Correlation of spinal mobility with the severity of chronic lower back pain

The relationships between spinal amplitude of movement, pain and disability in low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The role of spinal movement alterations in low back pain (LBP) remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analyses examined the relationships between spinal amplitude of movement, disability and pain intensity in patients with LBP.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Pedro and Web of Science for relevant articles until 14th March 2023. Risk of bias was assessed with the Quality in Prognostic Studies Tool. We analysed the relationships between amplitude of movement, disability and pain intensity with standard correlational meta-analyses and meta-analytic structural equation modelling (MASEM) in cross-sectional and longitudinal data.

RESULTS

A total of 106 studies (9001 participants) were included. In cross-sectional data, larger amplitude of movement was associated with lower disability (pooled coefficient: -0.25, 95% confidence interval: [-0.29 to -0.21]; 69/5899 studies/participants) and pain intensity (-0.13, [-0.17 to -0.09]; 74/5806). An increase in amplitude of movement was associated with a decrease in disability (-0.23, [-0.31 to -0.15]; 33/2437) and pain intensity (-0.25, [-0.33 to -0.17]; 38/2172) in longitudinal data. MASEM revealed similar results and, in addition, showed that amplitude of movement had a very small influence on the pain intensity-disability relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

These results showed a significant but small association between amplitude of movement and disability or pain intensity. Moreover, they demonstrated a direct association between an increase in amplitude of movement and a decrease in pain intensity or disability, supporting interventions aiming to reduce protective spinal movements in patients with LBP.

SIGNIFICANCE

The large meta-analyses performed in this work revealed an association between reductions in spinal amplitude of movement and increased levels of disability and pain intensity in people with LBP. Moreover, it highlighted that LBP recovery is associated with a reduction in protective motor behaviour (increased amplitude of movement), supporting the inclusion of spinal movement in the biopsychosocial understanding and management of LBP.

Association of pain-related threat beliefs and disability with postural control and trunk motion in individuals with low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Low back pain (LBP) individuals with high levels of fear of pain might display changes in motor behavior, which leads to disability. This study aimed to systematically review the influence of pain-related threat beliefs or disability on trunk kinematic or postural control in LBP.

METHOD

Eight electronic databases were searched from January 1990 to July 1, 2020. Meta-analysis using random-effect model was performed for 18 studies on the association between pain-related threat beliefs or disability and lumbar range of motion. Pearson r correlations were used as the effect size.

RESULT

Negative correlations were observed between lumbar range of motion (ROM) and pain-related threat beliefs (r = - 0.31, p < 0.01, 95% CI: - 0.39, - 0.24) and disability (r =  - 0.24, p < 0.01, 95% CI: - 0.40, - 0.21). Nonsignificant correlations were reported between pain-related threat beliefs and center of pressure parameters during static standing in 75% of the studies. In 33% of the studies, moderate negative correlations between disability and postural control were observed.

CONCLUSION

Motor behaviors are influenced by several factors, and therefore, the relatively weak associations observed between reduced lumbar ROM with higher pain-related threat beliefs and perceived disability, and postural control with disability are to be expected. This could aid clinicians in the assessment and planning rehabilitation interventions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I

Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Frequency of Impaired Spinal Mobility in Patients with Chronic Back Pain Compared to Patients with Early Axial Spondyloarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the frequency of impaired spinal mobility in patients with chronic back pain of short duration and to compare it with the frequency of impaired spinal mobility in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), possible SpA, and no SpA.

METHODS

The SpondyloArthritis Caught Early (SPACE) cohort includes patients with chronic back pain (≥ 3 mos, ≤ 2 yrs, onset < 45 yrs). Spinal mobility was assessed with lateral spinal flexion, chest expansion, cervical rotation, occiput-to-wall distance, and lumbar flexion. Hip mobility was assessed with intermalleolar distance. Mobility measures were defined as impaired if below the 5th percentile reference curve from general population, adjusted for age and height when appropriate. Proportions of patients categorized with impaired mobility were examined with chi square.

RESULTS

In total, 393 patients with chronic back pain were included: 142 axSpA, 140 possible SpA, and 111 no SpA. Impairment in ≥ 1 mobility measure was present in 66% of all patients. The most frequently impaired mobility measure was lateral spinal flexion (40%), followed by chest expansion (22%), cervical rotation (18%), intermalleolar distance (17%), lumbar flexion (15%), and occiput-to-wall distance (11%). No statistically significant differences in proportion of patients with impaired spinal mobility were found between patients with axSpA and the other subgroups in any of the tests.

CONCLUSION

Two out of 3 patients with chronic back pain of short duration had impaired spinal mobility compared to the general population. Impaired spinal mobility occurs as often in patients with early axSpA as in other forms of chronic back pain.

An index to quantify deviations from normal trunk mobility: Clinical correlation and initial test of validity

BACKGROUND

In case of people suffering from chronic low back pain, specific movements of the hip, pelvis, and trunk are associated with pain. Comparing range of motion measurements for multiple planes and from different segments and lines in reference to those of healthy individuals seems interesting but present interpretations challenge in relation to important number of variables and correlation with clinical data.

METHODS

The proposed index is based on using principal component analysis to quantify differences in trunk mobility between patients with chronic low back pain and a control group. Kinematic data were recorded for the cervical and thoracic vertebrae, the lumbar spine, and the pelvic and scapular belts during repeated trials (hip flexion and extension, hip bending, and trunk twists). Angular motion values were calculated. Principal component analysis was used to convert 10 discrete variables (kinematical data) extracted from control data into 10 independent variables.

FINDINGS

The proposed index comprises the sum of the variables. Initial demonstration of its clinical utility and statistical tests of this index validity were revealed. It establishes correlations between the psychosocial impact of chronic low back pain, trunk mobility (as summarized by the index) and the positive effects of functional restoration program.

INTERPRETATION

This index let to assess the absolute potential benefits of rehabilitation in term of kinematic motion. Functional restoration program promotes the physical functioning of patients by increasing their range of motion. This index uses kinematic motion to assess the potential benefits of such rehabilitation program.

Lumbar motion changes in chronic low back pain patients: a secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Several therapies have been used in the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP), including various exercise strategies and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). A common belief is that spinal motion changes in particular ways in direct response to specific interventions, such as exercise or spinal manipulation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess changes in lumbar region motion for more than 12 weeks by evaluating four motion parameters in the sagittal plane and two in the horizontal plane in LBP patients treated with either exercise therapy or spinal manipulation.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Secondary analysis of a subset of participants from a randomized clinical trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred ninety-nine study participants with LBP of more than 6 weeks' duration who had spinal motion measures obtained before and after the period of intervention.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Lumbar region spinal kinematics sampled using a six-degree-of-freedom instrumented spatial linkage system.

METHODS

Trained therapists collected regional lumbar spinal motion data at baseline and 12 weeks of follow-up. The lumbar region spinal motion data were analyzed as a total cohort and relative to treatment modality (high dose, supervised low-tech trunk exercise, SMT, and a short course of home exercise and self-care advice). The study was supported by grants from Health Resources and Services Administration, Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation, Danish Chiropractors Research Foundation, and the University of Southern Denmark. No conflicts of interest reported.

RESULTS

For the cohort as a whole, lumbar region motion parameters were altered over the 12-week period, except for the jerk index parameter. The group receiving spinal manipulation changed significantly in all, and the exercise groups in half, the motion parameters included in the analysis. The spinal manipulation group changed to a smoother motion pattern (reduced jerk index), whereas the exercise groups did not.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence that spinal motion changes can occur in chronic LBP patients over a 12-week period and that these changes are associated with the type of treatment.

Development of a computer-based clinical decision support tool for selecting appropriate rehabilitation interventions for injured workers

PURPOSE

To develop a classification algorithm and accompanying computer-based clinical decision support tool to help categorize injured workers toward optimal rehabilitation interventions based on unique worker characteristics.

METHODS

Population-based historical cohort design. Data were extracted from a Canadian provincial workers' compensation database on all claimants undergoing work assessment between December 2009 and January 2011. Data were available on: (1) numerous personal, clinical, occupational, and social variables; (2) type of rehabilitation undertaken; and (3) outcomes following rehabilitation (receiving time loss benefits or undergoing repeat programs). Machine learning, concerned with the design of algorithms to discriminate between classes based on empirical data, was the foundation of our approach to build a classification system with multiple independent and dependent variables.

RESULTS

The population included 8,611 unique claimants. Subjects were predominantly employed (85 %) males (64 %) with diagnoses of sprain/strain (44 %). Baseline clinician classification accuracy was high (ROC = 0.86) for selecting programs that lead to successful return-to-work. Classification performance for machine learning techniques outperformed the clinician baseline classification (ROC = 0.94). The final classifiers were multifactorial and included the variables: injury duration, occupation, job attachment status, work status, modified work availability, pain intensity rating, self-rated occupational disability, and 9 items from the SF-36 Health Survey.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of machine learning classification techniques appears to have resulted in classification performance better than clinician decision-making. The final algorithm has been integrated into a computer-based clinical decision support tool that requires additional validation in a clinical sample.

Is obesity a risk factor for low back pain? An example of using the evidence to answer a clinical question

BACKGROUND: Obesity as a causal factor for low back pain has been controversial with no definitive answer to this date. The objective of this study was to determine whether obesity is associated with low back pain. In addition this paper aims to provide a step-by-step guide for chiropractors and osteopaths on how to ask and answer a clinical question using the literature. METHODS: A literature review using the MEDLINE search engine using the keywords "obesity", "low back pain", "body mass index" "BMI" and "osteoarthritis" from years 1990 to 2004 was utilised. The method employed is similar to that utilised by evidence-based practice advocates. RESULTS: The available data at this time is controversial with no clear-cut evidence connecting low back pain with obesity. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of a clear dose-response relationship between body mass index (BMI) and low back pain. Further, studies on the relationship between obesity and related lumbar osteoarthritis, knee pain, and disc herniation are also problematic.There is little doubt that future studies with controlled variables are needed to determine the existence of an unambiguous link, if any.

Relationship between pain and vertebral motion in chronic low-back pain subjects

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the relationship between intervertebral motion, intravertebral deformation and pain in chronic low-back pain patients.

DESIGN

This study measured vertebral motion of the lumbar spine and associated pain in a select group of chronic low-back pain patients as they performed a standard battery of motions in all planes.

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have demonstrated that individuals with low-back pain have impaired spinal motion, yet few studies have examined the specific relationship between pain and motion parameters. Although it is accepted that the pain in mechanical low-back patients is due to specific spinal motions, no studies have related specific motions to pain measures.

METHODS

Percutaneous intra-pedicle screws were placed into the right and left L4 (or L5) and S1 segments of nine chronic low-back pain patients. The external fixator frame was removed following the clinical external fixation test. The 3D locations of the pedicle screws and the level of pain were recorded as the subjects performed a battery of motions. The relationship between the pain and motion parameters was assessed using linear discriminant analysis and neural network models.

RESULTS

The neural network model showed a strong relationship between observed and predicted pain (R(2)=0.997). The discriminant analysis showed a weak relationship (R(2)=0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Vertebral motion parameters are strongly predictive of pain in this select group of chronic low-back pain patients. The nature of the relationship is nonlinear and involves interactions; neural networks are able to effectively describe these relationships.

RELEVANCE

Specific patterns of intervertebral motion and intravertebral deformation result in pain in chronic low-back pain patients. This substantiates the mechanical back pain aetiology.