How clinicians analyze movement quality in patients with non-specific low back pain: a cross-sectional survey study with Dutch allied health care professionals

How do people with chronic low back pain pick a pencil off the floor?

BACKGROUND

Picking objects off the floor is provocative for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). There are no clinically applicable methods evaluating movement strategies for this task. The relationship between strategy and multidimensional profiles is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

Develop a movement evaluation tool (MET) to examine movement strategies in people with CLBP (n = 289) picking a pencil off the floor. Describe those movement strategies, and determine reliability of the MET. Explore differences across multidimensional profiles and movement strategies.

METHODS

An MET was developed using literature and iterative processes, and its inter-rater agreement determined. Latent class analysis (LCA) derived classes demonstrating different strategies using six movement parameters as indicator variables. Differences between classes across multidimensional profiles were investigated using analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, or chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Six movement parameters were evaluated. There was substantial inter-rater agreement (Cohen's Kappa = 0.39-0.79) across parameters. LCA derived three classes with different strategies: Class 1 (71.8%) intermediate trunk inclination/knee flexion; Class 2 (24.5%) greater forward trunk inclination, lower knee flexion; Class 3 (3.7%) lower forward trunk inclination, greater knee flexion. Pain duration differed across all classes (p ≤ .001). Time taken to complete forward bends differed between Class 3 and other classes (p = .024).

CONCLUSIONS

Movement strategies can be reliably assessed using the MET. Three strategies for picking lightweight objects off the floor were derived, which differed across pain duration and speed of movement.

Investigating concurrent validity of inertial sensors to evaluate multiplanar spine movement

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) offer a portable and inexpensive alternative to traditional optical motion capture systems, and have potential to support clinical diagnosis and treatment of low back pain; however, due to a lack of confidence regarding the validity of IMU-derived metrics, their uptake and acceptance remain a challenge. The objective of this work was to assess the concurrent validity of the Xsens DOT IMUs for tracking multiplanar spine movement, and to evaluate concurrent validity and reliability for estimating clinically relevant metrics relative to gold-standard optical motion capture equipment. Ten healthy controls performed spine range of motion (ROM) tasks, while data were simultaneously tracked from IMUs and optical marker clusters placed over the C7, T12, and S1 vertebrae. Root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1) were calculated to assess validity and reliability of absolute (abs; C7, T12, and S1 sensors) and relative joint (rel; intersegmental thoracic, lumbar, and total) motion. Overall RMSEabs = 1.33°, MAEabs = 0.74° ± 0.69, and ICC2,1,abs = 0.953 across all movements, sensors, and planes. Results were slightly better for uniplanar movements when evaluating the primary rotation axis (prim) absolute ROM (MAEabs,prim = 0.56° ± 0.49; ICC2,1,abs,prim = 0.999). Similarly, when evaluating relative intersegmental motion, overall RMSErel = 2.39°, MAErel = 1.10° ± 0.96, and ICC2,1,rel = 0.950, and relative primary rotation axis achieved MAErel,prim = 0.87° ± 0.77, and ICC2,1,rel,prim = 0.994. Findings from this study suggest that these IMUs can be considered valid for tracking multiplanar spine movement, and may be used to objectively assess spine movement and neuromuscular control in clinics.

The Observable Movement Quality scale for patients with low back pain (OMQ-LBP): validity and reliability in a primary care setting of physical therapy

BACKGROUND

The Observable Movement Quality scale for patients with low back pain (OMQ-LBP) is a newly developed measurement instrument for use in primary care settings of physical and exercise therapists to assess movement quality (MQ) of patients with low back pain (LBP).

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to determine validity, reliability and feasibility of the OMQ-LBP. The OMQ-LBP consists of a standardized movement circuit (performed twice) consisting of five daily activities problematic for LBP patients, which are scored with an 11-item observation list.

METHODS

Construct validity was determined by testing seven hypotheses on associations between constructs (n = 85 patients with LBP) and four hypotheses on known group differences (n = 85 patients with LBP and n = 63 healthy controls; n = 35 matched participant-patients having VAS-pain ≥ 20 mm during and/or after both circuits and healthy controls). Internal consistency was analyzed with Cronbach's alpha (n = 85 patients with LBP). For inter- and intra-rater reliability Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) values were examined (n = 14 therapists: seven primary care physical therapists and seven exercise therapists). Additionally, content validity and feasibility were determined using thematic analysis of a brief interview with participants, patients (n = 38) and therapists (n = 14).

RESULTS

After Bonferroni correction 2/7 associations between constructs and 2/4 significant group differences were confirmed. Cronbach's alpha was 0,79. The ICC-values of interrater reliability of the OMQ-LBP total score and the duration score were 0.56 and 0.99 and intra-rater reliability 0.82 and 0,93, respectively. Thematic analysis revealed five themes. Three themes elucidate that both patients and therapists perceived the content of the OMQ-LBP as valid. The fourth theme exhibits that OMQ-LBP provides a clear and unambiguous language for MQ in patients with LBP. Theme 5 depicts that the OMQ-LBP seems feasible, but video recording is time-consuming.

CONCLUSIONS

The OMQ-LBP is a promising standardized observational assessment of MQ during the five most problematic daily activities in patients with LBP. It is expected that uniform and objective description and evaluation of MQ add value to clinical reasoning and facilitate uniform communication with patients and colleagues.

Detection of Typical Compensatory Movements during Autonomously Performed Exercises Preventing Low Back Pain (LBP)

With the growing number of people seeking medical advice due to low back pain (LBP), individualised physiotherapeutic rehabilitation is becoming increasingly relevant. Thirty volunteers were asked to perform three typical LBP rehabilitation exercises (Prone-Rocking, Bird-Dog and Rowing) in two categories: clinically prescribed exercise (CPE) and typical compensatory movement (TCM). Three inertial sensors were used to detect the movement of the back during exercise performance and thus generate a dataset that is used to develop an algorithm that detects typical compensatory movements in autonomously performed LBP exercises. The best feature combinations out of 50 derived features displaying the highest capacity to differentiate between CPE and TCM in each exercise were determined. For classifying exercise movements as CPE or TCM, a binary decision tree was trained with the best performing features. The results showed that the trained classifier is able to distinguish CPE from TCM in Bird-Dog, Prone-Rocking and Rowing with up to 97.7% (Head Sensor, one feature), 98.9% (Upper back Sensor, one feature) and 80.5% (Upper back Sensor, two features) using only one sensor. Thus, as a proof-of-concept, the introduced classification models can be used to detect typical compensatory movements in autonomously performed LBP exercises.

Assessment instruments of movement quality in patients with non-specific low back pain: A systematic review and selection of instruments

BACKGROUND

Observing and analyzing movement quality (MQ) in patients with non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) is important in the clinical reasoning of primary care physiotherapists and exercise therapists. However, there is no standardized form of assessment.

RESEARCH QUESTION

which MQ domains are measured with which instruments, and which activities are relevant, appropriate and methodologically sound for assessing MQ in patients with NS-LBP?

METHODS

The study had three phases. In phase 1 we conducted a systematic review in PubMed, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus of literature published until October 2018. The selected studies measured MQ domains with instruments that enabled us to 1) compare MQ in self-paced dynamic activities of patients with NS-LBP and healthy controls, and/or 2) determine change over time of MQ in patients with NS-LBP. In phase 2 we established relevant dynamic activities to assess in patients with NS-LBP. In phase 3 we determined appropriateness and methodological qualities of the selected instruments.

RESULTS

Thirty cross-sectional and three pre-post-test studies were eligible. The instruments consisted of complex (n = 19) and simple (n = 7) instrumented motion analysis systems and standardized observational tests (n = 7). We identified three domains representative for MQ: range of motion (ROM), inter-segmental coordination, and whole-body movements. In these domains, patients with NS-LBP significantly differed from healthy controls, respectively 7/12, 12/13 and 13/20 studies. Moreover, ROM and whole-body movements significantly improved over time in patients with NS-LBP (3/3 studies). Based on phase 3, we concluded that none of the instruments are appropriate to assess MQ in patients with NS-LBP in primary care.

SIGNIFICANCE

Forward bending, lifting, and walking seem the most relevant activities to evaluate in patients with NS-LBP. However, we found no suitable instruments to measure ROM, inter-segmental coordination, or whole-body movements as determinants of MQ in these activities in daily practice. We therefore recommend such an instrument be developed.

Distinguishing Patients With a Coordination Disorder From Healthy Controls Using Local Features of Movement Trajectories During the Finger-to-Nose Test

Assessment of coordination disorders is valuable for monitoring progression of patients, distinguishing healthy and pathological conditions, and ultimately aiding in clinical decision making, thereby offering the possibility to improve medical care or rehabilitation. A common method to assess movement disorders is by using clinical rating scales. However, rating scales depend on the evaluation and interpretation of an observer, implying that subjective phenotypic assignment precedes the application of the scales. Objective and more accurate methods are under continuous development but gold standards are still scarce. Here, we show how a method we previously developed, originally aimed at assessing dynamic balance by a probabilistic generalized linear model, can be used to assess a broader range of functional movements. In this paper, the method is applied to distinguish patients with coordination disorders from healthy controls. We focused on movements recorded during the finger-to-nose task (FNT), which is commonly used to assess coordination disorders. We also compared clinical FNT scores and model scores. Our method achieved 84% classification accuracy in distinguishing patients and healthy participants, using only two features. Future work could entail testing the reliability of the method by using additional features and other clinical tests such as finger chasing, quiet standing, and/or usage of tracking devices such as depth cameras or force plates.

The Standardised Mensendieck Test as a tool for evaluation of movement quality in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain

Background and aims:

Nonspecific chronic low back pain is a multifactorial biopsychosocial health problem where accurate assessments of pain, function and movement are vital. There are few reliable and valid assessment tools evaluating movement quality, hence the aim was to investigate nonspecific chronic low back pain patients’ movement patterns with the Standardised Mensendieck Test.

Methods:

Twenty patients (mean age=41, SD=9.02) with nonspecific chronic low back pain were examined with the Standardised Mensendieck Test whilst being videotaped and compared with 20 healthy controls. A physiotherapist, blinded to participant’s group belonging, scored Standardised Mensendieck Test videos according to the standardised manual. Associations between movement quality, fear of movement and re(injury) i.e. kinesiophobia and pain intensity were also investigated.

Results:

Patients scored significantly poorer than the controls in all 5 Standardised Mensendieck Test domains (p<0.001). The biggest difference was observed with regard to movement pattern domain. In women we also found a difference in the respiration pattern domain.

Conclusions:

The Standardised Mensendieck Test was able to detect significant differences in quality of movement between patients and healthy controls. These results indicate that the Standardised Mensendieck Test may be a valuable examination tool in assessment and treatment of nonspecific chronic low back pain patients. Further, longitudinal studies should investigate whether poor movement and respiration patterns are important factors in nonspecific chronic low back pain, e.g. as predictors and/or mediators of therapeutic effects.

Kinematic characterization of clinically observed aberrant movement patterns in patients with non-specific low back pain: a cross-sectional study

Background

Clinical observation of aberrant movement patterns during active forward bending is one criterion used to identify patients with non-specific low back pain suspected to have movement coordination impairment. The purpose of this study was to describe and quantify kinematic patterns of the pelvis and trunk using a dynamics systems approach, and determine agreement between clinical observation and kinematic classification.

Method

Ninety-eight subjects performed repeated forward bending with clinical observation and kinematic data simultaneously collected. Kinematic data were plotted using angle-angle, coupling-angle, and phase-plane diagrams. Accuracy statistics in conjunction with receiver operating characteristic curves were used to determine agreement between clinical observation and kinematic patterns.

Results

Kinematic patterns were consistent with clinical observation and definitions of typical and aberrant movement patterns with moderate agreement (kappa = 0.46–0.50; PABAK = 0.49–0.73). Early pelvic motion dominance in lumbopelvic coupling-angle diagram ≥59° within the first 38% of the movement represent observed altered lumbopelvic rhythm. Frequent disruptions in lumbar spine velocity represented by phase-plane diagrams with local minimum occurrences ≥6 and sudden decoupling in lumbopelvic coupling-angle diagrams with sum of local minimum and maximum occurrences ≥15 represent observed judder.

Conclusion

These findings further define observations of movement coordination between the pelvis and lumbar spine for the presence of altered lumbopelvic rhythm and judder. Movement quality of the lumbar spine segment is key to identifying judder. This information will help clinicians better understand and identify aberrant movement patterns in patients with non-specific low back pain.