Efficacy of movement control exercises versus general exercises on recurrent sub-acute nonspecific low back pain in a sub-group of patients with movement control dysfunction. protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Background: Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise for chronic back pain but there have been few head-to-head comparisons of these interventions. General exercise seems to be an effective option for management of chronic low back pain (LBP) but very little is known about the management of a sub-acute LBP within sub-groups. Recent research has developed clinical tests to identify a subgroup of patients with chronic non-specific LBP who have movement control dysfunction (MD). Method/Design: We are conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the effects of general exercise and specific movement control exercise (SMCE) on disability and function in patients with MD within recurrent sub-acute LBP. The main outcome measure is the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Discussion: European clinical guideline for management of chronic LBP recommends that more research is required to develop tools to improve the classification and identification of specific clinical sub-groups of chronic LBP patients. Good quality RCTs are then needed to determine the effectiveness of specific interventions aimed at these specific target groups. This RCT aims to test the hypothesis whether patients within a sub-group of MD benefit more through a specific individually tailored movement control exercise program than through general exercises

Movement control tests of the low back; evaluation of the difference between patients with low back pain and healthy controls

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To determine whether there is a difference between patients with low back pain and healthy controls in a test battery score for movement control of the lumbar spine.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a case control study, carried out in five outpatient physiotherapy practices in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Twelve physiotherapists tested the ability of 210 subjects (108 patients with non-specific low back pain and 102 control subjects without back pain) to control their movements in the lumbar spine using a set of six tests. We observed the number of positive tests out of six (mean, standard deviation and 95% confidence interval of the mean). The significance of the differences between the groups was calculated with Mann-Whitney U test and <it>p </it>was set on <0.05. The effect size (d) between the groups was calculated and d>0.8 was considered a large difference.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>On average, patients with low back pain had 2.21(95%CI 1.94–2.48) positive tests and the healthy controls 0.75 (95%CI 0.55–0.95). The effect size was d = 1.18 (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference between acute and chronic (p < 0.01), as well as between subacute and chronic patient groups (p < 0.03), but not between acute and subacute patient groups (p > 0.7).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This is the first study demonstrating a significant difference between patients with low back pain and subjects without back pain regarding their ability to actively control the movements of the low back. The effect size between patients with low back pain and healthy controls in movement control is large.</p

Movement control exercise versus general exercise to reduce disability in patients with low back pain and movement control impairment. A randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) in subacute and chronic stages can be treated effectively with exercise therapy. Research guidelines recommend evaluating different treatments in defined subgroups of patients with NSLBP. A subgroup of patients with movement control impairment (MCI) improved significantly on patient specific function and disability in a previous case series after movement control exercises.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>In a randomised controlled trial (RCT) we will compare the effectiveness of movement control and general exercise in patients with MCI. 106 participants aged 18 - 75 will be recruited in 5 outpatient hospital departments and 7 private practices.</p> <p>Patients randomly assigned to the movement control exercise group will be instructed to perform exercises according to their MCI. The general exercise group will follow an exercise protocol aimed at improving endurance and flexibility. Patients in both groups will receive 9 - 18 treatments and will be instructed to do additional exercises at home.</p> <p>The primary outcome is the level of disability assessed using the patient specific functional scale (PSFS) which links the perceived pain to functional situations and is measured before treatment and at 6 and 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes concern low back pain related disability (Roland Morris questionnaire, RMQ), graded chronic pain scale (GCPS), range of motion and tactile acuity.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>To our knowledge this study will be the first to compare two exercise programs for a specific subgroup of patients with NSLBP and MCI. Results of this study will provide insight into the effectiveness of movement control exercise and contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms behind MCI and its relation to NSLBP.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN80064281">ISRCTN80064281</a></p

Investigating the contribution of the upper and lower lumbar spine, relative to hip motion, in everyday tasks

Background: It is commonplace for clinicians to measure range of motion (ROM) in the assessment of the lumbar spine. Traditional single 'joint' models afford measuring only a limited number of regions along the spine and may, therefore, over-simplify the description of movement. It remains to be determined if additional, useful information can be gleaned by considering the traditional 'lumbar region' as two regions. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether modelling the lumbar spine as two separate regions (i.e. upper and lower), yields a different understanding of spinal movement relative to hip motion, than a traditional single-joint model. This study is unique in adopting this approach to evaluate a range of everyday tasks. Method: Lumbar spine motion was measured both by being considered as a whole region (S1 to T12), and where the lumbar spine was modelled as two regions (the upper (L3-T12) and lower (S1-L3)). Results: A significant difference was evident between the relative contribution from the lower and upper spine across all movements, with the lower lumbar spine consistently contributing on average 63% of the total ROM. A significant difference was also evident between the whole lumbar spine-hip ratio, and the lower lumbar spine-hip ratio, for the movement of lifting only. The lower lumbar spine achieved greater velocity for all tasks, when compared to the upper lumbar spine. Conclusion: This study has consistently demonstrated differences in the contribution of the upper and lower spinal regions across a range of everyday tasks; hence, it would appear that greater focus should be given to performing more detailed assessments to fully appreciate spinal movement

Inter-rater reliability of three standardized functional tests in patients with low back pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Of all patients with low back pain, 85% are diagnosed as "non-specific lumbar pain". Lumbar instability has been described as one specific diagnosis which several authors have described as delayed muscular responses, impaired postural control as well as impaired muscular coordination among these patients. This has mostly been measured and evaluated in a laboratory setting. There are few standardized and evaluated functional tests, examining functional muscular coordination which are also applicable in the non-laboratory setting. In ordinary clinical work, tests of functional muscular coordination should be easy to apply. The aim of this present study was to therefore standardize and examine the inter-rater reliability of three functional tests of muscular functional coordination of the lumbar spine in patients with low back pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Nineteen consecutive individuals, ten men and nine women were included. (Mean age 42 years, SD ± 12 yrs). Two independent examiners assessed three tests: "single limb stance", "sitting on a Bobath ball with one leg lifted" and "unilateral pelvic lift" on the same occasion. The standardization procedure took altered positions of the spine or pelvis and compensatory movements of the free extremities into account. The inter-rater reliability was analyzed by Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) and by percentage agreement.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The inter-rater reliability for the right and the left leg respectively was: for the single limb stance very good (κ: 0.88–1.0), for sitting on a Bobath ball good (κ: 0.79) and very good (κ: 0.88) and for the unilateral pelvic lift: good (κ: 0.61) and moderate (κ: 0.47).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The present study showed good to very good inter-rater reliability for two standardized tests, that is, the single-limb stance and sitting on a Bobath-ball with one leg lifted. Inter-rater reliability for the unilateral pelvic lift test was moderate to good. Validation of the tests in their ability to evaluate lumbar stability is required.</p

Chronic non-specific low back pain - sub-groups or a single mechanism?

Copyright 2008 Wand and O'Connell; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: Low back pain is a substantial health problem and has subsequently attracted a considerable amount of research. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of a variety of interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain indicate limited effectiveness for most commonly applied interventions and approaches. Discussion: Many clinicians challenge the results of clinical trials as they feel that this lack of effectiveness is at odds with their clinical experience of managing patients with back pain. A common explanation for this discrepancy is the perceived heterogeneity of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. It is felt that the effects of treatment may be diluted by the application of a single intervention to a complex, heterogeneous group with diverse treatment needs. This argument presupposes that current treatment is effective when applied to the correct patient. An alternative perspective is that the clinical trials are correct and current treatments have limited efficacy. Preoccupation with sub-grouping may stifle engagement with this view and it is important that the sub-grouping paradigm is closely examined. This paper argues that there are numerous problems with the sub-grouping approach and that it may not be an important reason for the disappointing results of clinical trials. We propose instead that current treatment may be ineffective because it has been misdirected. Recent evidence that demonstrates changes within the brain in chronic low back pain sufferers raises the possibility that persistent back pain may be a problem of cortical reorganisation and degeneration. This perspective offers interesting insights into the chronic low back pain experience and suggests alternative models of intervention. Summary: The disappointing results of clinical research are commonly explained by the failure of researchers to adequately attend to sub-grouping of the chronic non-specific low back pain population. Alternatively, current approaches may be ineffective and clinicians and researchers may need to radically rethink the nature of the problem and how it should best be managed

Modifying patterns of movement in people with low back pain -does it help? A systematic review

Background: Physiotherapy for people with low back pain frequently includes assessment and modification of lumbo-pelvic movement. Interventions commonly aim to restore normal movement and thereby reduce pain and improve activity limitation. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate: (i) the effect of movement-based interventions on movement patterns (muscle activation, lumbo-pelvic kinematics or postural patterns) of people with low back pain (LBP), and (ii) the relationship between changes in movement patterns and subsequent changes in pain and activity limitation. Methods. MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched from inception until January 2012. Randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials of people with LBP were eligible for inclusion. The intervention must have been designed to influence (i) muscle activity patterns, (ii) lumbo-pelvic kinematic patterns or (iii) postural patterns, and included measurement of such deficits before and after treatment, to allow determination of the success of the intervention on the lumbo-pelvic movement. Twelve trials (25% of retrieved studies) met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently identified, assessed and extracted data. The PEDro scale was used to assess method quality. Intervention effects were described using standardised differences between group means and 95% confidence intervals. Results: The included trials showed inconsistent, mostly small to moderate intervention effects on targeted movement patterns. There was considerable heterogeneity in trial design, intervention type and outcome measures. A relationship between changes to movement patterns and improvements in pain or activity limitation was observed in one of six studies on muscle activation patterns, one of four studies that examined the flexion relaxation response pattern and in two of three studies that assessed lumbo-pelvic kinematics or postural characteristics. Conclusions: Movement-based interventions were infrequently effec tive for changing observable movement patterns. A relationship between changes in movement patterns and improvement in pain or activity limitation was also infrequently observed. No independent studies confirm any observed relationships. Challenges for future research include defining best methods for measuring (i) movement aberrations, (ii) improvements in movements, and (iii) the relationship between changes in how people move and associated changes in other health indicators such as activity limitation

Atomoxetine improves patient and family coping in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in Swedish children and adolescents

This 10-week study assessed the efficacy of atomoxetine in combination with psychoeducation compared to placebo and psychoeducation in the improvement of Quality of Life in Swedish stimulant-naive children and adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. A total of 99 patients were treated with atomoxetine (49 patients) or placebo (50 patients) for 10 weeks and assessed regarding broader areas of functioning using the Quality of Life measures Child Health and Illness Profile-Child Edition (CHIP-CE), Family Strain Index [FSI; equivalent to the Family Burden of Illness Module used in the study], Appraisal of Stress in Child-Rearing (ASCR), Five to fifteen (FTF), “I think I am” (“Jag tycker jag är”), and Children’s Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) before and after the active treatment phase. Simultaneously, the patients’ parents participated in a 4-session psychoeducation program. A statistically significant difference in favor of atomoxetine was seen in the improvement from baseline to study endpoint for the CHIP-CE domains “Achievement” and “Risk avoidance”, for the FSI total score, for the ASCR section (I) domain “Child as a burden”, for all FTF domains except for “Language and Speech”, and for the CDRS-R total score. No difference between treatment groups was observed in the patient-assessed evaluation of self-esteem using the “I think I am” scale. Atomoxetine combined with psychoeducation had a positive effect on various everyday coping abilities of the patients as well as their families during 10 weeks of treatment, whereas the patients’ self-image and the parents’ image of the climate in the family were not significantly improved

Regional differences in lumbar spinal posture and the influence of low back pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Spinal posture is commonly a focus in the assessment and clinical management of low back pain (LBP) patients. However, the link between spinal posture and LBP is not fully understood. Recent evidence suggests that considering regional, rather than total lumbar spine posture is important. The purpose of this study was to determine; if there are regional differences in habitual lumbar spine posture and movement, and if these findings are influenced by LBP.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>One hundred and seventy female undergraduate nursing students, with and without LBP, participated in this cross-sectional study. Lower lumbar (LLx), Upper lumbar (ULx) and total lumbar (TLx) spine angles were measured using an electromagnetic tracking system in static postures and across a range of functional tasks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Regional differences in lumbar posture and movement were found. Mean LLx posture did not correlate with ULx posture in sitting (r = 0.036, p = 0.638), but showed a moderate inverse correlation with ULx posture in usual standing (r = -0.505, p < 0.001). Regional differences in range of motion from reference postures in sitting and standing were evident. BMI accounted for regional differences found in all sitting and some standing measures. LBP was not associated with differences in regional lumbar spine angles or range of motion, with the exception of maximal backward bending range of motion (F = 5.18, p = 0.007).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study supports the concept of regional differences within the lumbar spine during common postures and movements. Global lumbar spine kinematics do not reflect regional lumbar spine kinematics, which has implications for interpretation of measures of spinal posture, motion and loading. BMI influenced regional lumbar posture and movement, possibly representing adaptation due to load.</p