Design and Validation of a Novel Method to Measure Cross-Sectional Area of Neck Muscles Included during Routine MR Brain Volume Imaging

Low muscle mass secondary to disease and ageing is an important cause of excess mortality and morbidity. Many studies include a MR brain scan but no peripheral measure of muscle mass. We developed a technique to measure posterior neck muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) on volumetric MR brain scans enabling brain and muscle size to be measured simultaneously.We performed four studies to develop and test: feasibility, inter-rater reliability, repeatability and external validity. We used T1-weighted MR brain imaging from young and older subjects, obtained on different scanners, and collected mid-thigh MR data.After developing the technique and demonstrating feasibility, we tested it for inter-rater reliability in 40 subjects. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) between raters were 0.99 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.98-1.00) for the combined group (trapezius, splenius and semispinalis), 0.92 (CI 0.85-0.96) for obliquus and 0.92 (CI 0.85-0.96) for sternocleidomastoid. The first unrotated principal component explained 72.2% of total neck muscle CSA variance and correlated positively with both right (r = 0.52, p = .001) and left (r = 0.50, p = .002) grip strength. The 14 subjects in the repeatability study had had two MR brain scans on three different scanners. The ICC for between scanner variation for total neck muscle CSA was high at 0.94 (CI 0.86-0.98). The ICCs for within scanner variations were also high, with values of 0.95 (CI 0.86-0.98), 0.97 (CI 0.92-0.99) and 0.96 (CI 0.86-0.99) for the three scanners. The external validity study found a correlation coefficient for total thigh CSA and total neck CSA of 0.88.We present a feasible, valid and reliable method for measuring neck muscle CSA on T1-weighted MR brain scans. Larger studies are needed to validate and apply our technique with subjects differing in age, ethnicity and geographical location

Cerebral cortical thickness in chronic pain due to knee osteoarthritis: the effect of pain duration and pain densitization

Objective This study investigates associations between cortical thickness and pain duration, and central sensitization as markers of pain progression in painful knee osteoarthritis. Methods Whole brain cortical thickness and pressure pain thresholds were assessed in 70 participants; 40 patients with chronic painful knee osteoarthritis (age = 66.1± 8.5 years, 21 females, mean duration of pain = 8.5 years), and 30 healthy controls (age = 62.7± 7.4, 17 females). Results Cortical thickness negatively correlated with pain duration mainly in fronto-temporal areas outside of classical pain processing areas (p<0.05, age-controlled, FDR corrected). Pain sensitivity was unrelated to cortical thickness. Patients showed lower cortical thickness in the right anterior insula (p<0.001, uncorrected) with no changes surviving multiple test correction. Conclusion With increasing number of years of suffering from chronic arthritis pain we found increasing cortical thinning in extended cerebral cortical regions beyond recognised pain-processing areas. While the mechanisms of cortical thinning remain to be elucidated, we show that pain progression indexed by central sensitization does not play a major role

“Medically unexplained” symptoms and symptom disorders in primary care: prognosis-based recognition and classification

Background: Many patients consult their GP because they experience bodily symptoms. In a substantial proportion of cases, the clinical picture does not meet the existing diagnostic criteria for diseases or disorders. This may be because symptoms are recent and evolving or because symptoms are persistent but, either by their character or the negative results of clinical investigation cannot be attributed to disease: so-called “medically unexplained symptoms” (MUS). MUS are inconsistently recognised, diagnosed and managed in primary care. The specialist classification systems for MUS pose several problems in a primary care setting. The systems generally require great certainty about presence or absence of physical disease, they tend to be mind-body dualistic, and they view symptoms from a narrow specialty determined perspective. We need a new classification of MUS in primary care; a classification that better supports clinical decision-making, creates clearer communication and provides scientific underpinning of research to ensure effective interventions. Discussion: We propose a classification of symptoms that places greater emphasis on prognostic factors. Prognosis-based classification aims to categorise the patient’s risk of ongoing symptoms, complications, increased healthcare use or disability because of the symptoms. Current evidence suggests several factors which may be used: symptom characteristics such as: number, multi-system pattern, frequency, severity. Other factors are: concurrent mental disorders, psychological features and demographic data. We discuss how these characteristics may be used to classify symptoms into three groups: self-limiting symptoms, recurrent and persistent symptoms, and symptom disorders. The middle group is especially relevant in primary care; as these patients generally have reduced quality of life but often go unrecognised and are at risk of iatrogenic harm. The presented characteristics do not contain immediately obvious cut-points, and the assessment of prognosis depends on a combination of several factors. Conclusion: Three criteria (multiple symptoms, multiple systems, multiple times) may support the classification into good, intermediate and poor prognosis when dealing with symptoms in primary care. The proposed new classification specifically targets the patient population in primary care and may provide a rational framework for decision-making in clinical practice and for epidemiologic and clinical research of symptoms

The association between physical activity and neck and low back pain: a systematic review

The effect of physical activity on neck and low back pain is still controversial. No systematic review has been conducted on the association between daily physical activity and neck and low back pain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between physical activity and the incidence/prevalence of neck and low back pain. Publications were systematically searched from 1980 to June 2009 in several databases. The following key words were used: neck pain, back pain, physical activity, leisure time activity, daily activity, everyday activity, lifestyle activity, sedentary, and physical inactivity. A hand search of relevant journals was also carried out. Relevant studies were retrieved and assessed for methodological quality by two independent reviewers. The strength of the evidence was based on methodological quality and consistency of the results. Seventeen studies were included in this review, of which 13 were rated as high-quality studies. Of high-quality studies, there was limited evidence for no association between physical activity and neck pain in workers and strong evidence for no association in school children. Conflicting evidence was found for the association between physical activity and low back pain in both general population and school children. Literature with respect to the effect of physical activity on neck and low back pain was too heterogeneous and more research is needed before any final conclusion can be reached

Análise da postura craniocervical de crianças respiradoras bucais após tratamento postural em bola suíça

The study aimed to evaluate the craniocervical posture of mouth breathing children after postural treatment on swiss ball. Twelve mouth breathing children were undergone to a postural reeducation protocol through stretching and strengthening exercises on swiss ball, diaphragmatic stimulation and stretching of the inspiratory accessory muscles. Craniocervical posture was evaluated through biophotogrammetry analysis. Forward head position was measured through an angle formed by the points in the tragus and in the spinous process of the seventh cervical vertebra with a horizontal line. Cervical column curvature was taken by the horizontal distance from a vertical line passing through the thoracic kyphosis apex to the point of the greatest cervical curvature concavity. Pictures were taken before and after ten treatment sessions. The normality of the variables was tested by Shapiro-Wilk test and the Student's t -test was used to determine differences in variables between assessments. It was considered a significance level of 5% (pO estudo teve como objetivo avaliar a postura craniocervical de crianças respiradoras bucais após tratamento postural em bola suíça. Doze crianças respiradoras bucais foram submetidas a um protocolo de reeducação postural constituído por exercícios de alongamento e fortalecimento muscular sobre a bola suíça, estimulação diafragmática e alongamento dos músculos acessórios da inspiração. A postura craniocervical foi avaliada através da análise biofotogramétrica. A posição da anteriorização da cabeça foi aferida por meio do ângulo formado pelos pontos localizados no tragus direito e no processo espinhoso da sétima vértebra cervical com a linha horizontal. A curvatura cervical foi avaliada pela distância horizontal de uma linha vertical tangenciando o ápice da cifose torácica e o ponto de maior concavidade da curvatura cervical. As fotografias foram obtidas antes e após dez atendimentos. A normalidade das variáveis foi verificada a partir do teste Shapiro-Wilk. Para as comparações entre as médias foi utilizado o teste t de Student para amostras dependentes admitindo-se nível de significância de 5% (

Stay@Work: Participatory Ergonomics to prevent low back and neck pain among workers: design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are a major public health problem with considerable costs for individuals, companies and society. Therefore, prevention is imperative. The Stay@Work study investigates the (cost-)effectiveness of Participatory Ergonomics (PE) to prevent LBP and NP among workers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a randomised controlled trial (RCT), a total of 5,759 workers working at 36 departments of four companies is expected to participate in the study at baseline. The departments consisting of about 150 workers are pre-stratified and randomised. The control departments receive usual practice and the intervention departments receive PE. Within each intervention department a working group is formed including eight workers, a representative of the management, and an occupational health and safety coordinator. During a one day meeting, the working group follows the steps of PE in which the most important risk factors for LBP and NP, and the most adequate ergonomic measures are identified on the basis of group consensus. The implementation of ergonomic measures at the department is performed by the working group. To improve the implementation process, so-called 'ergocoaches' are trained.</p> <p>The primary outcome measure is an episode of LBP and NP. Secondary outcome measures are actual use of ergonomic measures, physical workload, psychosocial workload, intensity of pain, general health status, sick leave, and work productivity. The cost-effectiveness analysis is performed from the societal and company perspective. Outcome measures are assessed using questionnaires at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Data on the primary outcome as well as on intensity of pain, sick leave, work productivity, and health care costs are collected every 3 months.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Prevention of LBP and NP is beneficial for workers, employers, and society. If the intervention is proven (cost-)effective, the intervention can have a major impact on LBP and NP prevention and, thereby, on work disability prevention. Results are expected in 2010.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN27472278</p

Pain, pain intensity and pain disability in high school students are differently associated with physical activity, screening hours and sleep

Background: Studies exploring the association between physical activity, screen time and sleep and pain usually focus on a limited number of painful body sites. Nevertheless, pain at different body sites is likely to be of different nature. Therefore, this study aims to explore and compare the association between time spent in self-reported physical activity, in screen based activities and sleeping and i) pain presence in the last 7-days for 9 different body sites; ii) pain intensity at 9 different body sites and iii) global disability. Methods: Nine hundred sixty nine students completed a questionnaire on pain, time spent in moderate and vigorous physical activity, screen based time watching TV/DVD, playing, using mobile phones and computers and sleeping hours. Univariate and multivariate associations between pain presence, pain intensity and disability and physical activity, screen based time and sleeping hours were investigated. Results: Pain presence: sleeping remained in the multivariable model for the neck, mid back, wrists, knees and ankles/feet (OR 1.17 to 2.11); moderate physical activity remained in the multivariate model for the neck, shoulders, wrists, hips and ankles/feet (OR 1.06 to 1.08); vigorous physical activity remained in the multivariate model for mid back, knees and ankles/feet (OR 1.05 to 1.09) and screen time remained in the multivariate model for the low back (OR = 2.34. Pain intensity: screen time and moderate physical activity remained in the multivariable model for pain intensity at the neck, mid back, low back, shoulder, knees and ankles/feet (Rp2 0.02 to 0.04) and at the wrists (Rp2 = 0.04), respectively. Disability showed no association with sleeping, screen time or physical activity. Conclusions: This study suggests both similarities and differences in the patterns of association between time spent in physical activity, sleeping and in screen based activities and pain presence at 8 different body sites. In addition, they also suggest that the factors associated with the presence of pain, pain intensity and pain associated disability are different