A stiff price to pay: does joint stiffness predict disability in an older population?

Lower Limb Proprioception in Low Back Pain and Its Relationship With Voluntary Postural Control

This study aimed to investigate whether patients with low back pain (LBP) had impaired lower limb proprioception and its association with somatosensory acuity. Thirty patients with LBP and 30 asymptomatic people volunteered, using Sway Discrimination Apparatus tests to assess somatosensory acuity during voluntary anteroposterior and mediolateral postural sway. Results showed significantly reduced somatosensory acuity in mediolateral sway in LBP patients (p = 0.005) with ankle, knee, and hip proprioception showing significantly impairment compared to asymptomatic controls (all p ≤ 0.012). Regression analysis showed that ankle and hip proprioception were significantly associated with somatosensory perception (0.001 ≤ p ≤ 0.026, 0.067 ≤ R2≤ 0.235). Overall, findings suggested a global deterioration of lower limb proprioception in LBP patients, with ankle and hip proprioception playing crucial role in somatosensory perception.

Risk Factors for Mobility Decline in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Literature Review

Mobility is essential to maintaining independence for older adults. This systematic review aimed to summarize evidence about self-reported risk factors for self-reported mobility decline; and to provide an overview of published prognostic models for self-reported mobility decline among community-dwelling older adults. Databases were searched from inception to June 2, 2020. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers who extracted data and assessed study quality. Sixty-one studies (45,187 participants) were included, providing information on 107 risk factors. High-quality evidence and moderate/large effect sizes for the association with mobility decline were found for older age beyond 75 years, the presence of widespread pain, and mobility modifications. Moderate-high quality evidence and small effect sizes were found for a further 21 factors. Three model development studies demonstrated acceptable model performance, limited by high risk of bias. These findings should be considered in intervention development, and in developing a prediction instrument for practical application.

Posterior to anterior spinal stiffness measured in a sample of 127 secondary care low back pain patients

BACKGROUND

The sensation of spinal stiffness is a commonly reported symptom among back pain patients, with the clinical assessment of spinal stiffness usually being part of the decision-making process when deciding on providing manual treatment of low back pain. While any relationship between spinal stiffness and low back pain is likely to be multifactorial, prior exploration of this relationship has been overly simplistic (e.g., univariate regression analyses). The purpose of this study was to address this gap by taking a broader approach to compare instrumented measures of spinal stiffness to demographic characteristics, pain phenotypes, psychometrics, and spine-related disability in a sample of secondary care low back pain patients using multivariate regression analysis.

METHODS

Instrumented spinal stiffness measures from 127 patients in secondary care were used to calculate terminal and global spinal stiffness scores. A best subset analysis was used to find the subsets of 14 independent variables that most accurately predicted stiffness based on the evaluation of the adjusted R-square, Akaike Information Criteria, and the Bayesian Information Criteria.

FINDINGS

In the resulting multivariate models, sex (p < 0.001) and age (p < 0.001) were the primary determinants of terminal stiffness, while global stiffness was primarily determined by age (p = 0.003) and disability (p = 0.024).

INTERPRETATION

Instrumented measures of spinal stiffness are multifactorial in nature, and future research into this area should make use of multivariate analyses.

Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Predicting who responds to spinal manipulative therapy using a short-time frame methodology: Results from a 238-participant study

Background

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is among the nonpharmacologic interventions that has been recommended in clinical guidelines for patients with low back pain, however, some patients appear to benefit substantially more from SMT than others. Several investigations have examined potential factors to modify patients’ responses prior to SMT application. The objective of this study was to determine if the baseline prediction of SMT responders can be improved through the use of a restricted, non-pragmatic methodology, established variables of responder status, and newly developed physical measures observed to change with SMT.

Materials and methods

We conducted a secondary analysis of a prior study that provided two applications of standardized SMT over a period of 1 week. After initial exploratory analysis, principal component analysis and optimal scaling analysis were used to reduce multicollinearity among predictors. A multiple logistic regression model was built using a forward Wald procedure to explore those baseline variables that could predict response status at 1-week reassessment.

Results

Two hundred and thirty-eight participants completed the 1-week reassessment (age 40.0± 11.8 years; 59.7% female). Response to treatment was predicted by a model containing the following 8 variables: height, gender, neck or upper back pain, pain frequency in the past 6 months, the STarT Back Tool, patients’ expectations about medication and strengthening exercises, and extension status. Our model had a sensitivity of 72.2% (95% CI, 58.1–83.1), specificity of 84.2% (95% CI, 78.0–89.0), a positive likelihood ratio of 4.6 (CI, 3.2–6.7), a negative likelihood ratio of 0.3 (CI, 0.2–0.5), and area under ROC curve, 0.79.

Conclusion

It is possible to predict response to treatment before application of SMT in low back pain patients. Our model may benefit both patients and clinicians by reducing the time needed to re-evaluate an initial trial of care.

Musculoskeletal stiffness is common in healthy adults and increases with age

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE

Musculoskeletal stiffness is a common feature in rheumatologic inflammatory diseases but little is known about background joint stiffness in the healthy population. The aim of this survey was to determine the variation in musculoskeletal stiffness with age in a cohort of healthy adults using a patient reported outcome instrument designed to assess stiffness in rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Healthy subjects ≥18 years old were enrolled at two sites. Those with a diagnosis of rheumatological disease were excluded. Each subject completed a 21-item questionnaire designed to evaluate the severity of musculoskeletal stiffness, its physical impact and psychosocial impact, and to provide an overall stiffness score, expressed as a percentage. Scores were analyzed by age group.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty-two subjects were included with a mean age of 42 years (±17, range 18-85). More than 50% of subjects reported stiffness in each age group but with a low median overall stiffness score of 5.4% (IQR 0, 12.6). Scores were markedly higher in those aged ≥60 years, median 10.0% (IQR 2.6, 21.9), and only in this age group did the majority of subjects report a physical or psychosocial impact of stiffness. Scores in males and females were similar.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of musculoskeletal stiffness in healthy subjects of all ages is not negligible, and the high frequency of stiffness and greater severity in the upper age cohort suggest that the background joint stiffness amongst older subjects should be considered when interpreting stiffness in rheumatologic patients.

Feeling stiffness in the back: a protective perceptual inference in chronic back pain

Does feeling back stiffness actually reflect having a stiff back? This research interrogates the long-held question of what informs our subjective experiences of bodily state. We propose a new hypothesis: feelings of back stiffness are a protective perceptual construct, rather than reflecting biomechanical properties of the back. This has far-reaching implications for treatment of pain/stiffness but also for our understanding of bodily feelings. Over three experiments, we challenge the prevailing view by showing that feeling stiff does not relate to objective spinal measures of stiffness and objective back stiffness does not differ between those who report feeling stiff and those who do not. Rather, those who report feeling stiff exhibit self-protective responses: they significantly overestimate force applied to their spine, yet are better at detecting changes in this force than those who do not report feeling stiff. This perceptual error can be manipulated: providing auditory input in synchrony to forces applied to the spine modulates prediction accuracy in both groups, without altering actual stiffness, demonstrating that feeling stiff is a multisensory perceptual inference consistent with protection. Together, this presents a compelling argument against the prevailing view that feeling stiff is an isomorphic marker of the biomechanical characteristics of the back.