Lumbar lateral shift in a patient with interspinous device implantation: a case report

Clinician approaches to spinal manipulation for persistent spinal pain after lumbar surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to identify variables influencing clinicians' application of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for persistent spine pain after lumbar surgery (PSPS-2). We hypothesized markers of reduced clinical/surgical complexity would be associated with greater odds of applying SMT to the lumbar region, use of manual-thrust lumbar SMT, and SMT within 1-year post-surgery as primary outcomes; and chiropractors would have increased odds of using lumbar manual-thrust-SMT compared to other practitioners.

METHODS

Per our published protocol, observational studies describing adults receiving SMT for PSPS-2 were included. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, OVID, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched from inception to January 6, 2022. Individual patient data (IPD) were requested from contact authors when needed for selection criteria. Data extraction and a customized risk-of-bias rubric were completed in duplicate. Odds ratios (ORs) for primary outcomes were calculated using binary logistic regressions, with covariates including age, sex, symptom distribution, provider, motion segments, spinal implant, and surgery-to-SMT interval.

RESULTS

71 articles were included describing 103 patients (mean age 52 ± 15, 55% male). The most common surgeries were laminectomy (40%), fusion (34%), and discectomy (29%). Lumbar SMT was used in 85% of patients; and of these patients was non-manual-thrust in 59%, manual-thrust in 33%, and unclear in 8%. Clinicians were most often chiropractors (68%). SMT was used > 1-year post-surgery in 66% of cases. While no primary outcomes reached significance, non-reduced motion segments approached significance for predicting use of lumbar-manual-thrust SMT (OR 9.07 [0.97-84.64], P = 0.053). Chiropractors were significantly more likely to use lumbar-manual-thrust SMT (OR 32.26 [3.17-327.98], P = 0.003). A sensitivity analysis omitting high risk-of-bias cases (missing ≥ 25% IPD) revealed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians using SMT for PSPS-2 most often apply non-manual-thrust SMT to the lumbar spine, while chiropractors are more likely to use lumbar-manual-thrust SMT relative to other providers. As non-manual-thrust SMT may be gentler, the proclivity towards this technique suggests providers are cautious when applying SMT after lumbar surgery. Unmeasured variables such as patient or clinician preferences, or limited sample size may have influenced our findings. Large observational studies and/or international surveys are needed for an improved understanding of SMT use for PSPS-2. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42021250039).

The why, where, and how clinical reasoning model for the evaluation and treatment of patients with low back pain

BACKGROUND

There is considerable overlap between pain referral patterns from the lumbar disc, lumbar facets, the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), and the hip. Additionally, sciatic like symptoms may originate from the lumbar spine or secondary to extra-spinal sources such as deep gluteal syndrome (GPS). Given that there are several overlapping potential anatomic sources of symptoms that may be synchronous in patients who have low back pain (LBP), it may not be realistic that a linear deductive approach can be used to establish a diagnosis and direct treatment in this group of patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this theoretical clinical reasoning model is to provide a framework to help clinicians integrate linear and non-linear clinical reasoning approaches to minimize clinical reasoning errors related to logically fallacious thinking and cognitive biases.

METHODS

This masterclass proposes a hypothesis-driven and probabilistic approach that uses clinical reasoning for managing LBP that seeks to eliminate the challenges related to using any single diagnostic paradigm.

CONCLUSIONS

This model integrates the why (mechanism of primary symptoms), where (location of the primary driver of symptoms), and how (impact of mechanical input and how it may or may not modulate the patient's primary complaint). The integration of these components individually, in serial, or simultaneously may help to develop clinical reasoning through reflection on and in action. A better understanding of what these concepts are and how they are related through the proposed model may help to improve the clinical conversation, academic application of clinical reasoning, and clinical outcomes.

Manipulative and manual therapies in the management of patients with prior lumbar surgery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Pain and disability may persist following lumbar spine surgery and patients may subsequently seek providers trained in manipulative and manual therapy (MMT). This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of MMT after lumbar surgery through identifying, summarizing, assessing quality, and grading the strength of available evidence. Secondarily, we synthesized the impact on medication utilization, and reports on adverse events.

METHODS

Databases and grey literature were searched from inception through August 2020. Article extraction consisted of principal findings, pain and function/disability, medication consumption, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Literature search yielded 2025 articles,117 full-text articles were screened and 51 citations met inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate evidence to recommend neural mobilization and myofascial release after lumbar fusion, but inconclusive evidence to recommend for or against most manual therapies after most surgical interventions. The literature is primarily limited to low-level studies. More high-quality studies are needed to make recommendations.

Alternating lumbar lateral shift: a case report

BACKGROUND

A lumbar lateral shift (LLS) is a common clinical observation in patients with low back pain (LBP), and a shift contralateral to the side of pain is the most common presentation. An LLS that can rapidly alternate sides presents several treatment difficulties and has rarely been described. The purpose of the current case report was to describe the presentation and management of a patient with an alternating LLS.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 39-year-old male with a 7-week history of LBP and previous lower extremity radicular pain was referred to physical therapy. An alternating LLS was present.

OUTCOMES

The patient was treated for six visits over 37 days. Treatment included modified self-correction of the LLS, motor control and trunk muscle endurance training, and development of an activity management program. The patient's LLS resolved, his worst pain improved from 3/10 to 0/10, and the Oswestry Disability Index improved from 26% to 4% disability. The patient reported maintenance of improvement at 6-month follow-up.

DISCUSSION

The current approach produced a positive outcome in a patient with an alternating LLS. The current understanding of mechanisms and optimal treatment of an alternating LLS is limited.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.