Altered postural sway in patients suffering from non-specific neck pain and whiplash associated disorder - A systematic review of the literature

To assess differences in center of pressure (COP) measures in patients suffering from non-specific neck pain (NSNP) or whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) compared to healthy controls and any relationship between changes in postural sway and the presence of pain, its intensity, previous pain duration and the perceived level of disability. Summary of Background data: Over the past 20 years, the center of pressure (COP) has been commonly used as an index of postural stability in standing. While several studies investigated COP excursions in neck pain and WAD patients and compared these to healthy individuals, no comprehensive analysis of the reported differences in postural sway pattern exists. Search methods: Six online databases were systematically searched followed by a manual search of the retrieved papers. Selection Criteria: Papers comparing COP measures derived from bipedal static task conditions on a force plate of non-specific neck pain and WAD sufferers to those of healthy controls. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Screening for final inclusion, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out with a third reviewer to reconcile differences

The differential effects of core stabilization exercise regime and conventional physiotherapy regime on postural control parameters during perturbation in patients with movement and control impairment chronic low back pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of the present study was to examine the differential effect of core stability exercise training and conventional physiotherapy regime on altered postural control parameters in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). As heterogeneity in CLBP population moderates the effect of intervention on outcomes, in this study, interventions approaches were used based on sub-groups of CLBP.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was an allocation concealed, blinded, sequential and pragmatic control trial. Three groups of participants were investigated during postural perturbations: 1) CLBP patients with movement impairment (n = 15, MI group) randomized to conventional physiotherapy regime 2) fifteen CLBP patients with control impairment randomized to core stability group (CI group) and 3) fifteen healthy controls (HC).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The MI group did not show any significant changes in postural control parameters after the intervention period however they improved significantly in disability scores and fear avoidance belief questionnaire work score (P < 0.05). The CI group showed significant improvements in Fx, Fz, and My variables (p < 0.013, p < 0.006, and p < 0.002 respectively with larger effect sizes: Hedges's g > 0.8) after 8 weeks of core stability exercises for the adjusted p values. Postural control parameters of HC group were analyzed independently with pre and post postural control parameters of CI and MI group. This revealed the significant improvements in postural control parameters in CI group compared to MI group indicating the specific adaptation to the core stability exercises in CI group. Though the disability scores were reduced significantly in CI and MI groups (p < 0.001), the post intervention scores between groups were not found significant (p < 0.288). Twenty percentage absolute risk reduction in flare-up rates during intervention was found in CI group (95% CI: 0.69-0.98).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this study core stability exercise group demonstrated significant improvements after intervention in ground reaction forces (Fz, Mz; g > 0.8) indicating changes in load transfer patterns during perturbation similar to HC group.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>UTRN095032158-06012009423714</p

The clinical course of low back pain: a meta-analysis comparing outcomes in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that the course of low back pain (LBP) symptoms in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) follows a pattern of large improvement regardless of the type of treatment. A similar pattern was independently observed in observational studies. However, there is an assumption that the clinical course of symptoms is particularly influenced in RCTs by mere participation in the trials. To test this assumption, the aim of our study was to compare the course of LBP in RCTs and observational studies. METHODS: Source of studies CENTRAL database for RCTs and MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and hand search of systematic reviews for cohort studies. Studies include individuals aged 18 or over, and concern non-specific LBP. Trials had to concern primary care treatments. Data were extracted on pain intensity. Meta-regression analysis was used to compare the pooled within-group change in pain in RCTs with that in cohort studies calculated as the standardised mean change (SMC). RESULTS: 70 RCTs and 19 cohort studies were included, out of 1134 and 653 identified respectively. LBP symptoms followed a similar course in RCTs and cohort studies: a rapid improvement in the first 6 weeks followed by a smaller further improvement until 52 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference in pooled SMC between RCTs and cohort studies at any time point:- 6 weeks: RCTs: SMC 1.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.0) and cohorts 1.2 (0.7to 1.7); 13 weeks: RCTs 1.2 (1.1 to 1.3) and cohorts 1.0 (0.8 to 1.3); 27 weeks: RCTs 1.1 (1.0 to 1.2) and cohorts 1.2 (0.8 to 1.7); 52 weeks: RCTs 0.9 (0.8 to 1.0) and cohorts 1.1 (0.8 to 1.6). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical course of LBP symptoms followed a pattern that was similar in RCTs and cohort observational studies. In addition to a shared 'natural history', enrolment of LBP patients in clinical studies is likely to provoke responses that reflect the nonspecific effects of seeking and receiving care, independent of the study design

Center of pressure excursion as a measure of balance performance in patients with non-specific low back pain compared to healthy controls: a systematic review of the literature

Over the past 20 years, the center of pressure (COP) has been commonly used as an index of postural stability in standing. While many studies investigated COP excursions in low back pain patients and healthy individuals, no comprehensive analysis of the reported differences in postural sway pattern exists. Six online databases were systematically searched followed by a manual search of the retrieved papers. The selection criteria comprised papers comparing COP measures derived from bipedal static task conditions on a force-plate of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) sufferers to those of healthy controls. Sixteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity in study designs prevented pooling of the data so only a qualitative data analysis was conducted. The majority of the papers (14/16, 88%) concluded that NSLBP patients have increased COP mean velocity and overall excursion as compared to healthy individuals. This was statistically significant in the majority of studies (11/14, 79%). An increased sway in anteroposterior direction was also observed in NSLBP patients. Patients with NSLBP exhibit greater postural instability than healthy controls, signified by greater COP excursions and a higher mean velocity. While the decreased postural stability in NSLBP sufferers further appears to be associated with the presence of pain, it seems unrelated to the exact location and pain duration. No correlation between the pain intensity and the magnitude of COP excursions could be identified

Outcome of non-invasive treatment modalities on back pain: an evidence-based review.

At present, there is an increasing international trend towards evidence-based health care. The field of low back pain (LBP) research in primary care is an excellent example of evidence-based health care because there is a huge body of evidence from randomized trials. These trials have been summarized in a large number of systematic reviews. This paper summarizes the best available evidence from systematic reviews conducted within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group on non-invasive treatments for non-specific LBP. Data were gathered from the latest Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. The Cochrane reviews were updated with additional trials, if available. Traditional NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, and advice to stay active are effective for short-term pain relief in acute LBP. Advice to stay active is also effective for long-term improvement of function in acute LBP. In chronic LBP, various interventions are effective for short-term pain relief, i.e. antidepressants, COX2 inhibitors, back schools, progressive relaxation, cognitive–respondent treatment, exercise therapy, and intensive multidisciplinary treatment. Several treatments are also effective for short-term improvement of function in chronic LBP, namely COX2 inhibitors, back schools, progressive relaxation, exercise therapy, and multidisciplinary treatment. There is no evidence that any of these interventions provides long-term effects on pain and function. Also, many trials showed methodological weaknesses, effects are compared to placebo, no treatment or waiting list controls, and effect sizes are small. Future trials should meet current quality standards and have adequate sample size