Effects of Low-Load Motor Control Exercises and a High-Load Lifting Exercise on Lumbar Multifidus Thickness: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The difference in multifidus muscle morphology and motor control in non-specific low back pain with clinical lumbar instability and healthy subjects: A case-control study

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) with clinical lumbar instability (CLI) is considered a subgroup of back pain. Poor core stability function and/or lack of motor controls are thought to play a role in inappropriate inter-segmental movements and pain. There is no study investigating the changes in the lumbar multifidus muscle (LMM) morphology and motor control in this subgroup of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess motor control components and morphological changes of LMM in the patients suffering from chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP) with CLI.

DESIGN

Observational case-control study.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients suffering from (CNSLBP) with CLI and 32 healthy individuals were included. The muscle force element of lumbar motor control was assessed by using (the active straight-leg raise test, leg lowering test, and Trendelenburg test). Ultrasonography was used to assess changes in the LMM morphology.

RESULTS

There was a significant decrease in motor control (p = 0.0001), an increase in LMM fatty infiltration (p = 0.002), and a decrease in the thickness of LMM in patients suffering from CNSLBP during contraction (p = 0.006), during rest (p = 0.018). The cross-section area of the LMM showed no statistically significant differences during rest on the right and left sides (p = 0.827, 0.220 respectively) and contraction (p = 0.160, 0.278 respectively) between patients and healthy subjects.

CONCLUSION

Motor control and the morphology of LMM in patients with CNSLBP with CLI may provide insight into the mechanisms of underlying pain and their effect on muscle function and structure.

Effects of Motor Control Exercises in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess whether motor control exercises consisting of the methodology described by Richardson and Hodges improve the pain and disability of patients with nonspecific low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and a meta-analysis.

SETTING

A literature review was conducted using PubMed, PEDro, Scielo, CINAHL, Web of Science, Dialnet, Scopus, and MEDLINE from inception to November 2021.

PATIENTS

Patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomized controlled trials assessing motor control exercises versus inactive control, placebo or minimal intervention, and other exercises.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain intensity, disability, and physical activity were considered as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with 1356 patients were finally included in the systematic review, of which only 13 randomized clinical trials could be meta-analyzed. Statistically significant results were found in favor of the motor control group for the comparison with other exercises in disability at postintervention term (Mean Difference, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], -3.13 [-5.87 to -0.38], P = 0.03); for the comparison with inactive control, placebo, or minimal intervention in pain at postintervention term (MD, 95% CI, -18.10 [-30.79 to -5.41], P = 0.008); and for comparison with general exercises (MD, 95% CI, -12.70 [-20.80 to -4.60], P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of motor control exercises to reduce pain intensity and disability exists, but the reduction should be interpreted with caution.

The Role of Multifidus in the Biomechanics of Lumbar Spine: A Musculoskeletal Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

The role of multifidus in the biomechanics of lumbar spine remained unclear.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the role of multifidus in the modeling of lumbar spine and the influence of asymmetric multifidus atrophy on the biomechanics of lumbar spine.

METHODS

This study considered five different multifidus conditions in the trunk musculoskeletal models: group 1 (with entire multifidus), group 2 (without multifidus), group 3 (multifidus with half of maximum isometric force), group 4 (asymmetric multifidus atrophy on L5/S1 level), and group 5 (asymmetric multifidus atrophy on L4/L5 level). In order to test how different multifidus situations would affect the lumbar spine, four trunk flexional angles (0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°) were simulated. The calculation of muscle activation and muscle force was done using static optimization function in OpenSim. Then, joint reaction forces of L5/S1 and L4/L5 levels were calculated and compared among the groups.

RESULTS

The models without multifidus had the highest normalized compressive forces on the L4/L5 level in trunk flexion tasks. In extreme cases produced by group 2 models, the normalized compressive forces on L4/L5 level were 444% (30° flexion), 568% (60° flexion), and 576% (90° flexion) of upper body weight, which were 1.82 times, 1.63 times, and 1.13 times as large as the values computed by the corresponding models in group 1. In 90° flexion, the success rate of simulation in group 2 was 49.6%, followed by group 3 (84.4%), group 4 (89.6%), group 5 (92.8%), and group 1 (92.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that incorporating multifidus in the musculoskeletal model is important for increasing the success rate of simulation and decreasing the incidence of overestimation of compressive load on the lumbar spine. Asymmetric multifidus atrophy has negligible effect on the lower lumbar spine in the trunk flexion posture. The results highlighted the fine-tuning ability of multifidus in equilibrating the loads on the lower back and the necessity of incorporating multifidus in trunk musculoskeletal modeling.

Summarizing the effects of different exercise types in chronic low back pain - a systematic review of systematic reviews

Background

In chronic LBP (CLBP), guideline-endorsed treatment is to stay active, return to normal activity, and to exercise. Several reviews on various exercise types used in CLBP have been published. We aimed to identify systematic reviews of common exercise types used in CLBP, to appraise their quality, and to summarize and compare their effect on pain and disability.

Methods

We searched the databases OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE LIBRARY, and WEB OF SCIENCE (Core collection) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on adults between 18 and 70 years of age suffering from chronic or recurrent LBP for a period of at least 12 weeks, which investigated the effects of exercises on pain and disability. All searches were conducted without language restriction. The search was performed up until 2022–01-26. The included reviews were grouped into nine exercise types: aerobic training, aquatic exercises, motor control exercises (MCE), resistance training, Pilates, sling exercises, traditional Chinese exercises (TCE), walking, and yoga. The study quality was assessed with AMSTAR-2. For each exercise type, a narrative analysis was performed, and the level of evidence for the effects of exercise was assessed through GRADE.

Results

Our database search resulted in 3,475 systematic reviews. Out of the 253 full texts that were screened, we included 45 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The quality of the included reviews ranged from high to critically low. Due to large heterogeneity, no meta-analyses were performed. We found low-to-moderate evidence of mainly short-term and small beneficial effects on pain and disability for MCE, Pilates, resistance training, TCE, and yoga compared to no or minimal intervention.

Conclusions

Our findings show that the effect of various exercise types used in CLBP on pain and disability varies with no major difference between exercise types. Many of the included systematic reviews were of low-to-moderate quality and based on randomized controlled trials with high risk of bias. The conflicting results seen, undermine the certainty of the results leading to very-low-to-moderate quality of evidence for our results. Future systematic reviews should be of higher quality to minimize waste of resources.

Trial registration

PROSPERO: Reg no 190409 Registration date 01AUG 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05722-x.

Effect of Motor Control Training on Trunk Muscle Morphometry, Pain, and Disability in People With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to study the effects of motor control training (MCT) on trunk muscle morphometry measured by ultrasound imaging and pain and disability in individuals with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from study inception until January 2021. Randomized control trials evaluating both muscle morphometry and pain or disability in individuals with chronic low back pain were included. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by 2 reviewers independently. Modified Downs and Black tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach were used to assess the risk of bias and quality of evidence, respectively. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model with mean difference or standardized mean difference (SMD).

RESULTS

Of 3459 studies initially identified, 15 studies were included, and 13 studies were selected for meta-analysis. The results revealed no differences in the resting thickness of the transversus abdominis, internal and external oblique, and lumbar multifidus muscles in studies that compared MCT with other interventions. The transversus abdominis muscles contraction ratio was greater (SMD = 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.0 to 1.85) and lower pain (weighted mean difference: -1.07 cm; 95% CI, -1.91 to -0.22 cm; P = .01) and disability (SMD = -0.86; 95% CI, -1.42 to -0. 29; P < .01) scores were found in the groups who underwent MCT compared with other interventions.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that motor control exercise training increased the transverse abdominis contraction ratio (muscle activation) and improved the level of pain and disability compared to other interventions in people with chronic low back pain. However, motor control exercise training was not superior to other interventions in increasing the resting thickness of deep abdominal and lumbar multifidus muscles in intervention times less than 12 weeks.

The effect of phasic versus combined neuromuscular electrical stimulation using the StimaWELL 120MTRS system on multifidus muscle morphology and function in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial protocol

Background

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is used to improve muscle strength clinically when rehabilitating various musculoskeletal disorders. However, the effects of NMES on muscle morphology and function in individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP) have scarcely been investigated. Although research links deficits in the paraspinal musculature with subjective reports of pain and disability, it is unknown if treatment with NMES can help reverse these deficits. Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to compare the effects of two muscle therapy protocols with a medium-frequency electrotherapy device (the StimaWELL 120MTRS system) on multifidus muscle morphology and function in CLBP patients. The secondary aims are to determine the effects of these protocols subjective reports of pain intensity, pain interference, disability, and catastrophizing.

Methods

A total of 30 participants with non-specific CLBP, aged 18–60, will be recruited from local orthopedic clinics and databases. Participants will be randomized (1:1) to either the phasic or combined (phasic + tonic) muscle therapy protocols on the StimaWELL 120MTRS system. Participants will undergo 20 supervised electrotherapy treatments over a 10-week period. The primary outcomes will be multifidus morphology (e.g. cross-sectional area (CSA), fat infiltration) and function (e.g., contraction measured via %thickness change from a rested to contracted state, and stiffness at rest and during contraction). Secondary outcomes will include pain intensity, interference, disability, and catastrophizing. Both primary and secondary outcomes will be obtained at baseline and at 11-weeks; secondary outcomes measured via questionnaires will also be obtained at 6-weeks, while LBP intensity will be measured before and after each treatment. Paired t-tests will be used to assess within-group changes for all primary outcome measures. A two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance will be used to assess changes in secondary outcomes over time.

Discussion

The results of this trial will help clarify the role of medium-frequency NMES on lumbar multifidus morphology and function.

Trial Registration

NCT04891692, registered retrospectively on May 18, 2021.

Is Golf a Contact Sport? Protection of the Spine and Return to Play After Lumbar Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review.

OBJECTIVE

To address the gap in the literature on specific return to play protocols and rehabilitation regimens for golfers undergoing lumbar spine surgery with a high impact swing.

METHODS

This review did not involve patient care or any clinical prospective or retrospective review of patient information and thus did not warrant institutional review board approval. The available literature of PubMed, Medline, and OVID was utilized to review the existing literature.

RESULTS

Studies have shown that the forces through the lumbar spine in the modern-era golf swing are like other contact sports. Methods of protecting the lumbar spine include proper swing mechanics, abdominal and paraspinal musculature strengthening and flexibility as well as physical fitness. There are a variety of treatment options available to treat lumbar spine pathology each with a different return to play recommendations from doctors in the field.

CONCLUSIONS

With the introduction of a high impact, modern-era swing to the game of golf, the pathology is seen in the lumbar spine of both young, old, professional, and amateur golfers with low back pain are similar to other athletes in contact sports. Surgery is effective in returning athletes to a similar level of play even though no protocols exist for an effective and safe return. There have been many studies conducted to determine appropriate treatment and return to play for these injuries, but there is a gap in the literature on specific return to play protocols and rehabilitation regimens for golfers undergoing lumbar spine surgery with a high impact swing. As return to competitive play is important, especially with professional golfers, studies combining the use of swing mechanics changes, rehabilitation regimens and the type of surgery performed would be able to provide some insight into this topic now that golf may begin to be considered a contact sport.

Effectiveness of lumbar stabilization exercise with real-time ultrasound imaging biofeedback on lumbar multifidus muscle cross-sectional area in individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Structural impairment of the lumbar multifidus muscle, such as reduced cross-sectional area, is evident among individuals with chronic low back pain. Real-time ultrasound imaging (RUSI) biofeedback has been reported to improve preferential activation of as well as retention in the ability to activate the lumbar multifidus muscle during lumbar stabilization exercises (LSE). However, evidence of the effectiveness of this treatment approach in individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) is still limited. The purpose of this study is, therefore, to determine the effectiveness of LSE with RUSI biofeedback on lumbar multifidus muscle cross-sectional area in individuals with NCLBP.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is a prospective, single-center, assessor-blind, three-arm, parallel randomized controlled trial to be conducted at National Orthopedic Hospital, Kano State, Nigeria. Ninety individuals with NCLBP will be randomized in a 1:1:1: ratio to receive LSE, LSE with RUSI biofeedback, or minimal intervention. All participants will receive treatment twice weekly for 8 weeks. The primary outcome will be the lumbar multifidus muscle cross-sectional area. The secondary outcomes will include pain (Numerical Pain Rating Scale), functional disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), and quality of life (12-Item Short-Form Health Survey). All outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 8 weeks post-intervention,  and 3 months follow-up.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this study will be the first powered randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of LSE training with and without RUSI biofeedback in individuals with NCLBP. The outcome of the study may provide evidence for the effectiveness of LSE with RUSI biofeedback on enhancing the recovery of the lumbar multifidus muscle in individuals with NCLBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Pan African Clinical Trials Registry ( PACTR201801002980602) . Registered on January 16, 2018.

Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain has been the leading cause of disability globally for at least the past three decades and results in enormous direct healthcare and lost productivity costs.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of exercise treatment on pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo and other conservative treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Back and Neck trials register), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), and conducted citation searching of relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies. The review includes data for trials identified in searches up to 27 April 2018. All eligible trials have been identified through searches to 7 December 2020, but have not yet been extracted; these trials will be integrated in the next update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed exercise treatment compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo or other conservative treatment on the outcomes of pain or functional limitations for a population of adult participants with chronic non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened and assessed studies independently, with consensus. We extracted outcome data using electronic databases; pain and functional limitations outcomes were re-scaled to 0 to 100 points for meta-analyses where 0 is no pain or functional limitations. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence. When required, we contacted study authors to obtain missing data. To interpret meta-analysis results, we considered a 15-point difference in pain and a 10-point difference in functional limitations outcomes to be clinically important for the primary comparison of exercise versus no treatment, usual care or placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 249 trials of exercise treatment, including studies conducted in Europe (122 studies), Asia (38 studies), North America (33 studies), and the Middle East (24 studies). Sixty-one per cent of studies (151 trials) examined the effectiveness of two or more different types of exercise treatment, and 57% (142 trials) compared exercise treatment to a non-exercise comparison treatment. Study participants had a mean age of 43.7 years and, on average, 59% of study populations were female. Most of the trials were judged to be at risk of bias, including 79% at risk of performance bias due to difficulty blinding exercise treatments. We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise treatment is more effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons for pain outcomes at earliest follow-up (MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2), a clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to heterogeneity. For the same comparison, there was moderate-certainty evidence for functional limitations outcomes (MD -6.8 (95% CI -8.3 to -5.3); this finding did not meet our prespecified threshold for minimal clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to some evidence of publication bias.  Compared to all other investigated conservative treatments, exercise treatment was found to have improved pain (MD -9.1, 95% CI -12.6 to -5.6) and functional limitations outcomes (MD -4.1, 95% CI -6.0 to -2.2). These effects did not meet our prespecified threshold for clinically important difference. Subgroup analysis of pain outcomes suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than education alone (MD -12.2, 95% CI -19.4 to -5.0) or non-exercise physical therapy (MD -10.4, 95% CI -15.2 to -5.6), but with no differences observed for manual therapy (MD 1.0, 95% CI -3.1 to 5.1). In studies that reported adverse effects (86 studies), one or more adverse effects were reported in 37 of 112 exercise groups (33%) and 12 of 42 comparison groups (29%). Twelve included studies reported measuring adverse effects in a systematic way, with a median of 0.14 (IQR 0.01 to 0.57) per participant in the exercise groups (mostly minor harms, e.g. muscle soreness), and 0.12 (IQR 0.02 to 0.32) in comparison groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise is probably effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo for pain. The observed treatment effect for the exercise compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons is small for functional limitations, not meeting our threshold for minimal clinically important difference. We also found exercise to have improved pain (low-certainty evidence) and functional limitations outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence) compared to other conservative treatments; however, these effects were small and not clinically important when considering all comparisons together. Subgroup analysis suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than advice or education alone, or electrotherapy, but with no differences observed for manual therapy treatments.

Does Motor Control Exercise Restore Normal Morphology of Lumbar Multifidus Muscle in People with Low Back Pain? - A Systematic Review

Aberrant morphological changes in lumbar multifidus muscle (LMM) are prevalent among patients with low back pain (LBP). Motor control exercise (MCE) aims to improve the activation and coordination of deep trunk muscles (eg, LMM), which may restore normal LMM morphology and reduce LBP. However, its effects on LMM morphology have not been summarized. This review aimed to summarize evidence regarding the (1) effectiveness of MCE in altering LMM morphometry and decreasing LBP; and (2) relations between post-MCE changes in LMM morphometry and LBP/LBP-related disability. Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to 30 September 2020 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias and quality of evidence. Four hundred and fifty-one participants across 9 trials were included in the review. Very low-quality evidence supported that 36 sessions of MCE were better than general physiotherapy in causing minimal detectable increases in LMM cross-sectional areas of patients with chronic LBP. Very low- to low-quality evidence suggested that MCE was similar to other interventions in increasing resting LMM thickness in patients with chronic LBP. Low-quality evidence substantiated that MCE was significantly better than McKenzie exercise or analgesics in increasing contracted LMM thickness in patients with chronic LBP. Low-quality evidence corroborated that MCE was not significantly better than other exercises in treating people with acute/chronic LBP. Low-quality evidence suggested no relation between post-MCE changes in LMM morphometry and LBP/LBP-related disability. Collectively, while MCE may increase LMM dimensions in patients with chronic LBP, such changes may be unrelated to clinical outcomes. This raises the question regarding the role of LMM in LBP development/progression.

The effects of combined motor control and isolated extensor strengthening versus general exercise on paraspinal muscle morphology and function in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial protocol

Background

Exercise is a common approach for the management of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP). However, there is no clear mechanistic evidence or consensus on what type of exercise is more effective than others. While considerable evidence suggests a link between lumbar muscle health (e.g., atrophy and fatty infiltration) with functional deficits, it is unknown whether exercises targeting the lumbar spine can lead to noticeable improvements in muscle health and functional outcomes. The primary aim of this study is to compare the effect of combined motor control and isolated strengthening lumbar exercises (MC + ILEX) versus a general exercise group (GE) on multifidus muscle morphology (size and composition). Secondary aims include assessing the effect of the interventions on overall paraspinal muscle health, pain and disability, as well as psychological factors as possible effect modifiers.

Methods

A total of 50 participants with chronic non-specific LBP and moderate to severe disability, aged between 18 and 60, will be recruited from the local orthopaedic clinics and university community. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to either the MC + ILEX or GE group. Participants will undergo 24 individually supervised exercise sessions over a 12-week period. The primary outcome will be multifidus morphology (atrophy) and composition (fatty infiltration). Secondary outcomes will be muscle function (e.g., % thickness change during contraction), morphology, lumbar extension strength, pain intensity and disability. Potential treatment effect modifiers including maladaptive cognitions (fear of movement, catastrophizing), anxiety, depression, physical activity, and sleep quality will also be assessed. All measurements will be obtained at baseline, 6-week and 12-week; self-reported outcomes will also be collected at 24-week. Between-subjects repeated measure analysis of variance will be used to examine the changes in paraspinal muscle morphology over the different time points. Linear mixed models will be used to assess whether baseline scores can modify the response to the exercise therapy treatment.

Discussion

The results of this study will help clarify which of these two common interventions promote better results in terms of overall paraspinal muscle heath, back pain, disability and psychological factors in adults with chronic LBP.

Trial registration

NTCT04257253, registered prospectively on February 5, 2020.

Effects of Volitional Spine Stabilization on Trunk Control During Asymmetric Lifting Task in Patients With Recurrent Low Back Pain

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, concurrent-cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of volitional preemptive abdominal contraction (VPAC) on trunk control during an asymmetric lift in patients with recurrent low back pain (rLBP) and compare with matched controls.

METHODS

Thirty-two rLBP patients and 37 healthy controls performed asymmetric lifting with and without VPAC. Trunk, pelvis, and hip biomechanical along with neuromuscular activity parameters were obtained using 3-dimensional motion capture and electromyography system. Hypotheses were tested using analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The VPAC resulted in significantly reduced muscle activity across all trunk extensor muscles in both groups (M ± SD, 6.4% ± 8.2% of maximum contraction; P ≤ .005), and reduced trunk side flexion (1.4° ± 5.1° smaller; P ≤ .005) and hip abduction (8.1° ± 21.1° smaller; P ≤ .003). rLBP patients exhibited reduced muscle activity in external oblique (12.3% ± 5.5% of maximum contraction; P ≤ .012), as well as decreased hip flexion (4.7°, P ≤ .008) and hip abduction (5.2°, P ≤ .001) at the final position of lifting in comparison with healthy controls.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study defend the recommendation that the use of a VPAC increase spine stability during an asymmetrical loading task. Our results provide an indication that a VPAC strategy that is achieved during an asymmetric lifting decreases exposure for lumbar spine injury and instability. Spine care providers and ergonomists can use this information when designing neuromuscular control training programs, both for healthy individuals aimed at prevention of injury, as well as those with a history of rLBP, aimed at full functional recovery and protection from future injury.

Randomized Trial of General Strength and Conditioning Versus Motor Control and Manual Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain on Physical and Self-Report Outcomes

Exercise and spinal manipulative therapy are commonly used for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) in Australia. Reduction in pain intensity is a common outcome; however, it is only one measure of intervention efficacy in clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness of two common clinical interventions on physical and self-report measures in CLBP. Participants were randomized to a 6-month intervention of general strength and conditioning (GSC; n = 20; up to 52 sessions) or motor control exercise plus manual therapy (MCMT; n = 20; up to 12 sessions). Pain intensity was measured at baseline and fortnightly throughout the intervention. Trunk extension and flexion endurance, leg muscle strength and endurance, paraspinal muscle volume, cardio-respiratory fitness and self-report measures of kinesiophobia, disability and quality of life were assessed at baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-up. Pain intensity differed favoring MCMT between-groups at week 14 and 16 of treatment (both, p = 0.003), but not at 6-month follow-up. Both GSC (mean change (95%CI): −10.7 (−18.7, −2.8) mm; p = 0.008) and MCMT (−19.2 (−28.1, −10.3) mm; p < 0.001) had within-group reductions in pain intensity at six months, but did not achieve clinically meaningful thresholds (20mm) within- or between-group. At 6-month follow-up, GSC increased trunk extension (mean difference (95% CI): 81.8 (34.8, 128.8) s; p = 0.004) and flexion endurance (51.5 (20.5, 82.6) s; p = 0.004), as well as leg muscle strength (24.7 (3.4, 46.0) kg; p = 0.001) and endurance (9.1 (1.7, 16.4) reps; p = 0.015) compared to MCMT. GSC reduced disability (−5.7 (−11.2, −0.2) pts; p = 0.041) and kinesiophobia (−6.6 (−9.9, −3.2) pts; p < 0.001) compared to MCMT at 6-month follow-up. Multifidus volume increased within-group for GSC (p = 0.003), but not MCMT or between-groups. No other between-group changes were observed at six months. Overall, GSC improved trunk endurance, leg muscle strength and endurance, self-report disability and kinesiophobia compared to MCMT at six months. These results show that GSC may provide a more diverse range of treatment effects compared to MCMT.

Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review

Background

Lumbar multifidus (LM) is regarded as the major stabilizing muscle of the spine. The effects of exercise therapy in low back pain (LBP) are attributed to this muscle. A current literature review is warranted, however, given the complexity of LM morphology and the inconsistency of anatomical descriptions in the literature.

Methods

Scoping review of studies on LM morphology including major anatomy atlases. All relevant studies were searched in PubMed (Medline) and EMBASE until June 2019. Anatomy atlases were retrieved from multiple university libraries and online. All studies and atlases were screened for the following LM parameters: location, imaging methods, spine levels, muscle trajectory, muscle thickness, cross-sectional area, and diameter. The quality of the studies and atlases was also assessed using a five-item evaluation system.

Results

In all, 303 studies and 19 anatomy atlases were included in this review. In most studies, LM morphology was determined by MRI, ultrasound imaging, or drawings – particularly for levels L4–S1. In 153 studies, LM is described as a superficial muscle only, in 72 studies as a deep muscle only, and in 35 studies as both superficial and deep. Anatomy atlases predominantly depict LM as a deep muscle covered by the erector spinae and thoracolumbar fascia. About 42% of the studies had high quality scores, with 39% having moderate scores and 19% having low scores. The quality of figures in anatomy atlases was ranked as high in one atlas, moderate in 15 atlases, and low in 3 atlases.

Discussion

Anatomical studies of LM exhibit inconsistent findings, describing its location as superficial (50%), deep (25%), or both (12%). This is in sharp contrast to anatomy atlases, which depict LM predominantly as deep muscle. Within the limitations of the self-developed quality-assessment tool, high-quality scores were identified in a majority of studies (42%), but in only one anatomy atlas.

Conclusions

We identified a lack of standardization in the depiction and description of LM morphology. This could affect the precise understanding of its role in background and therapy in LBP patients. Standardization of research methodology on LM morphology is recommended. Anatomy atlases should be updated on LM morphology.

Factors Associated With the Ultrasound Characteristics of the Lumbar Multifidus: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The first aim of this review was to investigate the association between age, sex, height, weight, physical activity level, posture, lumbar level and body side, and structural characteristics (cross-sectional area [CSA], thickness, linear dimensions, and echo intensity) of the lumbar multifidus (LM) measured by ultrasound. Second, differences between healthy individuals and patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) were investigated. TYPE: Systematic review.

LITERATURE SURVEY

PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched until September 2018.

METHODOLOGY

Studies were included if (a) full text was available in English, Dutch, or French; (b) participants were older than 18 years of age and were asymptomatic or had nonspecific CLBP; and (c) the relation between structural characteristics of the LM, measured by ultrasound, and at least one of the above-mentioned factors was described, and/or a comparison between a CLBP and control group was made. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Quality of studies was assessed using an adapted version of the Downs and Black checklist.

SYNTHESIS

Twenty-seven studies were included. Thickness and CSA of the LM do not correlate with age. Males have a larger LM size than females. Thickness and CSA of left and right LM are highly correlated in healthy subjects. More significant side-to-side differences are present in subjects with CLBP than in those without. Muscle size increases from proximal to caudal lumbar levels. The presence of CLBP is associated with muscle size and function.

CONCLUSIONS

The association between the factors age, sex, height, weight, physical activity level, posture, lumbar level, body side, and presence of CLBP, and the ultrasound characteristics of the LM is discussed. These factors should be taken into account in future research on structural muscle characteristics, or when correlating with functional behavior or investigating the effect of a targeted intervention.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.