Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group

Effectiveness of lumbar braces after lumbar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically analyze the effectiveness of lumbar braces in patients after lumbar spine surgery.

METHODS

The databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), were searched to identify the randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-series or case-control studies on the use of lumbar braces after lumbar spine surgery. The two authors independently assessed the quality of the included study and extracted the data. The statistical analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software.

RESULTS

9 English papers and 1 Chinese paper were included in the present work, involving a total of 2646 patients (2181 in the experimental group and 465 in the control group). The differences in preoperative VAS, postoperative VAS, preoperative ODI, postoperative ODI, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and surgical comparison were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). However, postoperative surgical site infection incidence was lower in the lumbar brace group than those without lumbar brace (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Whether or not the use of lumbar braces after lumbar fixation has a negligible impact on clinical outcomes was studied. Subsequent studies could further demonstrate whether the use of lumbar braces after lumbar surgery could reduce the incidence of surgical site infections.

Effect of spinal orthosis on clinical outcomes of patients after oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a randomized controlled trial study protocol

BACKGROUND

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is an internationally popular minimally invasive technology for the treatment of various lumbar diseases. Since its introduction to China in 2014, OLIF technology has clearly shown its superiority in reconstructing intervertebral stability, restoring intervertebral space height, achieving indirect decompression, and restoring normal lumbar sequence. However, some patients still suffer from persistent symptoms after OLIF, including low back pain and soreness, which indirectly affect the overall surgical efficacy and patient satisfaction. Therefore, some clinicians recommend that patients routinely use spinal orthoses after OLIF to reduce the stress on the lower back muscles and ligaments, thereby relieving or avoiding postoperative residual symptoms or new symptoms. Accordingly, spinal orthosis use after OLIF has emerged as an essential option. However, the role of spinal orthoses in OLIF and their specific impact on postoperative patient clinical outcomes have remained unclear, and there is a lack of strong clinical evidence to indirectly or directly support the role of spinal orthoses in OLIF and demonstrate their impact on patient clinical outcomes. This study aims to investigate the role of spinal orthoses in OLIF by grouping patients based on the use or nonuse of spinal orthosis after OLIF, thus providing a better basis for the majority of patients and physicians.

METHODS/DESIGN

We plan to conduct a 1-year randomized controlled trial involving 60 subjects. The subjects will be randomized into two groups: group A (those wearing spinal orthoses after surgery) and group B (those not wearing spinal orthoses after surgery). The clinical outcomes of these patients will be evaluated using the Oswestry disability index, visual analog scale, and Brantigan, Steffee, Fraser 1 day before surgery and 2 weeks and 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

DISCUSSION

This randomized controlled trial aims to provide a reference for further comprehensive trial design. The findings of this study will provide a better and more scientific basis for the choice of postoperative rehabilitation and treatment for patients undergoing such a procedure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration No.: ChiCTR2200059000). Registration date: April 22, 2022. Registration website: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=166310.

Impact of Gensingen brace treatment on Lenke 5 curvatures and chronic low back pain in late adolescent and adult scoliosis patients

Background

Lenke 5C (lumbar and or thoracolumbar) curve patterns lead to loss of lumbar lordosis which is associated with low back pain in later adulthood. We undertook our study to investigate if brace treatment may have an effect on low back pain and on improving the cosmetic appearance in late adolescents and adults.

Objectives

To estimate if conservative treatment may have an effect on pain in single lumbar curvatures in late adolescent and adult patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) using a Gensingen Brace by Weiss (GBW).

Method

We investigated AIS patients with Lenke 5C pattern who wore a GBW prospectively. The inclusion criteria of our study were age over 15 years, Cobb angle greater than 20° before treatment and Risser 4 or 5. A verbal pain rating scale was used (no pain, mild pain, moderate pain, severe pain, very severe pain).

Results

A total of 26 patients met the inclusion criteria. The average age was 17.7 years and the average Cobb angle was 41.5°. Nineteen patients (73.1%) experienced mild or moderate chronic low back pain before treatment and seven patients (26.9%) were asymptomatic but seeking treatment for cosmetic reasons. At follow-up, a 23% correction of the curve was achieved. All previously symptomatic patients reported that they no longer experienced low back pain after having worn the brace regularly.

Conclusion

High correction bracing seems to have a positive effect on the curve and on chronic low back pain in patients with a scoliosis and a Lenke 5C curve pattern.

Clinical implications

High correction, pattern specific bracing with a GBW may be applied aiming at reducing structural curves and chronic low back pain in late adolescent and adult patients with AIS and with a single lumbar curvature.

Osteopathic model of the development and prevention of occupational musculoskeletal disorders

Context

The direct and indirect costs of work-related musculoskeletal disorders are significant. Prevention is the most effective way to control these costs. To do that, we must understand how these disorders develop.

Objectives

To use the five models of osteopathic care to illustrate how cellular processes and neural reflexes interact to create work-related musculoskeletal pathology and to provide evidence-informed musculoskeletal injury and disability prevention recommendations.

Methods

A literature review of electronic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, and OSTMED.DR) from inception to October 16, 2019 and hand-search of publication references was performed for systematic reviews, cohort studies, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials. The search terms reflected topics related to occupational injury and injury prevention, and included supplementary laboratory studies and narrative reviews related to the biological aspects of musculoskeletal injury. The eligible studies contained the following criteria: (1) the population of working age; (2) exposures to known risk factors, musculoskeletal disorders, and psychosocial factors; (3) written in English; (4) full text papers published in peer-reviewed journals; and (5) systematic review, cohort study, case-control study, and randomized controlled trial methodology. Studies were excluded if they included outcomes of productivity and costs only or outcomes that were assessed through qualitative methods only.

Results

The literature search resulted in 1,074 citations; 26 clinical studies and 14 systematic reviews were used in this review. A comprehensive workplace musculoskeletal disorder prevention program should match demands to capacity, correct dysfunctional movement patterns, and limit tissue vulnerability (biomechanical-structural model); restore alpha-gamma balance, tonic-phasic synergistic function, and autonomic balance (neurological model); maximize physiologic reserve (metabolic-energy model) component of a prevention program; optimize respiration and circulation (respiratory-circulatory model); and address cognitive distortions (behavioral-biopsychosocial model).

Conclusions

The presented osteopathic model of the development and prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders suggests that a combination of preventive interventions will be more effective than any single preventive intervention.

Postoperative spinal orthosis may not be necessary for minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background

With the progress and success in minimally invasive surgery of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF), the musculoskeletal injury was minimized. However, the role of postoperative orthosis in MIS TLIF has not been established and there is little evidence supporting the routine use of orthosis in MIS TLIF.

Methods

This is a prospective randomized clinical study. 90 patients who underwent MIS TLIF were randomly divided into groups A (with postoperative spinal orthosis) and B (without postoperative spinal orthosis). Patients were followed up for an average of 12.6 months. Clinical outcome was assessed using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Fusion rate was classified with the BSF scale system at postoperative 6-month, and 12-month.

Results

Both groups had similar patient demographics. The use of postoperative spinal orthosis had no significant influence on instrumentation-related complications or radiological parameters at each follow-up.

Conclusions

In this study, we conclude that postoperative spinal orthosis is not necessary for MIS TLIF. Patients without postoperative spinal orthosis had the same fusion rates and improvement of VAS and ODI scores.

The Effect of Lumbosacral Orthosis on the Thickness of Deep Trunk Muscles Using Ultrasound Imaging: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to evaluate the changes occurring in the thickness of deep trunk muscles, measured using ultrasound imaging, after 4 wks of lumbosacral orthosis use in conjunction with routine physical therapy.

DESIGN

This parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial was conducted on 44 patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain, randomly allocated to the experimental and control groups. Both groups received eight sessions of physical therapy twice per week for 4 wks. The experimental group wore nonextensible lumbosacral orthosis, in addition to undergoing routine physical therapy. The thickness of the transversus abdominis, obliquus internus, and lumbar multifidus was measured by ultrasound before and after the 4-wk intervention.

RESULTS

The deep trunk muscles differed in thickness in various test positions. Four weeks of intervention with lumbosacral orthosis and routine physical therapy, however, did not change the thickness of the obliquus internus, transversus abdominis, and lumbar multifidus.

CONCLUSIONS

Wearing lumbosacral orthosis for an average of 7.21 hrs/d for 4 wks in conjunction with routine physical therapy did not affect the thickness of obliquus internus, transversus abdominis, and lumbar multifidus.

Non-specific chronic low back pain in patients with scoliosis-an overview of the literature on patients undergoing brace treatment

[Purpose] Although there is evidence that non-specific chronic pain can be influenced by physical therapy, some patients with scoliosis and chronic pain may benefit from additional brace treatment. The purpose of this review is to answer the question whether there are studies on the use of brace treatment in patients with scoliosis and pain and to investigate whether brace treatment does positively influence chronic pain. [Methods] A PubMed review has been undertaken using the key words (1) scoliosis and pain and brace treatment and (2) scoliosis and pain and orthotics. From both searches the studies were extracted that included a patient group with the diagnosis of a scoliosis and with additional chronic non-specific low back pain, treated with a brace. [Results] One hundred forty two items have been found for search (1) and 111 for search (2). The total number of relevant items found in both searches was 10. According to the studies found, bracing seems an effective treatment for this condition. [Conclusion] Brace treatment in patients with scoliosis and chronic non-specific low back pain has demonstrated to be effective. It should be used when exercise treatment is not effective. A clinical test is demonstrated to predict the most beneficial approach in brace treatment.

Exercise alone and exercise combined with education both prevent episodes of low back pain and related absenteeism: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed at preventing back pain

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate which prevention strategies for low back pain (LBP) are most effective.

DESIGN

We completed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to summarise the comparative effectiveness of LBP prevention strategies. The primary outcomes were an episode of LBP and LBP-associated work absenteeism represented as ORs with associated 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). We ranked all prevention strategies with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched along with manual searches of retrieved articles. We only included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported an episode of LBP and/or LBP-associated work absenteeism evaluating LBP prevention strategies were included.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Data were independently extracted by two investigators, and RCT quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS AND SUMMARY

Forty RCTs were included. Exercise combined with education (OR: 0.59, CrI: 0.41 to 0.82) and exercise alone (OR: 0.59, CrI: 0.36 to 0.92) both prevented LBP episodes; exercise combined with education and education alone both had large areas under the curve (SUCRA: 81.3 and 79.4, respectively). Additionally, exercise (OR: 0.04, CrI: 0.00 to 0.34) prevented LBP-associated work absenteeism, with exercise and the combination of exercise and education ranking highest (SUCRA: 99.0 and 60.2, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Exercise alone and exercise combined with education can prevent episodes of LBP and LBP-related absenteeism.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO 42017056884.

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.

The effect of extensible and non-extensible lumbar belts on trunk muscle activity and lumbar stiffness in subjects with and without low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Lumbar belts have been shown to increase lumbar stiffness, but it is unclear if this is associated with trunk muscle co-contraction, which would increase the compression on the spine. It has been hypothesized that lumbar belts increase lumbar stiffness by increasing intra-abdominal pressure, which would increase spinal stability without increasing the compressive load on the spine.

METHODS

Trunk muscle activity and lumbar stiffness and damping were measured in healthy and low-back pain subjects during three conditions: no lumbar belt; wearing an extensible lumbar belt; wearing a non-extensible lumbar belt. Muscle activity was measured while subjects performed controlled forward and backward 20° trunk sways. Lumbar stiffness and damping were measured by applying random continuous perturbation to the chest.

FINDINGS

External oblique activity was decreased when wearing either lumbar belt during all phases of movement, while rectus abdominis and iliocostalis activity were decreased during the phase of movement where the muscles were maximally active while wearing either belt. Trunk stiffness was greatly increased by wearing either belt. There were no consistent differences in either lumbar stiffness or muscle activity between the two belts. Wearing a lumbar belt had little to no effect on damping. There were no group differences in any of the measures between healthy and low-back pain populations.

INTERPRETATION

The findings are consistent with the hypothesis that lumbar belts can increase spinal stability by increasing intra-abdominal pressure, without any increase in the compressive load on the spine. The findings can also be generalized, for the first time, to subjects with low-back pain.

In-silico pre-clinical trials are made possible by a new simple and comprehensive lumbar belt mechanical model based on the Law of Laplace including support deformation and adhesion effects

Lower back pain is a major public health problem. Despite claims that lumbar belts change spinal posture due to applied pressure on the trunk, no mechanical model has yet been published to prove this treatment. This paper describes a first model for belt design, based on the one hand on the mechanical properties of the fabrics and the belt geometry, and on the other hand on the trunk geometrical and mechanical description. The model provides the estimation of the pressure applied to the trunk, and a unique indicator of the belt mechanical efficiency is proposed: pressure is integrated into a bending moment characterizing the belt delordosing action on the spine. A first in-silico clinical study of belt efficiency for 15 patients with 2 different belts was conducted. Results are very dependent on the body shape: in the case of high BMI patients, the belt effect is significantly decreased, and can be even inverted, increasing the lordosis. The belt stiffness proportionally increases the pressure applied to the trunk, but the influence of the design itself on the bending moment is clearly outlined. Moreover, the belt/trunk interaction, modeled as sticking contact and the specific way patients lock their belts, dramatically modifies the belt action. Finally, even if further developments and tests are still necessary, the model presented in this paper seems suitable for in-silico pre-clinical trials on real body shapes at a design stage.

Influence of elastic lumbar support belts on trunk muscle function in patients with non-specific acute lumbar back pain

Background

A well-known supportive treatment for acute nonspecific back pain, elastic back support belts, are valued for their ability to accelerate natural self-healing, but there are concerns of a deconditioning effect due to their reliance on passive stabilization.

Methods

To evaluate the systematic effects of elastic abdominal belts on the trunk musculature, a total of 36 persons with acute lumbar back pain (no longer than one week) were divided into two groups: an abdominal belt wearing group (B) and a non-abdominal belt wearing control group (C). All were examined over a period of three weeks at three time points: T1 just after assignment, T2 one week later, and T3 further two weeks later. Surface EMG (sEMG) was used to record trunk muscle activation when walking on a treadmill at walking speeds of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 km/h. Similarly, pain intensity (VAS) and functional impairment (ODI) over time were recorded in both groups.

Results

Over the observation period, a slight advantage for decreased pain intensity (C: p<0.05 T2 vs. T1; B: p<0.01 T2 vs. T1, p<0.05 T3 vs. T1) and decreased functional impairment (Cohen's d vs. T1, C: T2 0.45, T3 0.86; B: T2 1.1, T3 1.0) was observed for the belt group. For the belt group both oblique abdominal muscles exhibited significantly lower sEMG throughout the observation period (external abdominal oblique muscle: (T1), T2, (T3), internal abdominal oblique muscle: T1, (T2), (T3)) and the sEMG for the back muscles ranged from unchanged to slightly elevated for this group, but never reached statistical significance.

Discussion

The reduced abdominal amplitude levels in the belt group likely result from the permanent elastic stabilization provided by the belt: the required elevated intra-abdominal pressure to enhance spinal stability is then provided by lessened abdominal muscle activity complemented by the belt’s elastic support. With regard to the back muscles, the belt, due to its movement-restricting effect, tends to activate the paravertebral musculature. In this respect, the effect of elastic abdominal belts on the trunk muscles is not uniform. Therefore, the present results suggest that the effect of elastic abdominal belts appears to be more of a temporary neutral alteration of trunk muscle coordination, with some trunk muscles becoming more active and others less, and not a case of uniform deconditioning as is suspected.

Effectiveness of lumbar orthoses in low back pain: Review of the literature and our results

Back pain and diseases of the spine are today a health disorder of outstanding epidemiological, medical, and health economic importance. The cost of care for patients with lumbosciatic complaints are steadily increasing. Accordingly, the guidelines and treatments are constantly renewed. One concept is the orthotic care. In the following we want to give an overview of the literature and the effectiveness of lumbar orthoses in low back pain supplemented by our own data. A prospective randomized study with 230 patients, divided into three groups, each with two subgroups. Three Orthoses by the TIGGES-Zours GmbH were prescribed; a demountable two-step lumbar orthosis, three-step bridging orthosis and a four-step flexion orthosis modular system. Each were compared to the nonmodular equivalent. All six groups showed improvement in pain intensity and functional capacity at 6 and 12 weeks. The modular groups were found to have improvement in the frequency of use. The subjective effectiveness and sensitivity for the modular and non-modular groups was assessed as being good. In the literature, there are no clear guidelines for an orthotic supply. The studies do not seem to be meaningful and universal due to the difficult ascertainability of pain. There is a need for further research here. Nevertheless, the authors of this review are of the opinion that the implementation of trunk orthoses is void of side effects and beneficial to patients. The modular systems seem to have an advantage as well as higher patient satisfaction.

Occupational interventions for the prevention of back pain: Overview of systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews of interventions for the prevention of low back pain (LBP) that can be conducted in a workplace setting.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was performed in Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Published peer-reviewed systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which described interventions for the primary or secondary prevention of LBP applicable to a workplace setting, were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed with the AMSTAR tool. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of LBP; secondary outcomes were LBP-associated absenteeism, activity interference, and costs related to LBP.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight eligible articles published between 1994 and 2016 were included in a qualitative synthesis following our screening of abstracts and full-text articles. The AMSTAR rating revealed 14 reviews of high, 10 of moderate, and 4 of low methodological quality. The identified interventions included workplace modifications (6 reviews, 10 studies, 6,751 subjects); shoe insoles (4 reviews, 6 studies, 2,356 subjects); and lumbar supports and other assistive devices (15 reviews, 18 studies, 60,678 subjects). Educational interventions investigated were back schools (10 reviews, 30 studies, 9,973 subjects); manual material handling techniques/advice (6 reviews, 24 studies, 10,505 subjects); and other forms of instruction including pamphlets, booklets, and other media (four reviews, 14 studies, 11,991 subjects). Exercise interventions, investigated in 12 reviews (35 studies, 19,330 subjects), showed moderate quality evidence of effectiveness for exercise interventions alone or in conjunction with educational interventions; no other type of intervention was consistently effective in the prevention of LBP or LBP-associated outcomes of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

Our overview provides evidence of effectiveness for exercise with or without educational interventions in the prevention of LBP.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Exercise interventions with or without educational interventions that can be applied in the workplace have the potential to prevent LBP.

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.

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.

The Effect of Standing and Different Sitting Positions on Lumbar Lordosis: Radiographic Study of 30 Healthy Volunteers

Study Design

Radiographic review of healthy volunteers.

Purpose

To determine the ideal sitting positions by measuring changes in lumbar lordosis (LL) and pelvic parameters (PPs) in various positions.

Overview of Literature

Prolonged sitting is generally accepted as an important risk factor for low back pain (LBP). It is now recognized that spinopelvic alignment is important for maintaining an energy-efficient posture.

Methods

Lateral spine radiographs of thrirty healthy volunteers (male participants) were taken in standing and five sitting positions. Radiographic measurement of LL and PPs was performed in each position. Statistical analysis was performed to identify a correlation between changes in the LL and PPs in each positions.

Results

LL in standing was 48.5°±8.7°. Sitting significantly decreased LL and segmental angle when compared with standing (p<0.05). The lower lumbar segmental angles (L4-5 and L5-S1) significantly decreased in all sitting positions (p<0.05), but the decrease was relatively less on the chair with lumbar support and in the 90°-angled chair. The sacral slope (SS) decreased and the pelvic tilt increased with decreasing LL in the sitting positions.

Conclusions

Sitting causes a reduction in LL and SS when compared with standing. It might cause a spinopelvic imbalance and result in chronic LBP. Our study showed that sitting on a chair with back support induced minimal changes to LL. Consequently, it is proposed that sitting on a chair with back support would be a much more ideal position than sitting on other types of chairs.

What triggers an episode of acute low back pain? A case-crossover study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate a range of transient risk factors for an episode of sudden-onset, acute low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

This case-crossover study recruited 999 subjects with a new episode of acute LBP between October 2011 and November 2012 from 300 primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. Each participant was asked to report exposure to 12 putative triggers over the 96 hours preceding the onset of back pain. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) expressing the magnitude of increased risk with exposure to each trigger.

RESULTS

Exposure to a range of physical and psychosocial triggers significantly increased the risk of a new onset of LBP; ORs ranged from 2.7 (moderate or vigorous physical activity) to 25.0 (distracted during an activity or task). Age moderated the effect of exposure to heavy loads and sexual activity. The ORs for heavy loads for people ages 20, 40, or 60 years were 13.6, 6.0, and 2.7, respectively. The risk of developing back pain was greatest between 7:00 AM and noon.

CONCLUSION

Transient exposure to a number of modifiable physical and psychosocial triggers substantially increases risk for a new episode of LBP. Triggers previously evaluated in occupational injury studies, but never in LBP, have been shown to significantly increase risk. These results aid our understanding of the causes of LBP and can inform the development of new prevention approaches.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 14: brace therapy as an adjunct to or substitute for lumbar fusion

The utilization of orthotic devices for lumbar degenerative disease has been justified from both a prognostic and therapeutic perspective. As a prognostic tool, bracing is applied prior to surgery to determine if immobilization of the spine leads to symptomatic relief and thus justify the performance of a fusion. Since bracing does not eliminate motion, the validity of this assumption is questionable. Only one low-level study has investigated the predictive value of bracing prior to surgery. No correlation between response to bracing and fusion outcome was observed; therefore a trial of preoperative bracing is not recommended. Based on low-level evidence, the use of bracing is not recommended for the prevention of low-back pain in a general working population, since the incidence of low-back pain and impact on productivity were not reduced. However, in laborers with a history of back pain, a positive impact on lost workdays was observed when bracing was applied. Bracing is recommended as an option for treatment of subacute low-back pain, as several higher-level studies have demonstrated an improvement in pain scores and function. The use of bracing following instrumented posterolateral fusion, however, is not recommended, since equivalent outcomes have been demonstrated with or without the application of a brace.

The orthotic treatment of acute and chronic disease of the cervical and lumbar spine

BACKGROUND

Orthoses are external aids that are often used to treat pain and diseases affecting the spine, such as lumbago, whiplash, and disc herniation. In this review, we assess the effectiveness and complications of orthotic treatment for typical spinal conditions and after spinal surgery. The orthotic treatment of fractures and postural abnormalities are beyond the scope of this article.

METHOD

This review is based on a selective search in the Medline database with consideration of controlled trials, systematic reviews, and the recommendations of the relevant medical societies.

RESULTS

Three relevant systematic reviews and four controlled trials were found. Very few controlled trials to date have studied the efficacy of orthotic treatment compared to other conservative treatments and surgery. No definitive evidence was found to support the use of orthoses after surgery, in lumbar radiculopathy, or after whiplash injuries of the cervical spine. In a single trial, short-term immobilization was an effective treatment of cervical radiculopathy. Orthoses are not recommended for nonspecific low back pain. The potential complications of cervical orthoses include pressure-related skin injuries and dysphagia.

CONCLUSION

No definitive evidence as yet supports the use of orthoses after spinal interventions or in painful conditions of the cervical or lumbar spine. They should, therefore, be used only after individual consideration of the indications in each case.

Intramuscular architecture of the autochthonous back muscles in humans

Many training concepts take muscle properties such as contraction speed or muscle topography into account to achieve an optimal training outcome. Thus far, the internal architecture of muscles has largely been neglected, although it is well known that parameters such as pennation angles or the lengths of fascicles but also the proportions of fleshy and tendinous fascicle parts have a major impact on the contraction behaviour of a muscle. Here, we present the most detailed description of the intramuscular fascicle architecture of the human perivertebral muscles available so far. For this, one adult male cadaver was studied. Our general approach was to digitize the geometry of each fascicle of the muscles of back proper (Erector spinae) - the Spinalis thoracis, Iliocostalis lumborum, Longissimus thoracis and the Multifidus thoracis et lumborum - and of the deep muscles of the abdomen - Psoas minor, Psoas major and Quadratus lumborum - during a layerwise dissection. Architectural parameters such as fascicle angles to the sagittal and the frontal planes as well as fascicle lengths were determined for each fascicle, and are discussed regarding their consequences for the function of the muscle. For example, compared with the other dorsovertebral muscles, the Longissimus thoracis can produce greater shortening distances because of its relatively long fleshy portions, and it can store more elastic energy due to both its relatively long fleshy and tendinous fascicle portions. The Quadratus lumborum was outstanding because of its many architectural subunits defined by distinct attachment sites and fascicle lengths. The presented database will improve biomechanical models of the human trunk by allowing the incorporation of anisotropic muscle properties such as the fascicle direction into finite element models. This information will help to increase our understanding of the functionality of the human back musculature, and may thereby improve future training concepts.

Occupational musculoskeletal and mental health: Significance of rationalization and opportunities to create sustainable production systems - A systematic review

This literature review aims to identify occupational musculoskeletal and mental health effects of production system rationalization as well as organizational-level measures that may improve health outcome ("modifiers" in this review). A short review of the effect of ergonomic interventions is included as background and rationalization is discussed as a theoretical concept. Indicator variables for occupational musculoskeletal and mental health and related risk factors are presented. Variables with a generalized format were allowed in the literature searches (e.g., job satisfaction and absenteeism were accepted as risk factor and health indicator, respectively), suitable for the research fields of work sociology, organization science, human resource management (HRM) and economics research. One hundred and sixty-two studies of rationalization effects on health and risk factors and 72 organization-level modifier results were accepted into the final database. Entries were sorted by rationalization strategy and work life sector, and trends in outcome (positive, mixed, no effect, or negative effect on health and risk factors) were determined. Rationalizations have a dominant negative effect on health and risk factors (57% negative, 19% positive); the most negative effects were found for downsizing and restructuring rationalizations in general (71 studies negative, 13 positive) and for the health care sector in particular (36 studies negative, 2 positive). The rationalization strategy High Performance Work System (HPWS) was associated with the highest fraction positive outcome studies (6 of 10 studies). Other rationalization strategies (lean practices, parallel vs. serial production and mechanization level) reported intermediate results, in part dependent on work life sector, but also on the year when studies were carried out. Worker participation, resonant management style, information, support, group autonomy and procedural justice were modifiers with favourable influence on outcome. It is concluded that production system rationalization represents a pervasive work life intervention without a primary occupational health focus. It has considerable and mostly negative influence on worker health, but this can be reduced by attention to modifiers. The results create a basis for new priorities in ergonomic intervention research.

Cost-effectiveness of lumbar supports for home care workers with recurrent low back pain: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized-controlled trial

STUDY DESIGN

Economic evaluation from a societal perspective alongside a 12-months randomized-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of wearing a lumbar support for home care workers with recurrent low back pain (LBP) (secondary prevention).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

LBP is a large medical and economical burden. Evidence on the secondary preventive use of lumbar supports is sparse.

METHODS

A total of 360 home care workers with a self-reported history of LBP were randomly assigned to usual care or usual care plus wearing a lumbar support on working days with LBP, during a 1-year period. Primary clinical outcome measures were the average number of self-reported days with LBP, number of calendar days sick leave in general, and quality of life. Direct and indirect costs were measured by means of cost diaries. Differences in mean costs between groups, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility ratios were evaluated, and cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves presented by applying nonparametric bootstrapping techniques.

RESULTS

During the intervention period, the home care workers using a lumbar support in addition to usual care reported on average 54 fewer days with LBP (95% confidence interval [CI], -85 to -29). The estimated mean difference in sick leave was not statistically significant (-5.0 days per year in favor of the lumbar support group; 95% CI, -21.1 to 6.8). There was no statistically significant difference in quality of life. Direct costs were 235 euros (US$ 266) lower in the lumbar support group (95% CI, -386 to -79). Indirect costs were 255 euros (US$ 288) lower, but this was not statistically significant (95% CI, -879 to 299).

CONCLUSION

Lumbar support seems to be a cost-effective addition to usual care for home care workers with recurrent LBP. For estimating the LBP-related indirect costs, it would be more precise when an objective measure for LBP-related sick leave would have been available. There is a need for more evidence to confirm these findings, also in other working populations.

Spinal orthoses

External orthoses are used in the management of a variety of spinal disorders. Many types of brace are available to support the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine as well as junctional regions, which have special mechanical considerations. Many prefabricated and custom-made devices are available, made by a variety of manufacturers in this unregulated area of medical practice. Despite the widespread use of spinal orthoses, evidence of their efficacy in managing many spinal conditions is lacking. The most compelling indication for their use is in the management of traumatic spine injury. However, studies evaluating the efficacy of spinal orthoses have several shortcomings; many have evaluated orthoses that are no longer used. Recent data provide general guidelines to help the clinician choose the appropriate device.

The effects of a three-week use of lumbosacral orthoses on trunk muscle activity and on the muscular response to trunk perturbations

BACKGROUND

The effects of lumbosacral orthoses (LSOs) on neuromuscular control of the trunk are not known. There is a concern that wearing LSOs for a long period may adversely alter muscle control, making individuals more susceptible to injury if they discontinue wearing the LSOs. The purpose of this study was to document neuromuscular changes in healthy subjects during a 3-week period while they regularly wore a LSO.

METHODS

Fourteen subjects wore LSOs 3 hrs a day for 3 weeks. Trunk muscle activity prior to and following a quick force release (trunk perturbation) was measured with EMG in 3 sessions on days 0, 7, and 21. A longitudinal, repeated-measures, factorial design was used. Muscle reflex response to trunk perturbations, spine compression force, as well as effective trunk stiffness and damping were dependent variables. The LSO, direction of perturbation, and testing session were the independent variables.

RESULTS

The LSO significantly (P < 0.001) increased the effective trunk stiffness by 160 Nm/rad (27%) across all directions and testing sessions. The number of antagonist muscles that responded with an onset activity was significantly reduced after 7 days of wearing the LSO, but this difference disappeared on day 21 and is likely not clinically relevant. The average number of agonist muscles switching off following the quick force release was significantly greater with the LSO, compared to without the LSO (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The LSO increased trunk stiffness and resulted in a greater number of agonist muscles shutting-off in response to a quick force release. However, these effects did not result in detrimental changes to the neuromuscular function of trunk muscles after 3 weeks of wearing a LSO 3 hours a day by healthy subjects.

Comparison of trunk stiffness provided by different design characteristics of lumbosacral orthoses

BACKGROUND

Lumbosacral orthoses (LSOs) are class I medical devices that are used in conservative and postoperative management of low back pain. The effectiveness of LSOs depends on their design aimed at enhancing trunk stiffness. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare two lumbar supports: extensible (made of neoprene and lycra) and non-extensible (made of polyester and nylon).

METHODS

Trunk stiffness and damping was estimated from trunk displacement data in response to a quick force release in trunk flexion, extension, and lateral bending. Fourteen male and 6 female subjects performed five trials at each experimental condition: (1) No LSO, (2) extensible LSO, (3) non-extensible LSO, (4) non-extensible LSO with a small rigid front panel, and (5) non-extensible LSO with a large rigid front panel. Testing order was randomized and the LSOs were cinched to a pressure of 70 mmHg (9.4 kPa) measured between posterior aspect of the iliac crest and the orthosis.

FINDINGS

The non-extensible LSO reduced trunk displacement by 14% and increased trunk stiffness by 14% (P<0.001). The extensible LSO did not result in any significant change in trunk displacement or stiffness. The addition of rigid front panels to the non-extensible LSO did not improve its effectiveness. The trunk damping did not differ between the LSO conditions.

INTERPRETATION

A non-extensible LSO is more effective in augmenting trunk stiffness and limiting trunk motion following a perturbation than an extensible LSO. The rigid front panels do not provide any additional trunk stiffness most likely due to incongruence created between the body and a brace.

Nationwide survey of current medical practices for hospitalized elderly with spine fractures in Japan

BACKGROUND

The status of hip fracture incidence and treatment is well known through nationwide surveys in Japan. However, there have been no similar studies on spine fractures. Therefore, we investigated current medical practices for them.

METHODS

Altogether, 1200 hospitals were randomly selected for the survey with consideration of region and hospital characteristics. Questionnaire items included the number of hospitalized spine patients, imaging test implementation, type of conservative treatment, use of open surgery and vertebroplasty, and the number of these procedures performed in 2005.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 473 hospitals. On the day of response, there were 14 372 hospitalized orthopedic patients (average 32.8/hospital). Among them were 1403 spine fracture patients (3.1/hospital), accounting for 13.5% of orthopedic patients. Of them, 91.9% received conservative treatment. The mean percentage of spine fracture patients who were hospitalized was 39.5%. The most reliable imaging test was said to be magnetic resonance imaging. Casting or bracing was used in most of the institutions. The most common analgesic treatment was oral nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Open surgery and vertebroplasty were conducted for spine fractures in the elderly at 26.5% and 16.3% of hospitals, respectively. In these hospitals, 624 and 257 patients underwent open surgery and vertebroplasty, respectively, in 2005.

CONCLUSIONS

In Japan, more than 90% of elderly patients hospitalized with spine fractures received conservative treatment. Surgical treatment, either open surgery or vertebroplasty, was performed at 30% of the hospitals. This study provides basic data that will contribute to planning improvements in spinal fracture treatment in the elderly.

Prevention of physical training-related injuries recommendations for the military and other active populations based on expedited systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The Military Training Task Force of the Defense Safety Oversight Council chartered a Joint Services Physical Training Injury Prevention Working Group to: (1) establish the evidence base for making recommendations to prevent injuries; (2) prioritize the recommendations for prevention programs and policies; and (3) substantiate the need for further research and evaluation on interventions and programs likely to reduce physical training-related injuries.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A work group was formed to identify, evaluate, and assess the level of scientific evidence for various physical training-related injury prevention strategies through an expedited systematic review process. Of 40 physical training-related injury prevention strategies identified, education, leader support, and surveillance were determined to be essential elements of a successful injury prevention program and not independent interventions. As a result of the expedited systematic reviews, one more essential element (research) was added for a total of four. Six strategies were not reviewed. The remaining 31 interventions were categorized into three levels representing the strength of recommendation: (1) recommended; (2) not recommended; and (3) insufficient evidence to recommend or not recommend.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Education, leadership support, injury surveillance, and research were determined to be critical components of any successful injury prevention program. Six interventions (i.e., prevent overtraining, agility-like training, mouthguards, semirigid ankle braces, nutrient replacement, and synthetic socks) had strong enough evidence to become working group recommendations for implementation in the military services. Two interventions (i.e., back braces and pre-exercise administration of anti-inflammatory medication) were not recommended due to evidence of ineffectiveness or harm, 23 lacked sufficient scientific evidence to support recommendations for all military services at this time, and six were not evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Six interventions should be implemented in all four military services immediately to reduce physical training-related injuries. Two strategies should be discouraged by all leaders at all levels. Of particular note, 23 popular physical training-related injury prevention strategies need further scientific investigation, review, and group consensus before they can be recommended to the military services or similar civilian populations. The expedited systematic process of evaluating interventions enabled the working group to build consensus around those injury prevention strategies that had enough scientific evidence to support a recommendation.

Spinal mechanical load as a risk factor for low back pain: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To review and critically evaluate the past literature for spinal mechanical load as risk factor for low back pain (LBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

LBP is a costly health problem worldwide, and treatments are often unsuccessful. Therefore, prevention might be more beneficial in the management of LBP. With respect to prevention, the knowledge of risk factors is essential. From the literature, exposures involving spinal mechanical load is frequently discussed as a potential risk factor for LBP. For a better understanding of this risk factor, we performed a systematic review of the literature. Additionally, we evaluated exposures of spinal mechanical load for possible dose-response relations with LBP.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases (without language restriction) for full-report publications of prospective cohort studies, evaluating spinal mechanical load during work and/or leisure time activities as risk factors for nonspecific LBP in patients (>18 years of age) free of LBP at baseline. We assessed the methodology of each article and extracted information on population, response rates, characteristics of LBP, exposures, and estimated association(s), using standardized forms. We performed a best evidence synthesis of the obtained information.

RESULTS

In total, 18 studies were eligible (all rated as high methodologic quality) reporting on 24,315 subjects.

CONCLUSION

We found strong evidence that leisure time sport or exercises, sitting, and prolonged standing/walking are not associated with LBP. Evidence for associations in leisure time activities (e.g., do-it-yourself home repair, gardening), whole-body vibration, nursing tasks, heavy physical work, and working with ones trunk in a bent and/or twisted position and LBP was conflicting. We found no studies, thus no evidence, for an association between sleeping or sporting on a professional level and LBP.

Treatment of chronic low back pain in patients with spinal deformities using a sagittal re-alignment brace

Background

For adult scoliosis patients with chronic low back pain bracing is initially indicated before spinal surgery is considered. Until recently there has been a lack of research into the effect upon pain reductions in the mid and long-term. Promising results have been documented in short-term studies for the application of a sagittal re-alignment brace in patients with spinal deformities and along with pain; however mid-term and long-term results are not yet available. The purpose of this study is to investigate the mid-term effects of this brace with respect to pain control.

Materials and methods

67 patients (58 females and 9 males) with chronic low back pain (> 24 months) and the diagnosis of scoliosis or hyperkyphosis were treated with a sagittal re-alignment brace (physio-logic brace™) between January 2006 and July 2007. The indication for this kind of brace treatment was derived from a positive sagittal re-alignment test (SRT) and the exclusion of successful conservative treatment during the last 24 months. The aim of this type of conservative intervention was to avoid surgery for chronic low back pain.

Results

The average pain intensity was measured on the Roland and Morris VRS (5 steps) before treatment. This was 3.3 (t1), at the time of brace adjustment it was 2.7 (t2) and after at an average observation time of 18 months it was 2.0 (t3). The differences were highly significant in the Wilcoxon test.

Discussion

Short-term measurements showed that a significant pain reduction is possible in chronic postural low back pain using a sagittal re-alignment brace inducing lumbar re-lordosation. In a preliminary report at adjustment (t2), highly significant improvements of pain intensity have also been demonstrated. At 6 months of treatment however, no improvement was measured. The improvement of the mid-term effects (18 months) found in this study compared to the preliminary report may be due to the changed approach to compliance: whilst the bracing standard was not changed; the patients in this study were obligated to wear the brace for a minimum of 20 hrs per day for the first 6 months of treatment.

Conclusion

The effect of the sagittal re-alignment brace leads to promising short-term improvements in patients with chronic low back pain and spinal deformities. Contrary to unspecific orthoses, which after a short period without persistent pain reduction are omitted by the patients, the sagittal re-alignment brace (physio-logic™ brace) leads to an effective reduction of pain intensity in mid-term even in patients who have stopped brace treatment after the initial 6 months of treatment. In conservative treatment of chronic low back pain specific approaches such as the sagittal re-alignment brace are indicated prior to considering the surgical options.

Effectiveness of a lumbar belt in subacute low back pain: an open, multicentric, and randomized clinical study

STUDY DESIGN

Multicentric, randomized, and controlled study of clinical evaluation of medical device in subacute low back pain.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of an elastic lumbar belt on functional capacity, pain intensity in low back pain treatment, and the benefice on medical cost.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is limited evidence of efficiency of lumbar supports for treatment of low back pain. There is also a lack of the methodology in the studies reported on the efficiency of this device.

METHODS

This study is randomized, multicentric, and controlled with 2 groups: a patient group treated with a lumbar belt (BWG) and a control group (CG). The main criteria of clinical evaluation were the physical restoration assessed with the EIFEL scale, the pain assessed by a visual analogic scale, the main economical criteria was the overall cost of associated medical treatments.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-seven patients have participated. The results show a higher decrease in EIFEL score in BWG than CG between days 0 and 90 (7.6 +/- 4.4 vs. de 6.1 +/- 4.7;P = 0.023). Respectively significant reduction in visual analogic scale was also noticed (41.5 +/- 21.4 vs. 32.0 +/- 20; P = 0.002). Pharmacologic consumption decreased at D90 (the proportion of patients who did not take any medication in BWG is 60.8% vs. 40% in CG;P = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Lumbar belt wearing is consequent in subacute low back pain to improve significantly the functional status, the pain level, and the pharmacologic consumption. This study may be useful to underline the interest of lumbar support as a complementary and nonpharmacologic treatment beside the classic medication use in low back pain treatment.

Management of symptomatic lumbar degenerative disk disease

Symptomatic lumbar degenerative disk disease, or discogenic back pain, is difficult to treat. Patients often report transverse low back pain that radiates into the sacroiliac joints. Radicular or claudicatory symptoms are generally absent unless there is concomitant nerve compression. Physical examination findings are often unremarkable. Radiographic examination may reveal disk space narrowing, end-plate sclerosis, or vacuum phenomenon in the disk; magnetic resonance imaging is useful for revealing hydration of the disk, annular bulging, or lumbar spine end-plate (Modic) changes in the adjacent vertebral bodies. The use of diskography as a confirmatory study remains controversial. Recent prospective, randomized trials and meta-analyses of the literature have helped expand what is known about degenerative disk disease. In most patients with low back pain, symptoms resolve without surgical intervention; physical therapy and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the cornerstones of nonsurgical treatment. Intradiskal electrothermal treatment has not been shown to be effective, and arthrodesis remains controversial for the treatment of discogenic back pain. Nucleus replacement and motion-sparing technology are too new to have demonstrated long-term data regarding their efficacy.

An interdisciplinary clinical practice model for the management of low-back pain in primary care: the CLIP project

BACKGROUND

Low-back pain is responsible for significant disability and costs in industrialized countries. Only a minority of subjects suffering from low-back pain will develop persistent disability. However, this minority is responsible for the majority of costs and has the poorest health outcomes. The objective of the Clinic on Low-back pain in Interdisciplinary Practice (CLIP) project was to develop a primary care interdisciplinary practice model for the clinical management of low-back pain and the prevention of persistent disability.

METHODS

Using previously published guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a clinical management model for low-back pain was developed by the project team. A structured process facilitating discussions on this model among researchers, stakeholders and clinicians was created. The model was revised following these exchanges, without deviating from the evidence.

RESULTS

A model consisting of nine elements on clinical management of low-back pain and prevention of persistent disability was developed. The model's two core elements for the prevention of persistent disability are the following: 1) the evaluation of the prognosis at the fourth week of disability, and of key modifiable barriers to return to usual activities if the prognosis is unfavourable; 2) the evaluation of the patient's perceived disability every four weeks, with the evaluation and management of barriers to return to usual activities if perceived disability has not sufficiently improved.

CONCLUSION

A primary care interdisciplinary model aimed at improving quality and continuity of care for patients with low-back pain was developed. The effectiveness, efficiency and applicability of the CLIP model in preventing persistent disability in patients suffering from low-back pain should be assessed.

Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain

BACKGROUND

Lumbar supports are used in the treatment of low-back pain patients, to prevent the onset of low-back pain (primary prevention) or to prevent recurrences of a low-back pain episode (secondary prevention).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of non-specific low-back pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated the search in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL to December 2006. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified trials, and contacted experts to identify additional RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials that reported on any type of lumbar supports as preventive or therapeutic intervention for non-specific low-back pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author generated the electronic search. Two review authors independently identified trials that met the inclusion criteria. One review author extracted data on the study population, interventions, and final results. The methodological quality and the clinical relevance were independently assessed by two review authors. Because it was not possible to perform a quantitative analysis, we performed a qualitative analysis in which the strength of evidence on the effectiveness of lumbar supports was classified as strong, moderate, limited, conflicting, or no evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven preventive studies (14,437 people) and eight treatment studies (1361 people) were included in this updated review. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was rather low. Only five of the fifteen studies met 50% or more of the internal validity items. There was moderate evidence that lumbar supports are not more effective than no intervention or training in preventing low-back pain, and conflicting evidence whether lumbar supports are effective supplements to other preventive interventions. It is still unclear if lumbar supports are more effective than no or other interventions for the treatment of low-back pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate evidence that lumbar supports are not more effective than no intervention or training in preventing low-back pain, and conflicting evidence whether they are effective supplements to other preventive interventions. It remains unclear whether lumbar supports are more effective than no or other interventions for treating low-back pain. There is still a need for high quality randomized trials on the effectiveness of lumbar supports. One of the most essential issues to tackle in these future trials seems to be the realization of an adequate compliance. Special attention should be paid to different outcome measures, types of patients and types of lumbar support.

Effect of training and lifting equipment for preventing back pain in lifting and handling: systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether advice and training on working techniques and lifting equipment prevent back pain in jobs that involve heavy lifting.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane Back Group's specialised register, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT were searched up to September-November 2005.

REVIEW METHODS

The primary search focused on randomised controlled trials and the secondary search on cohort studies with a concurrent control group. Interventions aimed to modify techniques for lifting and handling heavy objects or patients and including measurements for back pain, consequent disability, or sick leave as the main outcome were considered for the review. Two authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies and methodological quality of those included. For data synthesis, we summarised the results of studies comparing similar interventions. We used odds ratios and effect sizes to combine the results in a meta-analysis. Finally, we compared the conclusions of the primary and secondary analyses.

RESULTS

Six randomised trials and five cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Two randomised trials and all cohort studies were labelled as high quality. Eight studies looked at lifting and moving patients, and three studies were conducted among baggage handlers or postal workers. Those in control groups received no intervention or minimal training, physical exercise, or use of back belts. None of the comparisons in randomised trials (17,720 participants) yielded significant differences. In the secondary analysis, none of the cohort studies (772 participants) had significant results, which supports the results of the randomised trials.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support use of advice or training in working techniques with or without lifting equipment for preventing back pain or consequent disability. The findings challenge current widespread practice of advising workers on correct lifting technique.

Strategies for prevention and management of musculoskeletal conditions. Low back pain (non-specific)

Low back pain (LBP) is defined as pain localised between the 12th rib and the inferior gluteal folds, with or without leg pain. Most cases are non-specific, but in about 10% of cases a specific cause is identified. Red flags are typical signs or symptoms that are frequently associated with specific LBP. Yellow flags are prognostic factors associated with a more unfavourable and often chronic disabling course of the disease. LBP has a lifetime prevalence of 60-85%. At any one time, about 15% of adults have LBP. LBP poses an economic burden to society, mainly in terms of the large number of work days lost (indirect costs) and less so by direct treatment costs. A substantial proportion of individuals with chronic LBP has been found to have chronic widespread pain. LBP is often associated with other pain manifestations such as headache, abdominal pain and pain in different locations of the extremities. Widespread pain is associated with a worse prognosis compared to localised LBP. Treatment targets are reduction of pain and better activity/participation, including prevention of disability as well as maintainance of work capacity. The evidence from selected and appraised guidelines, systematic reviews and major clinical studies was classified into four levels, level Ia being the best level with evidence from meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Key recommendations (level Ia): fitness programmes and advice to stay active can reduce pain, improve function and can prevent LBP becoming chronic. Simple analgesics, NSAIDs and muscle relaxants can reduce pain and can improve and maintain function. Maintaining physical activity, avoiding rest and manual therapy can reduce pain and maintain and restore function in acute LBP. Behavioural treatment can prevent LBP becoming chronic. Aerobic fitness and endurance training, behavioural treatment and multi-disciplinary treatment programmes can reduce pain and can improve/maintain function in chronic LBP.

United States' trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992-2003

STUDY DESIGN

Repeated cross-sectional analysis using national Medicare data from the Dartmouth Atlas Project.

OBJECTIVE

To describe recent trends and geographic variation in population-based rates of lumbar fusion spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar fusion rates have increased dramatically during the 1980s and even more so in the 1990s. The most rapid increase appeared to follow the approval of a new surgical implant device.

METHODS

Medicare claims and enrollment data were used to calculate age, sex, and race-adjusted rates of lumbar laminectomy/discectomy and lumbar fusion for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries over age 65 in each of the 306 US Hospital Referral Regions between 1992 and 2003.

RESULTS

Lumbar fusion rates have increased steadily since 1992 (0.3 per 1000 enrollees in 1992 to 1.1 per 1000 enrollees in 2003). Regional rates of lumbar discectomy, laminectomy, and fusion in 1992-1993 were highly correlated to rates of discectomy, laminectomy (R2 = 0.44), and fusion (R2 = 0.28) in 2002-2003. There was a nearly 8-fold variation in regional rates of lumbar discectomy and laminectomy in 2002 and 2003. In the case of lumbar fusion, there was nearly a 20-fold range in rates among Medicare enrollees in 2002 and 2003. This represents the largest coefficient of variation seen with any surgical procedure. Medicare spending for inpatient back surgery more than doubled over the decade. Spending for lumbar fusion increased more than 500%, from 75 million dollars to 482 million dollars. In 1992, lumbar fusion represented 14% of total spending for back surgery; by 2003, lumbar fusion accounted for 47% of spending.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of specific procedures within a region or "surgical signature" is remarkably stable over time. However, there has been a marked increase in rates of fusion, and a coincident shift and increase in cost. Rates of back surgery were not correlated with the per-capita supply of orthopedic and neurosurgeons.

The McKenzie method for low back pain: a systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis approach

STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of the McKenzie method for low back pain (LBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The McKenzie method is a popular classification-based treatment for LBP. The faulty equation of McKenzie to extension exercises (generic McKenzie) is common in randomized trials.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, and LILACS were searched up to August 2003. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed methodologic quality. Pooled effects were calculated among homogeneous trials using the random effects model. A sensitivity analysis excluded trials reporting on generic McKenzie.

RESULTS

Eleven trials of mostly high quality were included. McKenzie reduced pain (weighted mean difference [WMD] on a 0- to 100-point scale, -4.16 points; 95% confidence interval, -7.12 to -1.20) and disability (WMD on a 0- to 100-point scale, -5.22 points; 95% confidence interval, -8.28 to -2.16) at 1 week follow-up when compared with passive therapy for acute LBP. When McKenzie was compared with advice to stay active, a reduction in disability favored advice (WMD on a 0- to 100-point scale, 3.85 points; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 7.39) at 12 weeks of follow-up. Heterogeneity prevented pooling of studies on chronic LBP as well as pooling of studies included in the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence that the McKenzie method is more effective than passive therapy for acute LBP; however, the magnitude of the difference suggests the absence of clinically worthwhile effects. There is limited evidence for the use of McKenzie method in chronic LBP. The effectiveness of classification-based McKenzie is yet to be established.

The effects of a 3-week use of lumbosacral orthoses on proprioception in the lumbar spine

STUDY DESIGN

Longitudinal, repeated-measures, factorial design. The trunk axial rotation repositioning error was the dependent variable, while the orthoses, test mode (passive versus active), and the testing session were the independent variables.

OBJECTIVES

To verify whether lumbosacral orthoses (LSOs) affect proprioception in the lumbar spine and whether these effects change over a 3-week period during which the LSO is consistently worn.

BACKGROUND

To date, there is no compelling evidence that lumbar orthoses support the spine. One hypothesis advanced by several authors is that they may enhance position sense (proprioception) in the lumbar spine.

METHODS AND MEASURES

Fourteen subjects without low back pain wore lumbosacral orthoses 3 hours a day for 3 weeks. Spine proprioception was tested in a seated posture in 3 sessions (days 0, 7, and 21).

RESULTS

A significant 3-way interaction was found between the effects of the orthoses, session, and test mode (P = .03). The ratio of passive to active average error indicated that after 3 weeks of wearing LSO, proprioception in the passive test worsened in relation to the active test with the LSO. In contrast, proprioception in the passive test improved in relation to the active test when performed without the LSO.

CONCLUSIONS

The LSO did affect proprioception in the lumbar spine. These effects most likely changed over time due to sensorimotor adaptation. However, no overall proprioceptive benefits could be ascertained from healthy subjects wearing the LSO.