Neuromuscular adaptations after a rehabilitation program in patients with chronic low back pain: case series (uncontrolled longitudinal study)

Changes in spinal motor behaviour are associated with reduction in disability in chronic low back pain: A longitudinal cohort study with 1-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The need to improve spinal motor behaviour in chronic low back pain (CLBP) rehabilitation remains unclear. The objective of this study was to test if changes in spinal motor behaviour were associated with changes in disability after an interdisciplinary rehabilitation program (IRP) in patients with CLBP.

METHODS

Seventy-one patients with CLBP participating in an IRP were included. Spinal motor behaviour was assessed with biomechanical (lumbar angular amplitude and velocity, erector spinae muscle activity and duration of the task), cognitive-emotional (task-specific fear [PRF]) and pain-related (movement-evoked pain [MEP]) measures during a lifting task before and after the IRP. Disability was measured before and after the IRP, and at 3-month and 1-year follow-ups.

RESULTS

After adjusting for confounders, changes in disability were significantly associated with MEP changes (β adj. = 0.49, p < 0.001) and PRF changes (β adj. = 0.36, p = 0.008), but not with changes in any of the biomechanical measures. MEP at the end of IRP was also associated with disability at 3 months (β adj. = 0.37, p = 0.001) and 1 year (β adj. = 0.42, p = 0.01). Biomechanical measures at the end of the IRP were not associated with disability, except for the duration of the task that was significantly associated with reduction of disability at 3 months (β non-adj = 0.5, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Pain-related and cognitive-emotional measures of spinal motor behaviour were associated with reduction in disability following an IRP. Future research is needed to further investigate causal relationships between spinal motor behaviour and disability.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

This study supports a multidimensional understanding and analysis of spinal motor behaviour, integrating the cognitive-emotional, pain-related and biomechanical domains. It also supports the consideration of spinal motor behaviour as a potentially important treatment target in chronic low back pain management. Moreover, it suggests that reducing movement-evoked pain and task-specific fear may have more influence on disability than changing lumbar amplitude, lumbar angular velocity or erector muscle activity, which may have important implications for rehabilitation.

Reduction in pain-related fear is not associated with improvement in spinal biomechanics but with decrease in movement-evoked pain in patients with chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

While a causal relationship between pain-related fear and spinal movement avoidance in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) has frequently been postulated, evidence supporting this relationship is limited. This study aimed to test if decreases in pain-related fear or catastrophizing were associated with improvements in spinal biomechanics, accounting for possible changes in movement-evoked pain.

METHODS

Sixty-two patients with CLBP were assessed before and after an interdisciplinary rehabilitation program (IRP). Pain-related fear was assessed with general and task-specific measures. Lower and upper lumbar angular amplitude and velocity as well as paraspinal muscle activity were recorded during five daily-life tasks to evaluate spinal biomechanics. Relationships were tested with multivariable linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

The large decreases in pain-related fear and catastrophizing following the IRP were scarcely and inconsistently associated with changes in spinal biomechanics (< 3% of the models reported a statistically significant association). Results remained comparable for activities inducing more or less fear, for specific or general measures of pain-related fear, and for analyses performed on the entire population or limited to subgroups of patients with higher levels of task-specific fear. In contrast, reductions in task-specific pain-related fear were significantly associated with decreases in movement-evoked pain in all tasks (r = 0.26-0.62, p ≤ 0.02).

CONCLUSION

This study does not support an association between pain-related fear and spinal movement avoidance. However, it provides evidence supporting a direct relationship between decreased pain-related fear and decreased movement-evoked pain, possibly explaining some mechanisms of the rehabilitation programs.

Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Have an Individual Movement Signature: A Comparison of Angular Amplitude, Angular Velocity and Muscle Activity Across Multiple Functional Tasks

Despite a large body of evidence demonstrating spinal movement alterations in individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is still a lack of understanding of the role of spinal movement behavior on LBP symptoms development or recovery. One reason for this may be that spinal movement has been studied during various functional tasks without knowing if the tasks are interchangeable, limiting data consolidation steps. The first objective of this cross-sectional study was to analyze the influence of the functional tasks on the information carried by spinal movement measures. To this end, we first analyzed the relationships in spinal movement between various functional tasks in patients with CLBP using Pearson correlations. Second, we compared the performance of spinal movement measures to differentiate patients with CLBP from asymptomatic controls among tasks. The second objective of the study was to develop task-independent measures of spinal movement and determine the construct validity of the approach. Five functional tasks primarily involving sagittal-plane movement were recorded for 52 patients with CLBP and 20 asymptomatic controls. Twelve measures were used to describe the sagittal-plane angular amplitude and velocity at the lower and upper lumbar spine as well as the activity of the erector spinae. Correlations between tasks were statistically significant in 91 out of 99 cases (0.31 ≤ r ≤ 0.96, all p < 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) to differentiate groups did not differ substantially between tasks in most of the comparisons (82% had a difference in AUC of ≤0.1). The task-independent measures of spinal movement demonstrated equivalent or higher performance to differentiate groups than functional tasks alone. In conclusion, these findings support the existence of an individual spinal movement signature in patients with CLBP, and a limited influence of the tasks on the information carried by the movement measures, at least for the twelve common sagittal-plane measures analysed in this study. Therefore, this work brought critical insight for the interpretation of data in literature reporting differing tasks and for the design of future studies. The results also supported the construct validity of task-independent measures of spinal movement and encouraged its consideration in the future.