A non-randomized clinical trial to assess the impact of nonrigid, inelastic corsets on spine function in low back pain participants and asymptomatic controls

Dynamic spinal orthoses self-reported effects in patients with back pain due to vertebral fragility fractures: A multi-center prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) commonly result from low bone mass and microarchitecture deterioration of bone tissue. spinal orthoses are common non-pharmacological options for managing vertebral fracture pain. However, the effects of spinal orthoses on pain, physical functioning, and quality of life (QoL) are still debated.

OBJECTIVE

This survey aimed to investigate the patients-reported outcomes of a dynamic spinal orthosis prescribed in the routine clinical practice of VFFs management.

METHODS

This multi-center national-wide prospective cohort study assessed older patients (aged > 60 years) diagnosed with acute VFFs and prescribed with a dynamic spinal orthosis (Spinfast®). A survey questionnaire was realized and included sections on patient characterization, osteoporosis characterization, spinal orthosis, clinical outcomes, pain medications, and osteoporosis medications. The questionnaire was administered at baseline and after three months. A total of 68 patients completed the questionnaire at three months. Most patients had one or two VFFs and were treated with pain medications and osteoporosis medications. Compliance and tolerability of the spinal orthosis were assessed, and clinical outcomes such as pain intensity, physical functioning, and QoL were measured.

RESULTS

The results showed no significant differences in outcomes between age subgroups. Italian physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians were commonly involved in the management of VFFs patients. Sixty-six patients completed the questionnaire. The results showed that pain intensity, physical functioning and QoL improved after three months of spinal orthosis wearing (p< 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The correct management of VFFs is mandatory to improve pain and reduce disability, and our findings suggested a positive role of dynamic spinal orthosis to improve the comprehensive management of VFFs patients. However, high-quality research trials are warranted to provide clear recommendations for the correct clinical management of VFF.

Effects of non-extensible lumbar belts on static and dynamic postural stability

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have found that increased intra-abdominal pressure helps to reduce spinal loading and improve spine stability. Non-extensible lumbar belts (NEBs) could elevate intra-abdominal pressure and augment spinal stability. NEBs have been used in the healthcare field to help reduce pain and improve spine function for people with low back pain. However, the effect of NEBs on static and dynamic postural stability is not clear.

METHODS

This study aimed to investigate whether NEBs affect static and dynamic postural stability. Twenty-eight healthy male subjects were recruited to finish four static postural stability tasks and two dynamic postural stability tests. Center of pressure (COP) values during 30 s of quiet standing, dynamic postural stability index (DPSI) and Y balance test (YBT) score with and without NEBs were analyzed.

RESULTS

NEBs had no significant effect in all COP variables in the static postural tasks. The results of a repeated measure two-way ANOVA indicated the NEBs significantly improved the dynamic postural stability in YBT score and DPSI (F _(1,27) = 5.506, p = .027, [Formula: see text] and F _(1,27) = 83.94, p = .000, [Formula: see text] respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The study results indicate that non-extensible belts improve dynamic stability in healthy male participants, with potential implications for rehabilitation and performance enhancement programs.

Effectiveness of Lumbosacral Orthosis After Discectomy for Lumbar Disk Herniation: A Prospective Comparative Study

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective comparative study.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the benefits of postoperative application of lumbosacral orthosis after single-level discectomy for lumbar disk herniation (LDH).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although many surgeons use postoperative lumbosacral orthosis for patients with LDH, there is no clear evidence to support or deny its effectiveness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-nine consecutive patients who underwent the microscopic discectomy were included. They were divided into two groups: orthosis group and nonorthosis group, before surgery. The recurrence rate and reoperation rate were compared between the two groups at four-week, six-month, and one-year follow-up. Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score for lumbar spine (L-JOA score) at two-week and one-year follow-up, lower extremities and low back pain's visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at six-month and one-year follow-up were compared.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients in the orthosis group and 39 patients in the nonorthosis group were followed up for at least one-year after surgery. Recurrence occurred in three patients (7.1%) in the orthosis group and six (15.4%) in the nonorthosis group within one-year. Two patients (4.8%) in the orthosis group and two patients (5.1%) in the nonorthosis group underwent reoperation. There were no significant intergroup differences in the recurrence rate and in the reoperation rate. No significant difference was also observed between the two groups in L-JOA score, ODI, VAS of low back pain, and leg pain at one-year after surgery. Furthermore, at any other follow-up period, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in recurrence rate, reoperation rate, L-JOA score, VAS of low back/leg pain, or ODI.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a postoperative orthosis did not reduce recurrence or reoperation rates, nor did it improve postoperative clinical symptoms. The routine use of an orthosis may not be necessary after single-level lumbar discectomy.

The Role of Spinal Orthoses in Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures of the Elderly Population (Age 60 Years or Older): Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

Spinal orthoses have been generally used in the management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures in the elderly population with purported positive biomechanical and functional effects. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of the literature examining the role of spinal orthoses in osteoporotic elderly patients who sustain low energy trauma vertebral fractures.

METHODS

A systematic literature review adherent to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted. Methodical searches utilizing MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 2019 articles initially retrieved, 7 published articles (4 randomized controlled trials and 3 prospective cohort studies) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Five studies reported improvement in quantitative measurements of spinal column stability when either a rigid or semirigid orthosis was used, while 1 study was equivocal. The studies also showed the translation of biomechanical benefit into significant functional improvement as manifested by improved postural stability and reduced body sway. Subjective improvement in pain scores and quality of life was also noted with bracing.

CONCLUSION

The use of spinal orthoses in neurologically intact elderly patients aged 60 years and older with osteoporotic compression vertebral fractures results in improved biomechanical vertebral stability, reduced kyphotic deformity, enhanced postural stability, greater muscular strength and superior functional outcomes.

Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness

Background

Objectively measured reduction in lumbar posterior-to-anterior (PA) stiffness is associated with pain relief in some, but not all persons with low back pain. Unfortunately, these measurements can be time consuming to perform. In comparison, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is intended to measure spinal instability and the Lumbar Spine Disability Index (LSDI) is created for self-reporting functional disability due to increased spinal stiffness. Given the above, the aim of this study is to compare measures of the LSIQ and LSDI with objective measures of lumbar PA stiffness as measured by a mechanical device, Vertetrack (VT), in patients with persistent non-specific low back pain (nsLBP).

Methods

Twenty-nine patients with nsLBP completed the LSIQ and LSDI at baseline and after two weeks. On these same occasions, PA spinal stiffness was measured using the VT. Between measurements, patients received four sessions of spinal manipulation. The resulting data was analyzed to determine the correlation between the self-report and objective measures of stiffness at both time points. Further, the patients were categorized into responders and non-responders based on pre-established cut points depending on values from the VT and compared those to self-report measures in order to determine whether the LSIQ and the LSDI were sensitive to change.

Results

Twenty-nine participants completed the study. Measures from the LSIQ and LSDI correlated poorly with objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness at baseline and also with the change scores. The change in objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness following spinal manipulation did not differ between those who improved, and those who did not improve according to the pre-specified cut-points. Finally, a reduction in lumbar PA stiffness following intervention was not associated with improvement in LSIQ and LSDI outcomes.

Conclusions

The current data indicate that the LSIQ and LSDI questionnaires do not correlate with measures obtained objectively by VT. Our results suggest that these objective and self- reported measures represent different domains and as such, cannot stand in place of one another.

Non-rigid lumbar supports for the management of non-specific low back pain: A literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines for non-specific low back pain do not recommend the use of non-rigid lumbar supports (NRLSs) despite the publication of several positive randomized controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of NRLSs in the treatment and prevention of non-specific low back pain.

METHODS

We searched for reports of randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Science Direct and Pedro databases. Data were analyzed by disease stage (acute, subacute, and chronic) and type of prevention (primary and secondary). The analysis of methodological quality involved the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale.

RESULTS

Of the 1581 records retrieved, only 4 full-text articles were included, with 777 patients: 378 in the NRLS group, and 348 in the control group. NRLSs conferred greater amelioration of disability (effect size -0.54, 95% CI -0.90; -0.17) and pain (-0.29, -0.46; -0.12) than standard management. Insufficient data prevented a comparison of the efficiency for acute, subacute and recurrent low back pain as well as meta-regression of responder phenotypes (sociodemographic and other patient characteristics).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated the overall efficacy of NRLSs for both disability and pain. However, further studies are needed to assess which patients can benefit the most from lumbar supports based on patient phenotype and the characteristics of low back pain. PROSPERO (CRD42018109855).

A randomized controlled trial comparing the long-term use of soft lumbosacral orthoses at two different pressures in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain

BACKGROUND

There is concern that wearing soft lumbosacral orthoses for prolonged periods may impair motor function. Moreover, the pressure applied by lumbosacral orthoses on the abdominal wall is usually ignored when these orthoses are prescribed.

METHOD

In this randomized controlled trial study, 48 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain were randomly divided into high pressure, normal pressure and control groups. All groups received medication for 4 weeks. The normal pressure and high pressure groups, in addition to medication, used soft lumbosacral orthoses at normal pressure and 50% increased pressure, respectively. Motor function outcome measures were strength, endurance, proprioception and electromyographic activity of the trunk muscles. Clinical outcome measures were pain and disability, which were evaluated in two sessions before and after a 4-week interval.

FINDINGS

Isometric strength, endurance and most of the electromyographic parameters were generally unaffected by wearing the lumbosacral orthosis. Pain improved in all groups, and disability and proprioception improved in the high pressure and normal pressure groups. Between-group differences in these three measures indicated better results in the lumbosacral orthoses groups than in the control group. The improvements in pain and proprioception were significantly greater in the high pressure group than the normal pressure group.

INTERPRETATION

Long-term use of lumbosacral orthoses had no significant adverse effects on motor function or clinical factors in patients with chronic low back pain. Increasing lumbosacral orthosis tightness may improve motor functioning and the clinical efficacy of the orthosis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Code: IRCT201708192391N38.

Effectiveness of lumbar supports in low back functionality and disability in assembly-line workers

Low back pain (LBP) is a common problem in manufacturing workers. Several strategies have been proposed in order to reduce the pain and/or improve functionality. Among them, lumbar supports are a common solution prescribed for lumbar pain relief. Most of the studies in the literature only consider subjective sensations of the workers for evaluation assessment. This study applies biomechanical tests (a flexion-relaxation test and a functional movement evaluation test) to analyse the effectiveness of flexible lumbar supports in functionality and disability versus placebo intervention, consisting of kinesiotape placed on the low back without any stress. 28 workers participated in the study, randomised in control and intervention groups with a two months' intervention. None of the biomechanical tests showed statistical differences in between-groups pre-post changes. No benefits of wearing a flexible lumbar support during the workday have been found in these assembly-line workers versus placebo intervention.

A RCT comparing lumbosacral orthosis to routine physical therapy on postural stability in patients with chronic low back pain

Background: Poor balance performance and impaired postural control have been frequently reported in patients with low back pain. However, postural control is rarely monitored during the course of treatment even though poor postural control may contribute to chronicity and recurrence of symptoms. Therefore, the present study aimed at investigating the effect of a nonextensible lumbosacral orthosis (LSO) versus routine physical therapy on postural stability of patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain.

Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial conducted between November 2015 and May 2016 at the outpatient physical therapy clinic of the School of Rehabilitation Sciences. Patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain aged 20 to 55 years were randomly allocated to the intervention and control groups. Both groups received 8 sessions of physical therapy twice weekly for 4 weeks. The intervention group received nonextensible LSO in addition to routine physical therapy. Pain intensity, functional disability, fear of movement/ (re)injury, and postural stability in 3 levels of postural difficulty were measured before and after 4 weeks of intervention. A 2×2×3 mixed model of analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the main and interactive effects of the 3 factors including group, time, and postural difficulty conditions for each variable of postural stability.

Results: The LSO and control groups displayed significant improvement in postural stability at the most difficult postural task conditions (P-value for 95% area ellipse was 0.003; and for phase plane, the mean total velocity and standard deviation of velocity was <0.001). Both groups exhibited a decrease in pain intensity, Oswestry Disability Index, and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia after 4 weeks of intervention. A significant difference between groups was found only for functional disability, with greater improvement in the orthosis group (t = 3.60, P<0.001).

Conclusion: Both routine physical therapy and LSO significantly improved clinical and postural stability outcomes immediately after 4 weeks of intervention. The orthosis group did not display superior outcomes, except for functional disability.

A Preliminary Study of the Objective Measurement of Compliance Rates for Semirigid Lumbar-Support Use in Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: How Important Is the Compliance Rate?

Study Design

Clinical pilot study.

Purpose

To objectively evaluate the compliance rate of lumbar-support use in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain, as well as to assess low back pain intensity, disability, and fear-avoidance beliefs.

Overview of Literature

Wearing time is an important factor in the assessment of the efficacy of lumbar-support use in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Previous studies have measured lumbar-support wearing time based on subjective assessment, and these evaluations are not easily verifiable and are usually overestimated by subjects.

Methods

Twelve subjects with chronic nonspecific low back pain who had been wearing semirigid lumbar supports for 6 weeks were evaluated. Compliance was objectively monitored using temperature sensors integrated into the semirigid lumbar supports. Subjects wore their lumbar supports for 8 hour/day on workdays and 3 hour/day on holidays during the first 3 weeks. During the next 3 weeks, subjects were gradually weaned off the lumbar supports. Pain intensity was measured using a numerical rating scale. The Oswestry disability index was used to assess the subjects' disability. Fear-avoidance behavior was evaluated using a fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire.

Results

The mean compliance rate of the subjects was 78.16%±13.9%. Pain intensity was significantly lower in patients with a higher compliance rate (p=0.001). Disability index and fear-avoidance beliefs (functional outcomes) significantly improved during the second 3-weeks period of the treatment (p<0.001, p=0.02, respectively).

Conclusions

The compliance rate of patients wearing lumbar supports is a determining factor in chronic low back pain management. Wearing semirigid lumbar supports, as advised, was associated with decreased pain intensity, improved disability index scores, and improved fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

Effects of lumbosacral orthoses on postural control in individuals with or without non-specific low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of lumbosacral orthoses (LSOs) on postural control in individuals with or without non-specific low back pain (NSLBP).

METHODS

Individuals with NSLBP (n = 28) and healthy controls (n = 28) were enrolled to assess the postural control with or without LSOs. Postural control was tested using the Balance Master^® NeuroCom system by the modified clinical test of sensory interaction and balance.

RESULTS

Relative to controls, patients with NSLBP had deficits in postural control with greater center of pressure (COP) sway velocity when standing on firm surface (with eyes open: p = 0.002; with eyes closed: p = 0.002) and standing on foam surface (with eyes open: p = 0.024; with eyes closed: p < 0.001). In the braced condition, the COP sway decreased in all subjects with or without NSLBP when standing on foam surface. There was no significant difference in the effect of LSOs on postural control between NSLBP group and healthy controls.

CONCLUSION

Individuals with NSLBP have poorer postural control than controls. LSOs seem to improve postural control when standing on unstable surfaces in subjects with or without NSLBP. The effect of LSOs on postural control may not depend on the level of baseline.

The impact of continuous use of lumbosacral orthoses on trunk motor performance: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbosacral orthosis (LSO) is prescribed by general practitioners for the management of low back pain. It may be speculated that continuous use of an LSO for a prolonged period reduces mechanical loading to the trunk muscle in daily living and results in impairments of the trunk muscle.

PURPOSE

This study aims to investigate whether trunk motor performances are impaired by the continuous use of an LSO.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a systematic review with meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2016. Inclusion criteria were (1) the use of an LSO for ≥2 days, (2) the use of a soft LSO designed for musculoskeletal conditions, (3) absence of cointervention except education, and (4) measures of trunk motor performance. The following were excluded: (1) studies with insufficient data and (2) studies with poor methodological quality (<9/16) in the modified McMaster Critical Review Form for Quantitative Studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to determine the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Data of eight studies were analyzed. The most common measures for motor performances were the maximum strength of the trunk flexors and extensors and the endurance and fatigability of the trunk extensors. In all measures, 95% confidence intervals of the pooled standardized mean difference between the control or preintervention group and the intervention or postintervention group included zero. Further, quality of evidence ranged from low to very low in the GRADE system in all findings of the meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analyses demonstrated no negative effect by the continuous use of an LSO for 1-6 months. However, the quality of evidence ranged from low to very low, and more high-quality trials are required to draw a definitive conclusion on the impact of the continuous use of an LSO on trunk motor performances.

Low back pain in older adults: risk factors, management options and future directions

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the major disabling health conditions among older adults aged 60 years or older. While most causes of LBP among older adults are non-specific and self-limiting, seniors are prone to develop certain LBP pathologies and/or chronic LBP given their age-related physical and psychosocial changes. Unfortunately, no review has previously summarized/discussed various factors that may affect the effective LBP management among older adults. Accordingly, the objectives of the current narrative review were to comprehensively summarize common causes and risk factors (modifiable and non-modifiable) of developing severe/chronic LBP in older adults, to highlight specific issues in assessing and treating seniors with LBP, and to discuss future research directions. Existing evidence suggests that prevalence rates of severe and chronic LBP increase with older age. As compared to working-age adults, older adults are more likely to develop certain LBP pathologies (e.g., osteoporotic vertebral fractures, tumors, spinal infection, and lumbar spinal stenosis). Importantly, various age-related physical, psychological, and mental changes (e.g., spinal degeneration, comorbidities, physical inactivity, age-related changes in central pain processing, and dementia), as well as multiple risk factors (e.g., genetic, gender, and ethnicity), may affect the prognosis and management of LBP in older adults. Collectively, by understanding the impacts of various factors on the assessment and treatment of older adults with LBP, both clinicians and researchers can work toward the direction of more cost-effective and personalized LBP management for older people.

Can lumbosacral orthoses cause trunk muscle weakness? A systematic review of literature

BACKGROUND

Wearing lumbosacral orthosis (LSO) is one of the most common treatments prescribed for conservative management of low back pain. Although the results of randomized controlled trials suggest effectiveness of LSO in reducing pain and disability in these patients, there is a concern that prolonged use of LSO may lead to trunk muscle weakness and atrophy.

PURPOSE

The present review aimed to evaluate available evidence in literature to determine whether LSO results in trunk muscle weakness or atrophy.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Medline (via Ovid) followed by hand search of journals was performed. Prospective studies published in peer-reviewed journals, with full text available in English, investigating the effect of lumbar orthosis on trunk muscle activity, muscle thickness, strength or endurance, spinal force, and intra-abdominal pressure in healthy subjects or in patients with low back pain, were included. Methodological quality of selected studies was assessed by using the modified version of Downs and Black checklist. This research had no funding source, and the authors declare no conflicts of interest-associated biases.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The mean and standard deviation of the quality score was 64±9.7%. Most studies investigating the effect of lumbar orthosis on electromyographic activity (EMG) of trunk muscles demonstrated a decrease or no change in the EMG parameters. A few studies reported increased muscle activity. Lumbosacral orthosis was found to have no effect on muscle strength in some studies, whereas other studies demonstrated increased muscle strength. Only one study, which included ultrasound assessment of trunk muscle stabilizers, suggested reduced thickness of the abdominal muscles and reduced cross-sectional area of the multifidus muscles. Out of eight studies that investigated spinal compression load, the load was reduced in four studies and unchanged in three studies. One study showed that only elastic belts reduced compression force compared to leather and fabric belts and ascribed this reduction to the elastic property of the lumbar support.

CONCLUSION

The present review showed that the changes in outcome measures associated with muscle work demands were inconsistent in their relation to the use of lumbar supports. This review did not find conclusive scientific evidence to suggest that orthosis results in trunk muscle weakness.