantial implications for non-invasive disc exploration and could help to validate novel therapies for disc treatment.

How manual therapy provided a gateway to a biopsychosocial management approach in an adult with chronic post-surgical low back pain: a case report

BACKGROUND

The management of patients with chronic post-surgical low back pain can be very challenging to surgeons, physiotherapists, and patients alike. Subsequent surgery is often associated with post-operative complications and even lower levels of success than the initial spinal surgery. Physiotherapy is often recommended as the first-line management, however, debate exists amongst physiotherapists regarding the optimal treatment strategy. A key focus of this debate has been the use of manual therapy in chronic pain populations, leading clinicians to reevaluate its use.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 44-year-old female presented to physiotherapy with a 13-year history of persistent pain, having had a spinal fusion 12 years prior, following a skiing accident. Her primary complaints were pain and decreased self-efficacy. The patient was treated with a 12-week multimodal approach consisting of manual therapy, exercise rehabilitation, and pain neuroscience education.

OUTCOMES

The patient had a significant reduction in the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire Physical Activity Subscale (FABQ-PA) scores following the intervention. She returned to running and cycling, reporting that pain was something she would 'work with instead of against'.

DISCUSSION

This case study suggests that manual therapy can enhance an individualized biopsychosocial approach in the physiotherapy management of a patient with chronic post-surgical low back pain. Further research is needed to evaluate optimal intervention dosages and effective strategies in the management of patients with chronic low back pain following spinal surgery.

Development of an Evidence-Based Practical Diagnostic Checklist and Corresponding Clinical Exam for Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to use scientific evidence to develop a practical diagnostic checklist and corresponding clinical exam for patients presenting with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

An iterative process was conducted to develop a diagnostic checklist and clinical exam for LBP using evidence-based diagnostic criteria. The checklist and exam were informed by a systematic review focused on summarizing current research evidence for office-based clinical evaluation of common conditions causing LBP.

RESULTS

Diagnostic categories contained within the checklist and exam include nociceptive pain, neuropathic pain, and sensitization. Nociceptive pain subcategories include discogenic, myofascial, sacroiliac, and zygapophyseal (facet) joint pain. Neuropathic pain categories include neurogenic claudication, radicular pain, radiculopathy, and peripheral entrapment (piriformis and thoracolumbar syndrome). Sensitization contains 2 subtypes, central and peripheral sensitization. The diagnostic checklist contains individual diagnostic categories containing evidence-based criteria, applicable examination procedures, and checkboxes to record clinical findings. The checklist organizes and displays evidence for or against a working diagnosis. The checklist may help to ensure needed information is obtained from a patient interview and exam in a variety of primary spine care settings (eg, medical, chiropractic).

CONCLUSION

The available evidence informs reasonable working diagnoses for many conditions causing or contributing to LBP. A practical diagnostic process including an exam and checklist is offered to guide clinical evaluation and demonstrate evidence for working diagnoses in clinical settings.

Stem Cell Therapies for Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain: a Comprehensive Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Discogenic low back pain (DLBP) stems from pathology in one or more intervertebral discs identified as the root cause of the pain. It is the most common type of chronic low back pain (LBP), representing 26-42% of attributable cases.

RECENT FINDINGS

The clinical presentation of DLBP includes increased pain when sitting, coughing, or sneezing, and experiencing relief when standing or ambulating. Dermatomal radiation of pain to the lower extremity and neurological symptoms including numbness, motor weakness, and urinary or fecal incontinence are signs of advanced disease with disc prolapse, nerve root compression, or spinal stenosis. Degenerative disc disease is caused by both a decrease in disc nutrient supply causing decreased oxygen, lowered pH, and lessened ability of the intervertebral disc (IVD) to respond to increased load or injury; moreover, changes in the extracellular matrix composition cause weakening of the tissue and skewing the extracellular matrix's (ECM) harmonious balance between catabolic and anabolic factors for cell turnover in favor of catabolism. Thus, the degeneration of the disc causes a shift from type II to type I collagen expression by NP cells and a decrease in aggrecan synthesis leads to dehydrated matrix cells ultimately with loss of swelling pressure needed for mechanical support. Cell-based therapies such as autologous nucleus pulposus cell re-implantation have in animal models and human trials shown improvements in LBP score, retention of hydration in IVD, and increased disc height. Percutaneously delivered multipotent mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy has been proposed as a potential means to uniquely ameliorate discogenic LBP holistically through three mechanisms: mitigation of primary nociceptive disc pain, slow or reversal of the catabolic metabolism, and restoration of disc tissue. Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) can differentiate into cells of all three germ layers in vitro, but their use is hindered related to ethical concerns, potential for immune rejection after transplantation, disease, and teratoma formation. Another similar approach to treating back pain is transplantation of the nucleus pulposus, which, like stem cell therapy, seeks to address the underlying cause of intervertebral disc degeneration by aiming to reverse the destructive inflammatory process and regenerate the proteoglycans and collagen found in healthy disc tissue. Preliminary animal models and clinical studies have shown mesenchymal stem cell implantation as a potential therapy for IVD regeneration and ECM restoration via a shift towards favorable anabolic balance and reduction of pain.

Convergence and Divergence of Exercise-Based Approaches That Incorporate Motor Control for the Management of Low Back Pain

Many approaches for low back pain (LBP) management focus on modifying motor control, which refers to motor, sensory, and central processes for control of posture and movement. A common assumption across approaches is that the way an individual loads the spine by typical postures, movements, and muscle activation strategies contributes to LBP symptom onset, persistence, and recovery. However, there are also divergent features from one approach to another. This commentary presents key principles of 4 clinical physical therapy approaches, including how each incorporates motor control in LBP management, the convergence and divergence of these approaches, and how they interface with medical LBP management. The approaches considered are movement system impairment syndromes of the lumbar spine, Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy, motor control training, and the integrated systems model. These were selected to represent the diversity of applications, including approaches using motor control as a central or an adjunct feature, and approaches that are evidence based or evidence informed. This identification of areas of convergence and divergence of approaches is designed to clarify the key aspects of each approach and thereby serve as a guide for the clinician and to provide a platform for considering a hybrid approach tailored to the individual patient. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):437-452. Epub 15 May 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8451.

Classification by pain pattern for patients with cervical spine radiculopathy

OBJECTIVES

A prospective observational cohort study was conducted to (1) report the prevalence of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) classifications, Centralization (CEN), and Non-CEN among patients with Cervical Spine Radiculopathy (CSR), and (2) describe the association between classification via CEN and Non-CEN and clinical outcomes at follow-up.

METHODS

Data were collected from 680 consecutive patients who presented to outpatient, orthopedic physical therapy clinics with primary complaints of neck pain with and without radiculopathy; thirty-nine patients (6%) met the physical examination inclusion criteria for CSR. First examination and follow-up data were completed by 19 patients.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine percent of patients' conditions were classified as Reducible Derangement at first examination and 21% were classified as either Irreducible Derangement, Entrapment, or Mechanically Inconclusive. The prevalence of CEN and Non-CEN was 36.8% and 47.4%, respectively. All patients treated via MDT methods made clinically significant improvements in disability, but not pain intensity, at follow-up. The magnitude of change in clinical outcomes was greatest for patients who exhibited CEN; however, the changes in disability and pain intensity at follow-up were not statistically significant compared to patients who exhibited Non-CEN at first examination. Patients who exhibited CEN were discharged, on average, ten days earlier and had one less treatment visit compared to patients who exhibited Non-CEN.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study show that patients with CSR can be classified and treated via MDT methods and experienced clinically significant improvements in disability, but not pain intensity, at follow-up. Providers should consider MDT classification and treatment to improve clinical outcomes for their patients affected by CSR.

Discogenic Back Pain: Literature Review of Definition, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Discogenic back pain is multifactorial; hence, physicians often struggle to identify the underlying source of the pain. As a result, discogenic back pain is often hard to treat—even more so when clinical treatment strategies are of questionable efficacy. Based on a broad literature review, our aim was to define discogenic back pain into a series of more specific and interacting pathologies, and to highlight the need to develop novel approaches and treatment strategies for this challenging and unmet clinical need. Discogenic pain involves degenerative changes of the intervertebral disc, including structural defects that result in biomechanical instability and inflammation. These degenerative changes in intervertebral discs closely intersect with the peripheral and central nervous systems to cause nerve sensitization and ingrowth; eventually central sensitization results in a chronic pain condition. Existing imaging modalities are nonspecific to pain symptoms, whereas discography methods that are more specific have known comorbidities based on intervertebral disc puncture and injection. As a result, alternative noninvasive and specific diagnostic methods are needed to better diagnose and identify specific conditions and sources of pain that can be more directly treated. Currently, there are many treatments/interventions for discogenic back pain. Nevertheless, many surgical approaches for discogenic pain have limited efficacy, thus accentuating the need for the development of novel treatments. Regenerative therapies, such as biologics, cell‐based therapy, intervertebral disc repair, and gene‐based therapy, offer the most promise and have many advantages over current therapies. © 2019 The Authors. JBMR Plus Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research

Centralization and directional preference: An updated systematic review with synthesis of previous evidence

BACKGROUND

Centralization and directional preference are common management and prognostic factors in spinal symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To update the previous systematic review.

DESIGN

Systematic review to synthesis multiple aspects of centralization and directional preference.

METHOD

Contemporary search was made of multiple databases using relevant search terms. Abstracts and titles were filtered by two authors; relevant articles were independently reviewed by two authors for content, data extraction, and quality.

RESULTS

Forty-three additional relevant articles were found. The quality of the studies, using PEDro for randomized controlled trials, was moderate or high in six out of ten RCTs; moderate or high in six out of 12 cohort studies. Prevalence of centralization was 40%, the same as the previous review. Directional preference without Centralization was 26%; thus Centralization and directional preference combined was 66%, which was very similar to the previous review. Neither clinical response was recorded in about a third of patients. Centralization and directional preference were confirmed as key positive prognostic factors, certainly in patients with low back pain, but limited evidence for patients with neck pain. There was no evidence that these might be important treatment effect modifiers. One study evaluated reliability, and found generally poor levels, despite training.

CONCLUSIONS

Centralization and directional preference are worthwhile indicators of prognosis, and should be routinely examined for even in patients with chronic low back pain. But they do not occur in all patients with spinal problems, and there was no evidence that they were treatment effect modifiers.

Is a History of Severe Episodic Low Back Pain an Indicator of a Discogenic Etiology?

Objective

To determine if a history of severe episodic low back pain (LBP) correlates with positive discography.

Methods

A retrospective chart review identified patients undergoing discography from January 2012 through February 2016. The review determined if the patient's LBP began or continued with severe disabling episodes (lasting a minimum of two days). A gradual onset or initiating event with continuous symptoms was considered a nonepisodic history. Patients were excluded for unclear record, workers' compensation, litigation, prior lumbar surgery, radiologic instability, or indeterminate discography.

Results

Seventy-eight patients underwent discography. Thirty-nine patients were included, 31 of which had positive discograms. Eight had negative discograms. Nineteen patients had a history of episodic LBP, and 20 had no history of episodic LBP. Of those 19 with a history of episodic LBP, 18 had positive discography and one had negative discography. Of those with no history of episodic LBP, 13 had positive discography and seven had negative discography. Using the historical finding of severe episodic LBP as a test for discogenic source of LBP, the sensitivity is 58% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 41-75%) and the specificity is 88% (95% CI = 65-100%). The likelihood ratio is 4.7 (95% CI = 0.72-30). The positive predictive value (PPV) is 95% (95% CI = 72-100%). The PPV is based upon a prevalence of 79% (discogram positive) in our sample of patients considering fusion surgery. The diagnostic confidence odds are 18.2, with a diagnostic confidence of 95%.

Conclusions

A positive history of severe episodic LBP may be a strong indicator for a discogenic etiology.

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.

Classification characteristics of a chronic low back pain population using a combined McKenzie and patho-anatomical assessment

BACKGROUND

Physiotherapists use musculo-skeletal classification systems for patient assessment. Since its early development, the McKenzie lumbar spine assessment (MK) has been incorporated into examination algorithms and combined with a series of patho-anatomical diagnostic tests. No previous studies have used a MK and a combined examination (MK-C) to provide a detailed profile of patients, report and compare the classification characteristics of a chronic low back pain (CLBP) population.

OBJECTIVE

To report the classification characteristics of a CLBP population using MK and MK-C examinations, and conduct inter-classification comparison of the MK-C for demographics, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Index (RM), Modified Somatic Perceptions Questionnaire (MSPQ), symptom duration and intensity.

METHOD

A prospective cross-sectional study conducted in a spinal clinic by a MK trained physiotherapist.

RESULTS

Results were obtained in 150 patients. Using MK, 31% (n = 47) of participants were classified as inconclusive. Following MK-C only 6% of participants remained inconclusive (n = 9). The most frequent MK-C classification was facet joint syndrome (FJS) (49%). Participants with FJS were significantly older than those classified as discogenic (p < 0.001; CI 3.96 ̶ 19.74), or mixed (p < 0.001; CI 5.98 ̶ 36.41). Participants classified as discogenic had significantly higher RM (p = 0.022) and MSPQ (p = 0.005) scores than FJS.

CONCLUSION

Results indicated that 94% of CLBP patients could be classified using a MK-C. The most common presentation in CLBP was facet joint syndrome. Age, RM and MSPQ appeared to be distinguishing characteristics of this population. Future studies should be conducted to establish the validity and reliability of the MK-C.

Lumbar lateral shift in a patient with interspinous device implantation: a case report

BACKGROUND

Lumbar lateral shift (LLS) is a common clinical observation but has rarely been described in a patient with a history of lumbar surgery. The purpose of the current case report was to describe the use of the McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) in the multi-modal treatment of a patient with an LLS and a history of multiple surgical procedures in the lumbar spine, including interspinous process device (IPD) implantation.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 72-year-old female with chronic low back pain (LBP) and a surgical history in the lumbar spine was referred to physical therapy for radiating leg pain and presented with a right LLS. Her chief complaints included sitting for long periods, vacuuming and ascending stairs into her home.

OUTCOMES

The patient was treated during eight visits over 30 days. Treatment interventions included manual shift correction, self-correction and management, joint mobilisation below the level of IPD implantation ,neurophysiology education, and development of a home exercise programme. At discharge, her leg pain was resolved and all goals had been met. The patient reported maintenance of gains at 6-month follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Utilisation of the MDT approach, including LLS correction, produced positive outcomes in a complex patient with previous IPD implantation. Future research should investigate treatment and outcomes after invasive spinal procedures in similar patient populations to better inform clinical management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Do Physical Symptoms Predict the Outcome of Surgical Fusion in Patients with Discogenic Low Back Pain?

Study Design

Retrospective case series.

Purpose

To determine whether symptoms predict surgical outcomes for patients with discogenic low back pain (DLBP).

Overview of Literature

Specific diagnosis of DLBP remains difficult. Worsening of pain on flexion is a reported symptom of DLBP. This study sought to determine whether symptoms predict surgical outcomes for patients with DLBP.

Methods

We investigated 127 patients with low back pain (LBP) and no dominant radicular pain. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to select patients with disc degeneration at only one level. If pain was provoked during discography, we performed fusion surgery (87 patients). Visual analogue scale score and responses to a questionnaire regarding symptoms including worsening of pain on flexion or extension were assessed. Symptom sites before surgery were categorized into LBP alone, or LBP plus referred inguinal or leg pain. We followed 77 patients (average 3.0 years) and compared symptoms before surgery with surgical outcome.

Results

Sixty-three patients with a good outcome showed postsurgical pain relief (≥60% pain relief) and 14 patients with a poor outcome did not (<60% pain relief). In patients with good outcomes, worsening of LBP was evident in 65% of cases on flexion and in 35% on extension. However, these findings were not significantly different from those in patients with poor outcomes. The percentage of patients with LBP alone was significantly lower and the percentage of patients with LBP plus referred inguinal or leg pain was significantly higher in the group with good surgical outcome compared with patients in the group with poor surgical outcome (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Worsening of pain on extension may be a symptom of DLBP. Surgical outcomes were superior in patients with both LBP and either referred inguinal or leg pain compared with those having LBP alone.

An update on the management of chronic lumbar discogenic pain

Lumbar degenerative disc disease without disc herniation, also known as discogenic pain, is an elusive diagnosis of chronic low back pain. Lumbar provocation discography and fusion surgery have been frequently utilized for several decades as the gold standards for the diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic lumbar discogenic pain, though controversial, based on conjecture, rather than evidence. In addition to lumbar fusion, various other operative and nonoperative modalities of treatments are available in managing chronic lumbar discogenic pain. This review provides an updated assessment of the management of chronic lumbar discogenic pain with a critical look at the many modalities of treatments that are currently available.

Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation

Background

With the development of increasing evidence for the use of manipulation in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, there is growing interest in identifying the appropriate indications for care. Recently, attempts have been made to develop clinical prediction rules, however the validity of these clinical prediction rules remains unclear and their impact on care delivery has yet to be established. The current study was designed to evaluate the literature on the validity and reliability of the more common methods used by doctors of chiropractic to inform the choice of the site at which to apply spinal manipulation.

Methods

Structured searches were conducted in Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and ICL, supported by hand searches of archives, to identify studies of the diagnostic reliability and validity of common methods used to identify the site of treatment application. To be included, studies were to present original data from studies of human subjects and be designed to address the region or location of care delivery. Only English language manuscripts from peer-reviewed journals were included. The quality of evidence was ranked using QUADAS for validity and QAREL for reliability, as appropriate. Data were extracted and synthesized, and were evaluated in terms of strength of evidence and the degree to which the evidence was favourable for clinical use of the method under investigation.

Results

A total of 2594 titles were screened from which 201 articles met all inclusion criteria. The spectrum of manuscript quality was quite broad, as was the degree to which the evidence favoured clinical application of the diagnostic methods reviewed. The most convincing favourable evidence was for methods which confirmed or provoked pain at a specific spinal segmental level or region. There was also high quality evidence supporting the use, with limitations, of static and motion palpation, and measures of leg length inequality. Evidence of mixed quality supported the use, with limitations, of postural evaluation. The evidence was unclear on the applicability of measures of stiffness and the use of spinal x-rays. The evidence was of mixed quality, but unfavourable for the use of manual muscle testing, skin conductance, surface electromyography and skin temperature measurement.

Conclusions

A considerable range of methods is in use for determining where in the spine to administer spinal manipulation. The currently published evidence falls across a spectrum ranging from strongly favourable to strongly unfavourable in regard to using these methods. In general, the stronger and more favourable evidence is for those procedures which take a direct measure of the presumptive site of care– methods involving pain provocation upon palpation or localized tissue examination. Procedures which involve some indirect assessment for identifying the manipulable lesion of the spine–such as skin conductance or thermography–tend not to be supported by the available evidence.

The assessment of function. Part II: clinical perspective of a javelin thrower with low back and groin pain

Assessment of an individual's functional ability can be complex. This assessment should also be individualized and adaptable to changes in functional status. In the first article of this series, we operationally defined function, discussed the construct of function, examined the evidence as it relates to assessment methods of various aspects of function, and explored the multi-dimensional nature of the concept of function. In this case report, we aim to demonstrate the utilization of a multi-dimensional assessment method (functional performance testing) as it relates to a high-level athlete presenting with pain in the low back and groin. It is our intent to demonstrate how the clinician should continually adapt their assessment dependent on the current functional abilities of the patients.

Shoulder pain in primary care: diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination tests for non-traumatic acromioclavicular joint pain

BACKGROUND

Despite numerous methodological flaws in previous study designs and the lack of validation in primary care populations, clinical tests for identifying acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) pain are widely utilised without concern for such issues. The aim of this study was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of traditional ACJ tests and to compare their accuracy with other clinical examination features for identifying a predominant ACJ pain source in a primary care cohort.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with shoulder pain were recruited prospectively from primary health care clinics. Following a standardised clinical examination and diagnostic injection into the subacromial bursa, all participants received a fluoroscopically guided diagnostic block of 1% lidocaine hydrochloride (XylocaineTM) into the ACJ. Diagnostic accuracy statistics including sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) were calculated for traditional ACJ tests (Active Compression/O'Brien's test, cross-body adduction, localised ACJ tenderness and Hawkins-Kennedy test), and for individual and combinations of clinical examination variables that were associated with a positive anaesthetic response (PAR) (P≤0.05) defined as 80% or more reduction in post-injection pain intensity during provocative clinical tests.

RESULTS

Twenty two of 153 participants (14%) reported an 80% PAR. None of the traditional ACJ tests were associated with an 80% PAR (P<0.05) and combinations of traditional tests were not able to discriminate between a PAR and a negative anaesthetic response (AUC 0.507; 95% CI: 0.366, 0.647; P>0.05). Five clinical examination variables (repetitive mechanism of pain onset, no referred pain below the elbow, thickened or swollen ACJ, no symptom provocation during passive glenohumeral abduction and external rotation) were associated with an 80% PAR (P<0.05) and demonstrated an ability to accurately discriminate between an PAR and NAR (AUC 0.791; 95% CI 0.702, 0.880; P<0.001). Less than two positive clinical features resulted in 96% sensitivity (95% CI 0.78, 0.99) and a LR- 0.09 (95% CI 0.02, 0.41) and four positive clinical features resulted in 95% specificity (95% CI 0.90, 0.98) and a LR+ of 4.98 (95% CI 1.69, 13.84).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of primary care patients with predominantly subacute or chronic ACJ pain of non-traumatic onset, traditional ACJ tests were of limited diagnostic value. Combinations of other history and physical examination findings were able to more accurately identify injection-confirmed ACJ pain in this cohort.

Time- and dose-dependent cytotoxicities of ioxitalamate and indigocarmine in human nucleus pulposus cells

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Ioxitalamate (Telebrix 300) is an ionic iodinated contrast medium commonly used for discography or percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), though it has side effects such as anaphylactic shock and renal toxicity. Indigocarmine is an organic compound dye with a distinctive blue color that is commonly used during PELD to stain the acidic, degenerated nucleus pulposus (NP). Although ioxitalamate and indigocarmine are widely used in spinal surgery, there have been no reports on their effects on NP cells. We studied the toxicities of both ioxitalamate and indigocarmine to NP cells.

PURPOSE

To determine the toxicities of both ioxitalamate and indigocarmine to NP cells in vitro.

STUDY DESIGN

In vitro, controlled study of the toxicities of both ioxitalamate and indigocarmine to human NP cells.

METHODS

Nucleus pulposus cells were obtained via discectomy from lumbar disc patients and isolated. Nucleus pulposus cells were cultured in three-dimensional (3D) alginate beads with 0.001, 0.1, 10, and 100 mg/mL ioxitalamate, 0.00001, 0.001, 0.1, and 10 mg/mL indigocarmine, or a mixture of both for 1, 2, or 3 days. The living cells were analyzed with trypan blue staining. Fluorescence Activated Cell Sorting analysis using Annexin V and propidium iodide and 3D alginate bead immunostaining was performed to identify live, apoptotic, and necrotic cells.

RESULTS

Ioxitalamate, indigocarmine, and their combination induced statistically significant NP cell injury that was both time- and dose dependent (p<.05). Also, at the same concentration, ioxitalamate was more cytotoxic than was indigocarmine or the combination (p<.05). All three treatments also showed dose-dependent cytotoxicity according to flow cytometry and immunostaining.

CONCLUSIONS

Ioxitalamate and indigocarmine are toxic to human NP cells in vitro in a time- and dose-dependent manner. We assume that ioxitalamate and indigocarmine may have similar effects in patients undergoing discography and PELD. Thus, we suggest that ioxitalamate and indigocarmine should be used carefully at low concentrations.

Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for assessment of hamstring injury: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of a hamstring injury has traditionally relied on various clinical measures (eg, palpation, swelling, manual resistance), as well as the use of diagnostic imaging. But a few studies have suggested the use of specific clinical tests that may be helpful for the diagnostic process.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the current literature on the diagnostic accuracy of orthopaedic special tests for hamstring injuries and to determine their clinical utility.

METHODS

A computer-assisted literature search of the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase databases (along with a manual search of grey literature) was conducted using key words related to diagnostic accuracy of hamstring injuries. To be considered for inclusion in the review, the study required (1) patients with hamstring or posterior thigh pain; (2) a cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional design; (3) inclusion of at least 1 clinical examination test used to evaluate hamstring pathology; (4) comparison against an acceptable reference standard; (5) reporting of diagnostic accuracy of the measures (sensitivity [SN], specificity [SP], or likelihood ratios); and (6) publication in English. SN, SP, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for each diagnostic test.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 602 potential articles, of which only 3 articles met the inclusion criteria, with only 1 of these 3 articles being of high quality. Two of the studies investigated a single special test, whereas the third article examined a composite clinical assessment employing various special tests. The SN values ranged from 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46, 0.69) for the active range-of-motion test to 1.00 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.00) for the taking-off-the-shoe test. The SP values ranged from 0.03 (95% CI: 0.00, 0.22) for the composite clinical assessment to 1.00 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.00) for the taking-off-the-shoe test, active range-of-motion test, passive range-of-motion test, and resisted range-of-motion test. The use of a single special test demonstrated stronger SP than SN properties, whereas the composite clinical assessment demonstrated stronger SN than SP properties.

CONCLUSION

Very few studies have investigated the utilization of clinical special tests for the diagnosis of hamstring injuries. Further studies of higher quality design are suggested prior to advocating independent clinical utilization of these special tests.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnosis, level 3b.

Prevalence of classification methods for patients with lumbar impairments using the McKenzie syndromes, pain pattern, manipulation, and stabilization clinical prediction rules

OBJECTIVES

Aims were (1) to determine the proportion of patients with lumbar impairments who could be classified at intake by McKenzie syndromes (McK) and pain pattern classification (PPCs) using Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) assessment methods, manipulation, and stabilization clinical prediction rules (CPRs) and (2) for each Man CPR or Stab CPR category, determine classification prevalence rates using McK and PPC.

METHODS

Eight physical therapists practicing in eight diverse clinical settings classified patients typically referred to rehabilitation by McKenzie syndromes (i.e. derangement, dysfunction, posture, or other), pain pattern classification [i.e. centralization (CEN), not centralization (Non CEN), and not classified (NC)], Manipulation CPR (positive, negative), and stabilization CPR (positive, negative). Prevalence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each classification category by McK, PPC, and manipulation and stabilization CPRs. Prevalence rates (95% CIs) for McK and PPC were calculated for each CPR category separately.

RESULTS

Data from 628 adults [mean age: 52±17 years, 56% female] were analyzed. Prevalence rates were: McK - derangement 67%, dysfunction 5%, posture 0%, other 28%; PPC - CEN 43%, Non CEN 39%, NC 18%; manipulation CPR - positive 13%; Stab CPR - positive 7%. For patients positive for manipulation CPR (n = 79), prevalence rates for derangement were 89% and CEN 68%. For patients positive for stabilization CPR (n = 41), prevalence rates for derangement were 83% and CEN 80%.

DISCUSSION

The majority of patients classified based on initial clinical presentation by manipulation and stabilization CPRs were also classified as derangements whose symptoms centralized. Manipulation and stabilization CPRs may not represent a mutually exclusive treatment subgroup but may include patients who can be initially treated using a different classification method.

Subgrouping patients with low back pain: a treatment-based approach to classification

Context:

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition imposing a large socioeconomic burden. Despite intensive research aimed at the efficacy of various therapies for patients with LBP, most evidence has failed to identify a superior treatment approach. One proposed solution to this dilemma is to identify subgroups of patients with LBP and match them with targeted therapies. Among the subgrouping approaches, the system of treatment-based classification (TBC) is promoted as a means of increasing the effectiveness of conservative interventions for patients with LBP.

Evidence acquisition:

MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched from 1985 through 2010, along with the references of selected articles.

Results:

TBC uses a standardized approach to categorize patients into 1 of 4 subgroups: spinal manipulation, stabilization exercise, end-range loading exercise, and traction. Although the TBC subgroups are in various stages of development, recent research lends support to the effectiveness of this approach.

Conclusions:

While additional research is required to better elucidate this method, the TBC approach enhances clinical decision making, as evidenced by the improved clinical outcomes experienced by patients with LBP.

Influence of directional preference on two clinical dichotomies: acute versus chronic pain and axial low back pain versus sciatica

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether outcomes from treatment determined by subjects' directional preference (ie, reduction in back and/or leg pain, by performing a single direction of repeated end-range lumbar movement) would vary based on pain duration, location, or neurologic status.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of data from a multicenter randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Eleven physical therapy departments or clinics in 5 countries, with referrals for both acute and chronic low back pain.

SUBJECTS

Seventy-one of 80 subjects with acute to chronic low back pain, and with and without radicular leg pain, and with or without mild neurologic deficit, were found at baseline to have a directional preference and were then treated with directional exercises that matched their directional preference.

METHODS

All of the subjects were treated for 2 weeks with directional exercises and compatible posture modifications. Independent variables were pain duration, pain location, and neurologic status.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Primary measures were back and leg pain intensity and function (Roland Morris Disability Questionnare). Secondary measures were activity interference, medication use, depression (Beck Depression Inventory), and a self-report of improvement.

RESULTS

The subjects significantly improved their back and leg pain intensity, disability, and all secondary outcome measures, but pain duration, location, and neurologic status classification did not predict treatment responsiveness. Across all pain duration categories, 91%-100% either improved or resolved completely. There also was significant improvement across all pain location and neurologic status categories, with no significant differences across the outcome variables.

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects found to have a directional preference who then treated themselves with matching directional exercises, neither pain duration nor pain location and neurologic status predicted their uniformly good-to-excellent outcomes.

Centralization and directional preference: a systematic review

Centralization is a symptom response to repeated movements that can be used to classify patients into sub-groups, determine appropriate management strategies, and prognosis. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature relating to centralization and directional preference, and specifically report on prevalence, prognostic validity, reliability, loading strategies, and diagnostic implications. Search was conducted to June 2011; multiple study designs were considered. 62 studies were included in the review; 54 related to centralization and 8 to directional preference. The prevalence of centralization was 44.4% (range 11%-89%) in 4745 patients with back and neck pain in 29 studies; it was more prevalent in acute (74%) than sub-acute or chronic (42%) symptoms. The prevalence of directional preference was 70% (range 60%-78%) in 2368 patients with back or neck pain in 5 studies. Twenty-one of 23 studies supported the prognostic validity of centralization, including 3 high quality studies and 4 of moderate quality; whereas 2 moderate quality studies showed evidence that did not support the prognostic validity of centralization. Data on the prognostic validity of directional preference was limited to one study. Centralization and directional preference appear to be useful treatment effect modifiers in 7 out of 8 studies. Levels of reliability were very variable (kappa 0.15-0.9) in 5 studies. Findings of centralization or directional preference at baseline would appear to be useful indicators of management strategies and prognosis, and therefore warrant further investigation.

Efficacy of directional preference management for low back pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Providing specific treatment based on symptom response for people with low back pain (LBP) and a directional preference (DP) is a widely used treatment approach. The efficacy of treatment using the principles of directional preference management (DPM) for LBP is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of treatment using the principles of DPM for people with LBP and a DP.

METHODS

Computer databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English up to January 2010. Only RCTs investigating DPM for people with LBP and a DP were included. Outcomes for pain, back specific function, and work participation were extracted.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included in this review. Five were considered high quality. Clinical heterogeneity of the included trials prevented meta-analysis. GRADE quality assessment revealed mixed results; however, moderate evidence was identified that DPM was significantly more effective than a number of comparison treatments for pain, function, and work participation at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-ups. No trials found that DPM was significantly less effective than comparison treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this systematic review showed mixed results, some evidence was found supporting the effectiveness of DPM when applied to participants with a DP, particularly at short-term and intermediate-term follow-ups. Further high-quality RCTs are warranted to evaluate the effect of DPM applied to people with LBP and a DP.

The McKenzie method compared with manipulation when used adjunctive to information and advice in low back pain patients presenting with centralization or peripheralization: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of the McKenzie method performed by certified therapists with spinal manipulation performed by chiropractors when used adjunctive to information and advice.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Recent guidelines recommend a structured exercise program tailored to the individual patient as well as manual therapy for the treatment of persistent low back pain. There is presently insufficient evidence to recommend the use of specific decision methods tailoring specific therapies to clinical subgroups of patients in primary care.

METHODS

A total of 350 patients suffering from low back pain with a duration of more than 6 weeks who presented with centralization or peripheralization of symptoms with or without signs of nerve root involvement, were enrolled in the trial. Main outcome was number of patients with treatment success defined as a reduction of at least 5 points or an absolute score below 5 points on the Roland Morris Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were reduction in disability and pain, global perceived effect, general health, mental health, lost work time, and medical care utilization.

RESULTS

Both treatment groups showed clinically meaningful improvements in this study. At 2 months follow-up, the McKenzie treatment was superior to manipulation with respect to the number of patients who reported success after treatment (71% and 59%, respectively) (odds ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36 to 0.91, P = 0.018). The number needed to treat with the McKenzie method was 7 (95% CI 4 to 47). The McKenzie group showed improvement in level of disability compared to the manipulation group reaching a statistical significance at 2 and 12 months follow-up (mean difference 1.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 2.8, P = 0.022 and 1.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 2.9, P = 0.030, respectively). There was also a significant difference of 13% in number of patients reporting global perceived effect at end of treatment (P = 0.016). None of the other secondary outcomes showed statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSION

In patients with low back pain for more than 6 weeks presenting with centralization or peripheralization of symptoms, we found the McKenzie method to be slightly more effective than manipulation when used adjunctive to information and advice.

Nucleus pulposus deformation following application of mechanical diagnosis and therapy: a single case report with magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND

The McKenzie management strategy of mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) is commonly used for the assessment and management of spinal problems. Within this system, 'derangement syndrome' is the most common classification, for which the conceptual model is an intra-discal displacement. However, the reduction of an intra-discal displacement by MDT has never been documented. The purpose of this study was to compare, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the nucleus pulposus (NP) profiles before and after the use of this approach.

PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS

The patient was a 34-year-old female with a long history of right sided low back and buttock pain classified with 'derangement syndrome'.

EXAMINATION

T2-weighted images of the L4-5 disc at initial assessment were compared with that at final assessment 1 month later. Initially, the MRI showed a portion of the NP displaced right and posteriorly towards the side of pain, and an overall NP position in the coronal plane shifted to the left.

INTERVENTION

The patient was managed with a 1-month course of the McKenzie management strategy treatment.

OUTCOMES

One month later, the displaced portion of the NP was no longer present and the left-shifted NP was centrally located.

DISCUSSION

These intervertebral disc changes coincided with centralization and abolition of symptoms. This case may support the conceptual model of MDT.

Application of a diagnosis-based clinical decision guide in patients with low back pain

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is common and costly. Development of accurate and efficacious methods of diagnosis and treatment has been identified as a research priority. A diagnosis-based clinical decision guide (DBCDG; previously referred to as a diagnosis-based clinical decision rule) has been proposed which attempts to provide the clinician with a systematic, evidence-based means to apply the biopsychosocial model of care. The approach is based on three questions of diagnosis. The purpose of this study is to present the prevalence of findings using the DBCDG in consecutive patients with LBP.

Methods

Demographic, diagnostic and baseline outcome measure data were gathered on a cohort of LBP patients examined by one of three examiners trained in the application of the DBCDG.

Results

Data were gathered on 264 patients. Signs of visceral disease or potentially serious illness were found in 2.7%. Centralization signs were found in 41%, lumbar and sacroiliac segmental signs in 23% and 27%, respectively and radicular signs were found in 24%. Clinically relevant myofascial signs were diagnosed in 10%. Dynamic instability was diagnosed in 63%, fear beliefs in 40%, central pain hypersensitivity in 5%, passive coping in 3% and depression in 3%.

Conclusion

The DBCDG can be applied in a busy private practice environment. Further studies are needed to investigate clinically relevant means to identify central pain hypersensitivity, poor coping and depression, correlations and patterns among the diagnostic components of the DBCDG as well as inter-examiner reliability and efficacy of treatment based on the DBCDG.

Evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of the painful sacroiliac joint

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain refers to the pain arising from the SIJ joint structures. SIJ dysfunction generally refers to aberrant position or movement of SIJ structures that may or may not result in pain. This paper aims to clarify the difference between these clinical concepts and present current available evidence regarding diagnosis and treatment of SIJ disorders. Tests for SIJ dysfunction generally have poor inter-examiner reliability. A reference standard for SIJ dysfunction is not readily available, so validity of the tests for this disorder is unknown. Tests that stress the SIJ in order to provoke familiar pain have acceptable inter-examiner reliability and have clinically useful validity against an acceptable reference standard. It is unknown if provocation tests can reliably identify extra-articular SIJ sources of pain. Three or more positive pain provocation SIJ tests have sensitivity and specificity of 91% and 78%, respectively. Specificity of three or more positive tests increases to 87% in patients whose symptoms cannot be made to move towards the spinal midline, i.e., centralize. In chronic back pain populations, patients who have three or more positive provocation SIJ tests and whose symptoms cannot be made to centralize have a probability of having SIJ pain of 77%, and in pregnant populations with back pain, a probability of 89%. This combination of test findings could be used in research to evaluate the efficacy of specific treatments for SIJ pain. Treatments most likely to be effective are specific lumbopelvic stabilization training and injections of corticosteroid into the intra-articular space.

Manual correction of an acute lumbar lateral shift: maintenance of correction and rehabilitation: a case report with video

The acute onset lumbar lateral shift, otherwise known as a list or acute scoliosis, is a common clinical observation associated with low back pain. In general orthopaedics, the presence of a lateral shift is associated with a poor prognosis; however, a manual correction method devised by McKenzie is claimed to produce rapid reversal of the deformity and reduction in pain. This single-case report presents the details of the McKenzie Mechanical Diagnosis and Treatment (MDT) management of a major right-sided lateral shift, which includes the manual correction technique, self-correction and management, prophylaxis, pain ablation, and rehabilitation to a high level of athletic function, with long-term follow-up at 9 months. The lateral shift is widely accepted as being associated with disc pathology, but the exact mechanism of shift production remains speculative. hypotheses include muscle spasm, avoidance of irritation of a spinal nerve, and space-occupying or space-deficient disc mechanics. The hypotheses used to explain the lateral shift phenomena are discussed. (Case report is supplemented by video stream, available at jmmtonline.com/).

Association between directional preference and centralization in patients with low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort.

OBJECTIVES

Primary aims were to determine (1) baseline prevalence of directional preference (DP) or no directional preference (no-DP) observed for patients with low back pain whose symptoms centralized (CEN), did not centralize (non-CEN), or could not be classified (NC), and (2) to determine if classifying patients at intake by DP or no-DP combined with CEN, non-CEN, or NC predicted functional status and pain intensity at discharge from rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND

Although evidence suggests that patient response classification criteria DP or CEN improve outcomes, previous studies did not delineate relations between DP and CEN findings and outcomes.

METHODS

Eight therapists classified patients using standardized definitions for DP and CEN. Prevalence rates for DP and no-DP and CEN,non-CEN, and NC were calculated. Ordinary least-squares multivariate regression models assessed whether multilevel classification combining DP and CEN (DP/CEN, DP/non-CEN, DP/NC, no-DP/non-CEN, and no-DP/NC categories) predicted discharge functional status (scale range, 0 to 100, with higher values representing better function) or pain intensity (scale range, 0 to 10, with higher values representing more pain).

RESULTS

Overall prevalence of DP and CEN was 60% and 41%, respectively. For those with DP, prevalence rates for DP/CEN, DP/non-CEN, and DP/NC were 65%, 27%, and 8%, respectively. The amount of variance explained (R2 values) for function and pain models was 0.50 and 0.39, respectively. Compared to patients classified as DP/CEN, patients classified as DP/non-CEN or no-DP/non-CEN reported 7.7 and 11.6 functional status units less at discharge (P<.001), respectively, and patients classified as no-DP/non-CEN reported 1.7 pain units more at discharge (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that classification by pain pattern and DP can improve a therapist's ability to provide a short-term prognosis for function and pain outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognosis, level 1b-.

Association between centralization, depression, somatization, and disability among patients with nonspecific low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a prospective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether depression and somatization subscores of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R), which have been shown to identify chronic disability in individuals with nonspecific low back pain, are applicable to a different population of individuals with low back pain; and to determine if this potential association is confounded by a combination of centralization and subsequent treatment based on centralization.

BACKGROUND

To help direct management of patients with nonspecific low back pain, recommendations include performing tests designed to identify psychosocial risk factors predictive of poor patient outcomes. SCL-90-R depression and somatization subscores have been shown to predict chronic disability among patients with low back pain.

METHODS

SCL-90-R depression and somatization subscores and data on centralization were collected during the initial physical therapy examination of 231 consecutive patients treated for low back pain in 2 clinics. Disability was assessed by the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire at intake and discharge from physical therapy, and work status was determined by patient self-report at 6 and 12 months after discharge. Pain intensity was assessed by the numeric pain rating scale at the initial visit, and at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Data were analyzed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Odds ratios for the association between depression and somatization subscores and patient outcomes ranged from 0.76 to 2.93. For analyses in which the data suggested a trend toward an association, the association was less evident following adjustment for centralization and centralization-based treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In our sample, in which all individuals received physical therapy, and those who centralized received interventions based on the direction of centralization, SCL-90-R depression and somatization subscores were moderately associated with chronic pain and disability. This association was reduced when centralization and centralization-based treatment was considered in multivariable analyses.