Foot orthoses: how much customisation is necessary?

The relative merit of customised versus prefabricated foot orthoses continues to be the subject of passionate debate among foot health professionals. Although there is currently insufficient evidence to reach definitive conclusions, a growing body of research literature suggests that prefabricated foot orthoses may produce equivalent clinical outcomes to customised foot orthoses for some conditions. Consensus guidelines for the prescription of customised foot orthoses need to be developed so that the hypothesised benefits of these devices can be thoroughly evaluated

Low back pain around retirement age and physical occupational exposure during working life

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Physical occupational exposure is a risk factor for low back pain in workers but the long term effects of exposure remain unclear. As several countries consider increasing the retirement age, further information on this topic is relevant. This study aimed to describe the prevalence of low back pain among middle aged and aging individuals in the general French population according to physical occupational exposure and retirement status.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study population originated from the French national survey 'Enquête décennale santé 2002'. Low back pain for more than 30 days within the previous twelve months (LBP) was assessed using a French version of the Nordic questionnaire. Occupational exposure was self assessed. Subjects were classified as "exposed" if they were currently or had previously been exposed to handling of heavy loads and/or to tiring postures. The weighted prevalence of LBP was computed separately for men and women, for active (aged 45-59) and retiree (aged 55-74), according to 5-year age group and past/present occupational exposure.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For active men, the prevalence of LBP was significantly higher in those currently or previously exposed (n = 1051) compared with those never exposed (n = 1183), respectively over 20% versus less than 11%. Among retired men, the prevalence of LBP tended towards equivalence with increasing age among those previously exposed (n = 748) and those unexposed (n = 599).</p> <p>Patterns were quite similar for women with a higher prevalence in exposed active women (n = 741) compared to unexposed (n = 1260): around 25% versus 15%. Similarly, differences between previously exposed (n = 430) and unexposed (n = 489) retired women tended to reduce with age.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The prevalence of LBP in active workers was associated with occupational exposure. The link with past exposure among retirees decreased with age. These results should be considered for policies dealing with prevention at the workplace and retirement.</p

The clinical features of the piriformis syndrome: a systematic review

Piriformis syndrome, sciatica caused by compression of the sciatic nerve by the piriformis muscle, has been described for over 70 years; yet, it remains controversial. The literature consists mainly of case series and narrative reviews. The objectives of the study were: first, to make the best use of existing evidence to estimate the frequencies of clinical features in patients reported to have PS; second, to identify future research questions. A systematic review was conducted of any study type that reported extractable data relevant to diagnosis. The search included all studies up to 1 March 2008 in four databases: AMED, CINAHL, Embase and Medline. Screening, data extraction and analysis were all performed independently by two reviewers. A total of 55 studies were included: 51 individual and 3 aggregated data studies, and 1 combined study. The most common features found were: buttock pain, external tenderness over the greater sciatic notch, aggravation of the pain through sitting and augmentation of the pain with manoeuvres that increase piriformis muscle tension. Future research could start with comparing the frequencies of these features in sciatica patients with and without disc herniation or spinal stenosis

An interdisciplinary clinical practice model for the management of low-back pain in primary care: the CLIP project

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low-back pain is responsible for significant disability and costs in industrialized countries. Only a minority of subjects suffering from low-back pain will develop persistent disability. However, this minority is responsible for the majority of costs and has the poorest health outcomes. The objective of the Clinic on Low-back pain in Interdisciplinary Practice (CLIP) project was to develop a primary care interdisciplinary practice model for the clinical management of low-back pain and the prevention of persistent disability.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using previously published guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a clinical management model for low-back pain was developed by the project team. A structured process facilitating discussions on this model among researchers, stakeholders and clinicians was created. The model was revised following these exchanges, without deviating from the evidence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A model consisting of nine elements on clinical management of low-back pain and prevention of persistent disability was developed. The model's two core elements for the prevention of persistent disability are the following: 1) the evaluation of the prognosis at the fourth week of disability, and of key modifiable barriers to return to usual activities if the prognosis is unfavourable; 2) the evaluation of the patient's perceived disability every four weeks, with the evaluation and management of barriers to return to usual activities if perceived disability has not sufficiently improved.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A primary care interdisciplinary model aimed at improving quality and continuity of care for patients with low-back pain was developed. The effectiveness, efficiency and applicability of the CLIP model in preventing persistent disability in patients suffering from low-back pain should be assessed.</p

Predictors of stable return-to-work in non-acute, non-specific spinal pain: low total prior sick-listing, high self prediction and young age. A two-year prospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-specific spinal pain (NSP), comprising back and/or neck pain, is one of the leading disorders in long-term sick-listing. During 2000-2004, 125 Swedish primary-care patients with non-acute NSP, full-time sick-listed 6 weeks-2 years, were included in a randomized controlled trial to compare a cognitive-behavioural programme with traditional primary care. This prospective cohort study is a re-assessment of the data from the randomized trial with the 2 treatment groups considered as a single cohort. The aim was to investigate which baseline variables predict a stable return-to-work during a 2-year period after baseline: objective variables from function tests, socioeconomic, subjective and/or treatment variables. Stable return-to-work was a return-to-work lasting for at least 1 month from the start of follow-up.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p><it>Stable return-to-work </it>was the outcome variable, the above-mentioned factors were the predictive variables in multiple-logistic regression models, one per follow-up at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after baseline. The factors from univariate analyzes with a <it>p</it>-value of at most .10 were included. The non-significant variables were excluded stepwise to yield models comprising only significant factors (<it>p </it>< .05). As the comparatively few cases made it risky to associate certain predictors with certain time-points, we finally considered the predictors which were represented in at least 3 follow-ups. They are presented with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Three variables qualified, all of them represented in 3 follow-ups: <it>Low total prior sick-listing </it>(including all diagnoses) was the strongest predictor in 2 follow-ups, 18 and 24 months, OR 4.8 [1.9-12.3] and 3.8 [1.6-8.7] respectively, <it>High self prediction </it>(the patients' own belief in return-to-work) was the strongest at 12 months, OR 5.2 [1.5-17.5] and <it>Young age </it>(max 44 years) the second strongest at 18 months, OR 3.5 [1.3-9.1].</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In primary-care patients with non-acute NSP, the strong predictors of stable return-to-work were 2 socioeconomic variables, <it>Low total prior sick-listing </it>and <it>Young age</it>, and 1 subjective variable, <it>High self-prediction</it>. Objective variables from function tests and treatment variables were non-predictors. Except for <it>Young age</it>, the predictors have previously been insufficiently studied, and so our study should widen knowledge within clinical practice.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Trial registration number for the original trial NCT00488735.</p

Does patient-physiotherapist agreement influence the outcome of low back pain? A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Recent research suggests that agreement between patients' and health professionals' perceptions may influence the outcome of various painful conditions. This issue has received little attention in the context of low back pain and physiotherapy interventions. The current study aimed at exploring the relationship between patient-physiotherapist agreement on baseline low back pain intensity and related functional limitations, and changes in patient outcomes four weeks later. METHODS: Seventy-eight patient-physiotherapist dyads were included in the study. At baseline, patients and physiotherapists completed a Numerical Rating Scale and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Patients' perceptions were reassessed over the phone at follow-up. RESULTS: Using multiple regression, baseline level of patient-physiotherapist agreement on pain intensity was associated with both outcome measures at follow-up. Agreement on functional limitations had no impact on outcomes. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that patient-physiotherapist agreement has some impacts on the short-term outcomes of low back pain. Further research is needed to confirm these findings

Work and Health, a Blind Spot in Curative Healthcare? A Pilot Study

Introduction Most workers with musculoskeletal disorders on sick leave often consult with regular health care before entering a specific work rehabilitation program. However, it remains unclear to what extent regular healthcare contributes to the timely return to work (RTW). Moreover, several studies have indicated that it might postpone RTW. There is a need to establish the influence of regular healthcare on RTW as outcome; “Does visiting a regular healthcare provider influence the duration of sickness absence and recurrent sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders?”. Methods A cohort of workers on sick leave for 2–6 weeks due to a-specific musculoskeletal disorders was followed for 12 months. The main outcomes for the present analysis were: duration of sickness absence till 100% return to work and recurrent sick leave after initial RTW. Cox regression analyses were conducted with visiting a general health practitioner, physical therapist, or medical specialist during the sick leave period as independent variables. Each regression model was adjusted for variables known to influence health care utilization like age, sex, diagnostic group, pain intensity, functional disability, general health perception, severity of complaints, job control, and physical load at work. Results Patients visiting a medical specialist reported higher pain intensity and more functional limitations and also had a worse health perception at start of the sick leave period compared with those not visiting a specialist. Visiting a medical specialist delayed return to work significantly (HR = 2.10; 95%CI 1.43–3.07). After approximately 8 weeks on sick leave workers visiting a physical therapist returned to work faster than other workers. A recurrent episode of sick leave during the follow up quick was initiated by higher pain intensity and more functional limitations at the moment of fully return to work. Visiting a primary healthcare provider during the sickness absence period did not influence the occurrence of a new sick leave period. Conclusion Despite the adjustment for severity of the musculoskeletal disorder, visiting a medical specialist was associated with a delayed full return to work. More attention to the factor ‘labor’ in the regular healthcare is warranted, especially for those patients experiencing substantial functional limitations due to musculoskeletal disorders