Aims

The presence of facet tropism has been correlated with an elevated susceptibility to lumbar disc pathology. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of facet tropism on chronic lumbosacral discogenic pain through the analysis of clinical data and finite element modelling (FEM).

Purpose. Cognitive Muscular Therapy (CMT) is a new treatment for low back pain which integrates psychological techniques for pain management alongside training to improve postural control. Rather than focus on postural alignment or strength, CMT aims to improve the regulation of postural tone (low-level activity which supports the body against gravity). This is achieved by teaching patients an awareness of compensatory paraspinal activation, which can be triggered by overactivity of the abdominal muscles. The aim of this study was to understand whether CMT could reduce symptoms associated with low back pain and improve paraspinal muscle activation. Methods and results. Fifteen patients with chronic low back pain received seven weekly sessions of CMT from a physiotherapist. Clinical data was captured at baseline and two weeks after the intervention using the Roland-Morris questionnaire and the pain catastrophising scale. Activation of the erector spinae muscle during walking was also measured at baseline and after the final intervention session. Change data were analysed using paired t-tests. There was a 75% reduction (p<0.001) in the Roland-Morris score from a mean (SD) of 9.3(2.9) to 2.3(2.6), along with a 78% reduction in pain catastrophising (p<0.002) from 16.6(13) to 3.7(4.8). Activation of the contralateral erector spinae muscles reduced by 30% (p<0.01) during the contralateral swing phase of walking. Conclusion. In this small sample, CMT delivered large clinical improvements and reduced activation of the low back muscles during walking. Larger randomised trials are now required to confirm whether CMT could outperform existing physiotherapy treatments for chronic back pain. Conflict of interest. No conflicts of interest. Source of funding. University of Salford

Background. Mobile apps have shown promise in helping people to self-manage conditions like chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, it is unclear who benefits most, why, and under what circumstances. This limits our understanding of how to maximize the potential of mobile app technology. Aim. This study aimed to test and refine programme theories about how mobile apps support people to self-manage CLBP in a real-world setting. The theories were based on a previously published realist review. Methods. A realist evaluation was conducted using one-to-one realist interviews by telephone with participants who had used the Curable app to self-manage their CLBP for three months. The interviews were guided by programme theories from the realist review. Analysis of the interviews used abductive and retroductive logic to create chains of inferences, which were then developed into context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs). These CMOCs offered causal explanations about who might benefit from a mobile app to self-manage CLBP, why and in what circumstances. Results. Ten interviews were conducted (nine with people with CLBP who trialled the app and one with a founding member of Curable LLC). Twenty CMOCs were created that identified key mechanisms such as agency, control and reassurance that interact with contextual factors such as acceptance, internal capacity, and a biopsychosocial approach to pain management. These factors influence whether a person with CLBP will benefit from a mobile app for self-management. Conclusions. Twenty CMOCs were created to support three programme theories centering around concepts of empowerment, burden of care, and timing. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. R Hunter's work was supported by the Inverness and Highland City-Region Deal Studentship Award [2018]. Presented at: 13th Congress of the European Pain Federation (EFIC), September 2023, Budapest, Hungary

Background. The association between lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration (LDD) and low back pain (LBP) is modest. We have recently shown that genetic propensity to pain is an effect modifier of the LDD-LBP relationship when LDD is defined as a summary score of LDD (LSUM), suggesting the association may be driven by individuals with the greatest genetic predisposition to pain. This study examined the association between individual spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-determined LDD features and LBP in subgroups defined by genetic predisposition to pain. Method. We developed a polygenic risk score (PRS) for “genetic propensity to pain” defined as the number of non-back pain locations (head, face, neck/shoulder, stomach/abdomen, hip, and knee) with duration ≥3 months in 377,538 UK Biobank participants of European ancestry. This PRS was used to stratify TwinsUK MRI samples (n=645) into four strata of genetic propensity to pain. We examined the association between LBP and MRI features of lumbar disc height, disc signal intensity, disc bulge, and osteophytes with adjustments for age, sex, PRS strata, interaction terms for each MRI feature x PRS strata, and twin status. Results. We found significant effect modification of the LDD-LBP relationship by genetic propensity to pain for the lumbar MRI features of disc height (p=0.03 for the interaction term with highest quartile of genetically-predicted propensity to pain) and disc signal intensity (p=0.001), but not for disc bulge and osteophytes. Conclusion. Genetic propensity to pain modifies the association between individual LDD features and LBP and should be considered in LBP clinical studies. Conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. No funding obtained. Acknowledgement. UKBB data were obtained under the project #18219. This paper is submitted to the Spine journal and is under review

Purpose and Background. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommend self-management for low back pain (LBP). Our recent narrative review on self-management needs revealed a consensus with respect to the critical components of self-management interventions. With mobile health advancements, apps offer innovative support for LBP management. This study aims to identify current apps for the self-management of LBP, assessing them for their quality, intervention content, theoretical approaches, and risk management approaches. Methods and Results. We identified 69 apps for LBP self-management from a systematic search in the UK iTunes and Google Play stores. The most recommended interventions are muscle stretching (n=51, 73.9%), muscle strengthening (n=42, 60.9%), and core stability exercises (n=32, 46.4%). The average MARS (SD) overall score for the included apps was 2.4 (0.44) out of a possible 5 points, with the engagement and information dimension scoring the lowest at 2.1. In terms of theoretical and risk management approaches, no apps offered a theoretical care model and all failed to specify the age group targeted; only one (1.4%) provided a tailored care approach; 18 (26.1%) included intervention progression; and 11 (15.9%) reported management safety checks. Conclusion. This study shows that app developers generally select interventions endorsed by CPGs. However, the application of a biopsychosocial care model is not being considered. Most of them are of low quality, lacking theoretical approaches to care and consideration of associated risks. It is essential to involve clinicians and patients in developing LBP self-management apps to improve the quality and related approach. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. No funding obtained. This study has been published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Background and study purpose. A recent systematic review with meta-analysis of eight randomised controlled trials concluded that Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) for low back pain might be effective in reducing disability, pain and fear-avoidance beliefs. However, the descriptions of a CFT intervention are not always clear. This study aimed to rate the replicability of the CFT interventions and control groups in the systematic review. Methods. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the study articles, protocols and appendices into Microsoft Excel using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. This checklist has 12 items to describe the ‘why’, ‘what’, ‘who’, ‘how’, ‘where’, ‘when and how much’, ‘tailoring’, ‘modifications’, and ‘how well’ for each intervention. We rated the replicability of the CFT interventions and control groups as ‘reported’, ‘partially reported’ and ‘not reported’ and resolved discrepancies by consensus. Results. No studies reported 100% of the TIDieR items; the mean ‘reported’ rating was 54% (range 33–67%) for the CFT interventions and 35% (range 8–67%) for controls. The six most replicable items were the same for both CFT and control groups. These were ‘brief name’ (CFT=100%; control=100%), ‘why’ (CFT=100%; control=50%), ‘how’ (CFT=100%; control=50%), ‘what procedures’ (CFT=88%; control=63%), ‘where’ (CFT=88%; control=75%) and ‘planned adherence’ (CFT=75%; control=38%). Items that were not sufficiently ‘reported’ for either CFT or control groups included ‘when and how much’, ‘tailoring’ and ‘adherence’. Conclusion. Incomplete descriptions of CFT interventions mean that clinicians and patients cannot implement those that have demonstrated effectiveness, and poor descriptions of control groups prevent researchers from replicating them in future studies. Conflict of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. No funding obtained

Background and Purpose. The UK's NIHR and Australia's NHMRC have funded two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if lumbar fusion surgery (LFS) is more effective than best conservative care (BCC) for adults with persistent, severe low back pain (LBP) attributable to lumbar spine degeneration. We aimed to describe clinicians’ decision-making regarding suitability of patient cases for LFS or BCC and level of equipoise to randomise participants in the RCTs. Methods. Two online cross-sectional surveys distributed via UK and Australian professional networks to clinicians involved in LBP care, collected data on clinical discipline, practice setting and preferred care of five patient cases (ranging in age, pain duration, BMI, imaging findings, neurological signs/symptoms). Clinicians were also asked about willingness to randomise each patient case. Results. Of 174 responses (73 UK, 101 Australia), 70 were orthopaedic surgeons, 34 neurosurgeons, 65 allied health professionals (AHPs), 5 others. Most worked in public health services only (92% UK, 45% Australia), or a mix of public/private (36% Australia). Most respondents chose BCC as their first-choice management option for all five cases (81–93% UK, 83–91% Australia). For LFS, UK surgeons preferred TLIF (36.4%), whereas Australian surgeons preferred ALIF (54%). Willingness to randomise cases ranged from 37–60% (UK mean 50.7%), and 47–55% (Australian mean 51.9%); orthopaedic and neuro-surgeons were more willing than AHPs. Conclusion. Whilst BCC was preferred for all five patient cases, just over half of survey respondents in both the UK and Australia were willing to randomise cases to either LFS or BCC, indicating clinical equipoise (collective uncertainty) needed for RCT recruitment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. No specific funding obtained for the surveys. DB, SA, AG and NEF have funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK (FORENSIC-UK NIHR134859); NEF, DB and SA have funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC FORENSIC-Australia GA268233). AG has funding from Orthopaedic Research UK (combined with British Association of Spine Surgeons and British Scoliosis Society) and Innovate UK. NEF is funded through an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant (ID: 2018182)

Background. A local authority approached us, for a cost-beneficial solution to their increasing low back pain referrals. We proposed developing a student-led clinic – an intervention delivered by students but supervised by clinicians. We then conducted scoping reviews on student-led clinics in the management of health conditions and on the self-management of back pain. The findings suggested that student-led self-management interventions for low back health should be feasible. The next step was to co-construct the intervention with key stakeholders. Co-Construction. A hybrid of Action Research and Design Science methodology was used to co-construct the intervention with five key stakeholder groups (council staff, managers and human resources, employee healthcare, students, and lecturers). Three rounds of focus groups explored the ‘problem’, the possible solutions, the process, and the content. Themes were taken from each of these focus groups and the similarities and differences were analysed. This analysis and subsequent synthesis with the evidence base created potential intervention models, which were discussed and refined with the stakeholder groups. Intervention. The proposed intervention is focused on providing evidence informed biopsychosocial support for work-relevant back pain, based on identifying obstacles and solutions to improve coping with back health at work. An onboarding workshop challenges positively their thinking around back pain and work. This is followed by up to three 1:1 sessions that support the individual to identify work-relevant back health goals and agree a plan to achieve them using techniques to facilitate behaviour change. Conclusion. The intervention is evidence informed and aims to address the prioritised needs of the stakeholders. Conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. National Health Service Education

Purpose and background. Low back pain (LBP), a leading cause of chronic disability, is associated with high and disproportionate socioeconomic costs. Clinical assessment and triage via the NHS 111 service aims to reduce pressure on the urgent and emergency care system. Studies show that many attend the emergency department (ED) against advice, when they could be better managed elsewhere. The aim of this research was to explore how patients with LBP perceive and interact with NHS 111, and how this may have influenced their decision to attend ED. Methods and Results. This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional, qualitative dataset of 47 patients (26M:21F, aged 23–79 years) purposively sampled with LBP, who attended 1 of 4 EDs in the UK in 2021, (during the pandemic). The participants took part in online, semi-structured interviews, mean duration 45-minutes (range 23–156 minutes), within six weeks of their ED visit. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Three key themes were identified: purpose, process and performance. The themes showed mixed understanding and low awareness of the purpose of NHS 111, despite its strong triage role. Long waits for call backs however, sometimes resulted in patients attending ED, along with previous negative perspectives and experiences. Conclusion. This research suggests enhanced visibility and knowledge of NHS 111 would increase its use by people with LBP. Further exploration comparing outcomes of callers to NHS 111 with those who seek care elsewhere, could help evaluate how NHS 111 can best help people with LBP and prevent unnecessary ED attendance. No conflicts of interest.  . Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Health Education England & National Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Background. Trunk muscles play an important role in supporting the spinal column. A decline in trunk muscle mass, as measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis (TMM–BIA), is associated with low back pain and poor quality of life. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to determine whether TMM–BIA correlates with quantitative and functional assessments traditionally used for the trunk muscles. Methods. We included 380 participants (aged ≥ 65 years; 152 males, 228 females) from the Shiraniwa Elderly Cohort (Shiraniwa) study, for whom the following data were available: TMM–BIA, lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and back muscle strength (BMS). We measured the cross-sectional area (CSA) and fat-free CSA of the paravertebral muscles (PVM), including the erector spinae (ES), multifidus (MF), and psoas major (PM), on an axial lumbar MRI at L3/4. The correlation between TMM–BIA and the CSA of PVM, fat-free CSA of PVM, and BMS was investigated. Results. TMMBIA correlated with the CSA of total PVM and each individual PVM. A stronger correlation between TMM–BIA and fat-free CSA of PVM was observed. The TMM–BIA also strongly correlated with BMS. Conclusion. TMM–BIA is an easy and reliable way to evaluate the trunk muscle mass in a clinical setting. Conflict of interest. None. Sources of funding. None

Purpose and background of the study. Self-management and behaviour change is at the core of back pain management. Despite the high-rate of recurrence and healthcare utilisation, clinical guidelines do not include guidance for clinicians on return consultations. This project aimed to identify primary care clinicians’ reported practices and experiences of delivering self-management advice for people returning with persistent low back pain (LBP), to inform future delivery of self-management care. Methods and Results. In this qualitative study involving 27 primary care clinicians, four focus groups and two semi-structure interviews were conducted online. GPs (n=5) and physiotherapists working in primary care roles (First contact practitioners n=7, community and interface roles n=7, and mixed roles n=8) in England and Scotland shared their experience of delivering self-management advice to people returning with persistent LBP. Video recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed with reflexive thematic analysis. Clinicians unanimously shared their frustrations identifying the challenges involved in supporting people who return with LBP. Helpful strategies to support self-management in return consultations were identified by clinicians in addition to service and system-level changes vital to optimise care. Patient-factors affecting delivery of care, lack of defined responsibility and challenges in meeting patients’ expectations illustrated the tensions that exist in return consultations. Conclusion. This novel study provides insight into the experiences and practices of the frontline primary care workforce seeing patients return with persistent or recurrent LBP. It identifies the tensions that exist between services, professional roles and between clinicians and patients regarding self-management. Important practice implications have been identified to improve information-sharing, agenda-setting, and exploring expectations. No conflicts of interest.  . Source of funding. Lisa Osborn-Jenkins is funded by University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS) Research & Development PhD Fellowship [GRT0723]

Background. Immersive virtual reality (VR) demonstrates potential benefits in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, few studies have investigated the feasibility and the acceptability of introducing immersive VR for use with patients with CLBP and in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Aim. To investigate immersive VR's feasibility, tolerability, and acceptability as a rehabilitation intervention for adult patients with CLBP and explore the views of relevant Health Care Practitioners (HCPs) in the KSA. Methodology and Methods. A multi-centre, mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design was adopted to test immersive VR's feasibility, tolerability, and acceptability. An uncontrolled feasibility trial was conducted. The immersive VR intervention involved a training session followed by three sessions over one week using commercially available hardware and software. Feasibility outcomes were collected from patients immediately post-intervention. Patients and HCPs were recruited for semi-structured interviews. Results. Thirty-three patients and three HCPs were recruited. The feasibility a priori criteria were met for recruitment, retention, dropout, completeness of questionnaire data, treatment compliance and fidelity. Adverse events included one who reported aggravation of tinnitus, whereas two experienced dizziness. Qualitative data suggested that entertainment and motivation were key enablers. Barriers included technological capability and HCPs’ perceptions that immersive VR was time-consuming. Conclusion. The results suggested that immersive VR was feasible, acceptable, and tolerable among patients with CLBP and HCPs in clinical settings in the KSA. Further research focusing on the effectiveness is warranted in this field. Conflicts of Interest. None. Sources of Funding. None. Trial registration number. ISRCTN14434517

Purpose and background. Although clinical guidelines recommend that low back pain (LBP) is best managed in primary or community care, in the UK and globally, LBP accounts for around 4% of emergency department (ED) attendances. Organising and delivering healthcare to be safe, effective, and acceptable requires hearing patients’ perspectives; this study therefore aimed to explore patients’ experiences of attending the ED for LBP. Methods and results. This was a multisite qualitative interview study with 47 adults (aged 23–79 years) who, in the past six weeks, had attended one of four UK NHS emergency departments for LBP (all types and durations). Purposive sampling was used to gain variation in the recruiting site, and LBP and demographic characteristics. Data were collected using individual, semi-structured, telephone interviews (median 45mins). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. We identified significant variation in patients’ experiences of ED care for LBP, which we argue reflects contrasting cultures of ED care. We present three cultures, emergency screening only, ‘cynicism and neglect’, and ‘kindness’; these cultures differ in how they navigate the tension between the ED remit and patients’ perceived needs of care. We draw on Bourdieu's notions of field and habitus and professional identity theory to help explain these findings. Conclusion. Our findings suggest unwarranted variation in ED care for LBP. Implications include the need for urgent access to primary and community care and clarity about best practice managing LBP in the ED; best practice guidance and strategies to implement this should be informed by notions of culture and professional identity. No conflicts of interest.  . Sources of funding. Health Education England & National Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Background. FORECAST is a prospective longitudinal cohort study exploring mechanism-based prognostic factors for pain persistence in sciatica. Here, we share an update on this largest deeply-phenotyped primary care sciatica cohort. Methods/results. Our cohort includes 180 people with sciatica (score >4 on Stynes’ Sum Score), aged 18–85, within 3 months of symptom onset. Psychosocial factors, self-reported sensory profiling, clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing (QST), biological samples (blood and skin samples), and Magnetic Resonance Neurography of lumbar nerve roots were collected at baseline. Pain persistence was determined at three and twelve months with the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index (SBI) and a numeric pain rating scale (NRS) as primary outcomes. Recruitment nears completion, with 160 participants enrolled to date. 127 and 96 participants have completed 3 and 12 months follow-up respectively. Overall, 56% of our cohort are female, with a mean age (SD) of 54.14yrs (16.57). Ethnicity data approximates local populations. SBI at baseline was (median [IQR]) 13[10-17], and interim longitudinal data shows stepwise improvement at 3 and 12 months. Baseline ‘average’ pain intensity was 5.56 (2.15) for leg pain, and 4.14(2.82) for low back pain (LBP). Overall, pain scores decreased at 3 and 12 months, with greater reductions in leg pain than LBP at 12 months. However, around 55–80% and 40–65% of people reported persistent pain at 3 and 12 months respectively. Conclusion. Leg pain severity was moderate and higher than LBP at baseline. All primary outcome measures demonstrate improvement over time, however 40–65% of patients report persistent pain at 12 months. Conflicts of interest. LR: Paid facilitation of post-graduate courses internationally. SK, MT, FP, KM, WS, CP, CR, SC: No conflicts of interest. GC: Editor in Chief of Health Psychology Review. Director of board of directors, MentalCHealth Care setting NoordWestVlaanderen. JF: Copyright holder of ODI (Oswestry Disability Index). Served on a data monitoring committee for a clinical trial of 2 different surgical approaches to cervical disc herniation (FORVAD). Member of HTA Prioritisation Committee B: Inside hospital Care from 2015-February 2019. Member of HTA Interventional Procedures Panel from 2010–2015. Trustee and board member of 3 spine related charities – Back to Back; British Scoliosis Research Foundation and BackCare. Expert instructed by both claimant and defendant solicitors in negligence and person injury cases. GB: Paid consultancy (RNA-seq) with Ivy Farm and Coding.bio. ABS: Paid post-graduate lecturing internationally. Co-chair NeupSig sciatica working group (unpaid). Sources of funding. This project is funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF) Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP), a co-funded initiative by UKRI (MRC, BBSRC, ESRC), Versus Arthritis, the Medical Research Foundation and Eli Lilly and Company Ltd (Grant MR/W027003/1). Additional funding has been received from the back to back charity to expand longitudinal components of the study. LR has received support with PhD fees from the CSP charitable trust. ABS is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Career Development Fellowship. (222101/Z/20/Z). WS is partly funded through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. FP is funded by a Dorothy Hodgkin Career Development Fellowship in Chemistry in association with Somerville College. GB is supported by the Wellcome Trust (223149/Z/21/Z) and Diabetes UK (19/0005984). GC and KRM are partly funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP) PAINSTORM (MR/W002388/1). The UKRI and Versus Arhthritis (APDP) are the major funders of FORECAST. All other funders provided either some people support, or funded projects with legacy data that we reuse

Background. Musculoskeletal disorders, including low back pain, affects 68% of UK physiotherapists across their career with patient handling considered a key risk factor. Manual handling training is mandatory for all allied health professionals, however there is limited research investigating whether professionals adopt recommended manual handling principles following training. Purpose of Study. To investigate spinal angles when facilitating sit-to-stand, and a turning manoeuvre in bed, comparing first-year physiotherapy students (who have not received manual handling training) with final-year physiotherapy students (who have received manual handling training). Methods. Cross-sectional pilot study (n= 20; 10 first-year, 10 final-year). All participants were exposed to a short training video outlining how to safely perform each manoeuvre. Retroreflective markers were attached to: L4, ASIS, PSIS, T12, C7, tragus and canthus. Spinal (neck, thoracic, lumbar and pelvic) angles were established via digital photographs using a bespoke MATLAB programme (MathWorks). A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to determine between group differences. Results. No statistically significant results were observed between first-year and final-year students for both manoeuvres (p<0.05), except for neck angle during the turning manoeuvre (final-year students demonstrating more upright postures, p=0.037). Interestingly, for the turning manoeuvre in bed it was noted that none of the participants adjusted the bed height. Conclusion. The results suggest that clinical experience and routine manual handling training may not have a significant effect on spinal posture, especially in relation to pelvic, lumbar and thoracic angles. Further work is needed to understand how training relates to adoption of manual handling principles in practice. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. None

Purpose and background. Understanding patients’ expectations of back pain treatment can help improve their experiences, adherence and outcomes. Patients typically expect a diagnosis and exercise-based physiotherapy, but often undervalue the role of psychological factors. This study explored patients’ expectations of outpatient physiotherapy treatment for back pain in primary care. Methods and Results. The design, a secondary analysis of a qualitative cross-sectional study, involved 25 patients (13M:12F), aged 20–81, referred with low back pain (duration 7 weeks to 9 years). This sample did not include patients with serious spinal pathologies, known psychological disorders, or those unable to communicate without assistance. Face-to-face interviews were undertaken in patients’ homes, which were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the six stages of thematic analysis outlined by Braun and Clarke. Patients expected a caring clinician and a strong therapeutic relationship, where they felt believed, openly communicated with and valued as an individual. Most patients expected a diagnosis and credible explanation for their pain. There was an almost equal split between those keen to take responsibility for their care and those who felt this was the clinicians’ role. Expectations of passive therapies were slightly higher in this study than existing research. Most patients were realistic about outcomes and expected treatment to reduce their pain, but not cure it. Conclusion. A positive experience mattered most to patients, valuing the relational aspects of their care more than the clinical content provided. Patients saw back pain through a biomedical lens, and most failed to recognise the role of psychosocial factors in their condition or treatment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Arthritis Research UK (now Versus Arthritis)

Statement of purpose of study and background. As the treatment of low back pain (LBP) continues to evolve, there is greater recognition of the importance of optimising the therapeutic relationship to better deliver improved patient outcomes. Contextual effects, such as communication, have been shown to influence the therapeutic relationship, but it is not known how these factors evolve over time. This study analysed interviews from two studies (one cross-sectional and one longitudinal) to explore patients’ and physiotherapists’ perspectives of treatment outcomes and experiences in episodes of LBP in the same dialogic space. The objective was to explore the alignment between these perceptions to identify factors that influence the therapeutic relationship over time. Summary of methods used and results. Two secondary thematic analyses were undertaken, one analysing cross-sectional data and the other analysing longitudinal data, from an existing data set from the programme: “Exploring the relationship between communication and clinical decision-making in physiotherapy consultations for back pain”. All data were thematically analysed and organised using a framework approach. Six themes emerged from the cross-sectional data reporting consistency of opinion in the initial consultation stages, but highlighting inadequate patient involvement in shared decision making. Four main themes emerged from the longitudinal data, all of which reported interactional fears and anxieties identified on both the parts of the patient and the physiotherapist. Conclusion. These findings suggest that failing to involve the patient in adequately personalised treatment from the initial consultation may lead to diagnosis hunting and stereotyping behaviours within the therapeutic relationship, in turn leading to increased health resource usage. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of Funding. The primary data set was collected in a research programme funded by Arthritis Research UK (now Versus Arthritis)

Background. Chronic low back pain is strongly linked to degeneration of the intervertebral disc (IVD), which currently lacks any targeted treatments. This study explores NPgel, a biomaterial combined with notochordal cells (NC), developmental precursor cells, as a potential solution. NCs, known for anti-catabolic effects on IVD cells, present a promising avenue for regenerating damaged IVD tissue. Methods. Bovine IVDs underwent enzymatic degeneration before NPgel (+/- NC) injection. Degenerated bovine IVDs were cultured under biomechanical loading for 21 days. Histology and immunohistochemistry assessed NC survival, phenotype, and matrix production. Within an in vivo sheep pilot study, NPgel (+/- NC) was injected into degenerated IVDs, blood was taken, and immune cell activation was monitored via flow cytometry over three months post-injection. Results. Within the ex vivo model, IVDs injected with NPgel (+/- NC) exhibited increased matrix expression and deposition. Viable NCs were detected post-culture, indicating survival and matrix production. In the in vivo model, NPgel injection into sheep IVDs did not significantly increase activation of immune cells compared to controls, suggesting no systemic inflammatory effects. Conclusion. NPgel, combined with NCs, shows promise for IVD regeneration. Ex vivo findings indicate NPgel supports NC survival and matrix production. Moreover, in vivo results demonstrate the absence of systemic immunogenic responses post-NPgel injection. This suggests NPgel's potential as a carrier for NCs in IVD regeneration therapy. These findings underscore NPgel's candidacy for further investigation in addressing chronic low back pain associated with IVD degeneration. Subsequent research, including long-term efficacy and safety evaluations, is imperative for clinical translation. Conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. iPSpine, grant # 825925, Horizon 2020

Study purpose and background. Kinematic variables have been identified as potential biomarkers for low back pain patients; however, an in-depth comparison between chronic (n=22), acute (n=15), and healthy controls (n=136) has not been done. This retrospective data analysis compared intervertebral lumbar motion parameters, angular range of motion, translation, maximum disc height, motion share inequality (MSI) and variability (MSV), and laxity, between these groups. Methods and results. Kinematic parameters were determined using video tracking techniques utilising quantitative fluoroscopy (QF), during both weight-bearing and recumbent controlled sagittal bending tasks. Data was analysed for normality, and appropriate statistical tests were applied to determine differences between groups. There were no significant differences between the groups for age, height, weight and sex. Whilst few differences were found between acute and healthy groups, differences were shown between both chronic and healthy, and acute and chronic groups for all six parameters. Of particular note were examples of differences in the motion share parameters between the acute and chronic populations, with an increased MSI in the chronic group during recumbent flexion, and MSV during recumbent extension, and inversely an increase in MSV in the acute group during weight-bearing flexion. Conclusion. Analysis of intervertebral lumbar motion provides valuable insights into kinematic differences between chronic, acute, and healthy control populations. These findings suggest that there is variation between the groups which is knowledge that may benefit management strategies. Further exploration of the time varying data is warranted to explore how such differences may relate to the motion share inequalities and variability shown. Conflicts of Interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of Funding. No funding obtained

Background. Embodiment- and distraction-based approaches to immersive virtual reality (IVR) show promise in treating persistent low back pain (PLBP). However, which approach is more effective is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the impact of distraction- and embodiment-based IVR on pain processing and patient-reported outcome measures in PLBP. Method. Individuals with PLBP were randomised to receive eight sessions of either distraction- or embodiment-based IVR over two weeks. Outcome measures were evaluated at baseline and after the eighth session. Pain processing was evaluated using conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation (TS). Results. Three participants (n=2 embodiment, n=1 distraction) have completed all eight IVR sessions. Preliminary results indicate a decrease from pre to post-intervention in Numerical Pain Rating Scale score (pre: 5/10, 6/10, 5/10; post: 2/10, 5/10, 2/10) and Pain Catastrophising Scale score (pre: 34/52, 11/52, 38/52; post: 11/52, 8/52, 12/52), with no clear trend in other self-reported measures (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, Oswestry low back disability questionnaire, fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire, Tampa scale of kinesiophobia). Preliminary results suggest a potential increase in NPRS absolute values from pre- to post-intervention in CPM (pre: -2.7, -2.3, -2.0; post: -3.3, -2.0, -4.3) and TS (pre-1.2, 2.5, 2.4; post: 1.4, 2.5, 3.1). Conclusion. Eight sessions of IVR may reduce pain severity and pain catastrophising in people with PLBP and may increase the efficacy of endogenous pain modulatory systems. Data collection is ongoing to compare the effect of distraction- and embodiment-based IVR. Conflicts of Interest. There are no conflicts of interest. Sources of Funding. This project is funded by the Saudi Arabia Cultural Bureau