Comparison of Hip and Lumbopelvic Performance Between Chronic Low Back Pain Patients Suited for the Functional Optimization Approach and Healthy Controls

Is there hip muscle weakness in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain? A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic low back pain may present changes in hip muscles. However, there is still limited and controversial evidence of the association between hip muscle weakness and chronic low back pain and whether this weakness can be assessed with functional tests. The purpose of this study was to assess whether there is hip muscle weakness in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain and whether there is an association between the positive Trendelenburg and Step-Down tests and hip muscle strength.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 40 patients with chronic low back pain and 40 healthy participants, assessed in an outpatient clinic in Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brazil. Muscle strength was measured for the hip abductors, adductors, extensors, internal rotators, and external rotators using isometric manual dynamometry and functional stability was measured by the Trendelenburg and Step-Down tests. Muscle strength was compared using the t test for independent samples and the chi-square test. The association between the tests and strength was performed using a binary logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Healthy participants showed a statistically significant greater muscle strength for the right hip abductors (mean difference [MD]: 28.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.4 to 46.9), right adductors (MD: 18.7%, 95% CI: 6.2 to 31.2), right internal rotators (MD: 8.7%, 95% CI: 1.5 to 15.8), right extensors (MD: 21.1%, 95% CI: 6.2 to 31.2), left abductors (MD: 30.4%, 95% CI: 11.9 to 49), left adductors (MD: 18.4%, 95% CI: 3.7 to 33.2), and left extensors (MD: 21.6%, 95% CI: 6.6 to 36.5). There was no difference between groups for the positive functional tests, and there was no association between the tests and hip muscle strength.

CONCLUSION

Patients with chronic low back pain tend to have hip abductors, adductors, and extensors weakness. Furthermore, the functional tests should not be associated to hip muscle strength in patients with chronic low back pain.

The Role of Back Muscle Dysfunctions in Chronic Low Back Pain: State-of-the-Art and Clinical Implications

Changes in back muscle function and structure are highly prevalent in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Since large heterogeneity in clinical presentation and back muscle dysfunctions exists within this population, the potential role of back muscle dysfunctions in the persistence of low back pain differs between individuals. Consequently, interventions should be tailored to the individual patient and be based on a thorough clinical examination taking into account the multidimensional nature of CLBP. Considering the complexity of this process, we will provide a state-of-the-art update on back muscle dysfunctions in patients with CLBP and their implications for treatment. To this end, we will first give an overview of (1) dysfunctions in back muscle structure and function, (2) the potential of exercise therapy to address these dysfunctions, and (3) the relationship between changes in back muscle dysfunctions and clinical parameters. In a second part, we will describe a framework for an individualised approach for back muscle training in patients with CLBP.

A novel physical functioning test to complement subjective questionnaires in chronic low back pain assessments

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lifting disability commonly affects patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and may not correlate with the existing lifting-related physical assessment tests, such as the loaded forward reach (LFR) test.

PURPOSE

The Lift and Place (LAP) test was developed to assess lifting disability in CLBP based on known risk factors. The LAP test was compared with established physical assessment test, including the LFR test and self-reported disability questionnaires.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This cross-sectional study measured self-reported disability questionnaires along with LAP and other physical assessment test results PATIENT SAMPLE: Eighty three CLBP and 82 asymptomatic participants aged 18 to 55 with normal BMI according to WHO classification.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Oswestry disability index (ODI), Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), Numerical Pain Rating Scale, Trunk Extensor Endurance test, 5 Repetition Sit-To-Stand test, LAP and LFR test.

METHODS

Physical assessment test scores were compared between the two groups. The correlation of assessment test scores with ODI and RMDQ in patients with CLBP was calculated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) of each assessment tests. Assessment tests, ODI, and RMDQ were measured twice for CLBP patients on separate days to calculate the test-retest intraclass correlation (ICC) reliability. Two researchers scored the assessment tests independently to calculate the inter-rater ICC.

RESULTS

Patients with CLBP were slower in the LAP test (CLBP vs asymptomatic: 21.6±4.9 s vs 18.6±3.6 s) and had shorter reach in the LFR test (CLBP vs asymptomatic: 33.6±6.0 cm vs 36.3±6.6 cm). The LAP was correlated with both ODI (r=0.418) and RMDQ (r=0.390), while the LFR was not. In the ROC analysis, the LAP and LFR bore AUCs of 0.685 and 0.379, respectively. Their test-retest ICCs were 0.913 and 0.858, and their inter-rater ICCs were 0.997 and 0.969, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The LAP test demonstrated higher reliability and significant correlation with the ODI and RMDQ, indicating its potential as performance assessment for lifting disability in CLBP. Further studies should investigate the use of LAP and other physical assessments for rapid CLBP screening.

Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing motor control, isometric, and isotonic trunk training intervention for pain, disability, and re-injury risk reduction in chronic low back pain patients. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception until 25 February 2021 for chronic low back pain intervention based on any trunk training. Outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) for disability, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain, and the Sorensen Test (ST) for future risk of re-injury. Isometric training was superior to the control with a mean difference (MD) = −1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−2.30, −1.01] in pain reduction; MD = −7.94, 95% CI [−10.29, −5.59] in ODI; MD = −3.21, 95% CI [−4.83, −1.60] in RMDQ; and MD = 56.35 s, 95% CI [51.81 s, 60.90 s] in ST. Motor control was superior to the control with a MD = −2.44, 95% CI [−3.10, −1.79] in NPRS; MD = −8.32, 95% CI [−13.43, −3.22] in ODI; and MD = −3.58, 95% CI [−5.13, −2.03] in RMDQ. Isometric and motor control methods can effectively reduce pain and disability, with the isometric method reducing re-injury risk.