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. 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.Study purpose and background
Methods and results
Recent research has identified possible functional biomarkers in chronic, nonspecific back pain (CNSLBP) based on intervertebral kinematics. Although excessive IV-RoM is no longer regarded as a clear motion abnormality, some studies have found subtle kinematic measures such as mid-range laxity and motion sharing inequality to be greater in CNSLBP patients. We studied a group of such patients who were investigated following failed interventions in terms of these subtle measures. Thirty-seven patients (mean age 47.5 years SD10.87, F14, M23) with CNSLBP that had recently failed to respond to a range of treatments and 37 healthy controls received passive recumbent lumbar intervertebral flexion assessments following a standardised quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) protocol. Groups were compared for motion sharing inequality (MSI) and variability (MSV) (L2-S1), for level by level laxity and translation, and with reference ranges of these from a separate group of healthy controls (n=54).Purpose and background
Methods
Static plain radiographs at the end of uncontrolled bending are the current standard of care for measuring translatory slip in back pain patients. Quantitative fluoroscopy systems (QF) that employ standardised bending protocols have been found to improve precision and reduce dose, but comparative data are lacking. We compared 4 QF methods with static radiographs in a control population, calculating ranges, population variation and measurement errors over 6 weeks. Fifty-four healthy controls (F=22, M=23) received passive recumbent and active weight bearing QF screenings during controlled motion, plus still fluoro imaging in neutral, flexion and extension. The translatory slip of all levels from L2-S1 was determined for each condition using bespoke image tracking codes (Matlab) and pooled to provide means and ranges of variation (+/-1.96SD). The pooled measurement error, or minimal detectable change (MDC95), reflecting the intra subject repeatability over 6 weeks was calculated. Ranges of translation for each level (L2-S1), for each type of motion were also calculated.Purpose and background
Methods
Dynamic measurement of continuous intervertebral motion in low back pain (LBP) research in-vivo is developing. Lumbar motion parameters with the features of biomarkers are emerging and show promise for advancing understanding of personalised biometrics of LBP. However, measurement of changes over time inevitably involve error, due to subjects' natural variation and/or variation in the measurement process. Thus, intra-subject repeatability of parameters to measure changes over time should be established. Seven lumbar spine motion parameters, measured using quantitative fluoroscopy (QF), were assessed for intra-subject repeatability: Intervertebral range-of-motion (IV-RoM), laxity, motion sharing inequality (MSI), motion sharing variability (MSV), flexion translation and flexion disc height. Intra-subject reliability (ICC) and minimal detectable change (MDC95) of baseline and 6-week follow-up measurements were obtained for 109 healthy volunteers (54 coronal and 55 sagittal).Background
Methods
Despite the rise of back pain disability, objective mechanical assessment is generally lacking. Quantification of intervertebral kinematics using fluoroscopy provides objective measurement, but its use in clinical practice has not been assessed. This study reviewed cases referred to one UK site for lumbar spine quantitative fluoroscopic (QF) examinations and compared the reasons for referral with the findings reported. Fifty-seven consecutive referrals were reviewed. Patients underwent passive recumbent and/or weight-bearing active examinations in either the sagittal or both the sagittal and coronal planes. Data were extracted from anonymised QF reports and analysed for patient characteristics, reason for referral, working diagnosis at referral, level(s) of interest, previous surgical procedures and findings reported. Reports were also thematically analysed for key findings. Most patients had chronic back conditions of moderate or severe intensity. Most (38/57) were male, mean age 47 (SD 13.1) and mean complaint duration 5.4 years (0.3–32 years). They were referred mainly to investigate segmental instability (19/54) or spondylolisthesis (13/54) to inform either surgical referral or conservative management. Instability was reported in only 8/57 cases, but restricted and hypermobile levels in the same patient was also common (13/57). In 11 cases no mechanical abnormality was found.Purpose and Background:
Methods and Results:
The inability of intervertebral joints to resist perturbation due to laxity is traditionally measured in cadaveric specimens as their neutral zones (NZ). However in patients, quantitative fluoroscopic (QF) examinations substitute the Initial Attainment Rate for this. If these two measures correspond sufficiently, a clinical method for measuring segmental instability is possible. This study explored this by determining the criterion validity of the Initial Attainment Rate against the Dynamic NZ in an unloaded multilevel porcine spine. A 5-segment porcine spine was prepared and mounted on a motorised horizontal motion platform fitted with a digital force gage. Left and right bending moments were calculated about each intervertebral joint for 10 repeated side bends using an inverse dynamics method. The Dynamic NZs and Initial Attainment Rates in the first 10° of platform motion at each level were correlated. The Initial Attainment Rates were comparable to those found Background and Purpose:
Methods and Results:
The spread of upright MRi scanning is a relatively new development in the UK. However, there is a lack of information about whether weight bearing scans confer any additional useful information for low back conditions. Forty-five patient referrals to the upright MRI Department at the AECC for weight bearing lumbar spine scans between November 1st 2014 and June 30th 2015, and the resulting radiologists' reports were reviewed. Age, gender, clinical history, summary of findings, type of weight bearing scanning performed (sitting, standing, flexion, extension) were abstracted. All patients were scanned in a 0.5T Paramed MRopen scanner and all also received supine lumbar spine sagittal and axial scans. The patients comprised 18 females and 27 males, mean age 52 years, (SD 15.5). Thirty had leg pain, 6 of which was bilateral. In 15, a stenotic lesion was suspected. Other reasons for referral were; possible malignancy (1), effects of degenerative change (4), spondylolisthesis (2), fracture, (1), previous surgery (3), trauma (1), sacroiliitis (1) and instability (3). In 12/45 cases, reportable findings were more prominent, and sometimes only identifiable, on weight bearing scans, while in a further 4, the reverse was true. All but one of these involved disruption of the spinal or root canals. Eight of them also involved positional alignment.Purpose and Background:
Methods and Results:
To compare static and dynamic lumbar intervertebral ranges of motion (IV-RoM) in patients with chronic, nonspecific low back pain with upper and lower cut off values derived from healthy controls when variability and measurement errors were reduced. Measurements from functional radiographs suffer from high variability and measurement errors, making cut off values for excessive or insufficient motion problematical. This study compared maximum lumbar IV-RoM and maximum IV-RoM at any point in continuous motion sequences in patients with chronic, non-specific back pain with upper and lower cut off values for L2 to L5 from matched controls using quantitative fluoroscopy, where variation and measurement errors were reduced. Participants underwent passive recumbent examinations in the sagittal and coronal planes. Values based on were developed for both maximum and continuous motion in controls (n=40). Fishers exact test was used to analyse proportions of patients whose IV-RoMs exceeded reference values. For maximum IV-RoM in patients, there were no statistically significant differences between groups for the lower value. Only flexion at L4/5 significantly exceeded the upper value (p=0.03). For continuous IV-RoM, left L3/4 (p=0.01) and right L4/5 (p=0.01) were significantly below the lower cut off values. Both flexion L4/5 (p=0.05) and left L3/4 (p=0.01) were significantly above the upper cut off values.Purpose and Background:
Methods and Results:
Investigating inter-vertebral biomechanics in vivo using end-of-range imaging is difficult due to high intra subject variation, measurement errors and insufficient data. Quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) can reliably measure continuous motion but may suffer from contamination from uncontrolled loading and muscle contraction which compromises comparisons between studies and limits interpretation of results. This study presents the methods used to overcome these limitations. Forty chronic, non-specific low back pain (CNSLPB) patients and 40 matched controls underwent QF using a passive recumbent protocol which standardised the rate and range of trunk rotation, thus reducing intra-subject variation and excluding loading and muscle contraction factors. Left, right, flexion and extension were recorded from L2-5 and vertebral motion registered using image processing algorithms, Resultant continuous inter-vertebral rotation data were normalised to produce proportional contributions of each segment throughout the trunk bend The expected continuous proportional contributions at each level and direction were determined by calculating reference intervals (mean +/− 2SD) from controls. Prevalence of patients exceeding these ranges was determined and the association with CNSLBP calculated using Chi-squared analysis. Additionally the variance of the normalised data throughout the continuous motion for each direction was determined and summed to produce an combined number. This was used to measure the difference between patients and controls and entered into ROC curve analysis to investigate discrimination between patients and controls.Background and purpose
Methods and results
A preliminary study to compare continuous sagittal plane lumbar inter-vertebral kinematics in 10 healthy volunteers in recumbent and weight bearing configurations using quantitative fluoroscopy. There are no direct Study Purpose
Background
Patients’ who had consulted both mainstream and CAM practitioners reported the poorest health outcomes (EQ 5D = 0.55), followed by those who consulted just mainstream practitioners (EQ 5D = 0.61), and those who had consulted no one (EQ 5D = 0.72). The best health outcomes were reported amongst those who had just consulted CAM practitioners (EQ 5D =0.78). In multivariate analyses, the most powerful predictors of consulting both mainstream and CAM practitioners were working and having high levels of pain related disability.
The steering committee produced checklists of predictors and outcomes based on systematic reviews and a Delphi focus group. The international teams of experts coded each item for inclusion or exclusion, and recommended new items. This process was iterated twice to resolve disagreement between teams, and to receive scores for new items. The steering committee carried out a consensus synthesis and produced the final lists for predictors and outcome. Finally, the measurements for each factor were selected based on:
original systematic review recommendations from existing systematic review Recommendations from consensus statements and narrative reviews consultation with independent experts.
reported practice (based on a vignette of a patient with non-specific LBP) beliefs and attitudes about LBP(using the HC-PAIRS, Rainville et al 1995)
Patients who consulted complementary practitioners were more likely to be female, to be psychologically distressed, to work, to have left school aged over 16 and to have severe pain (p<
0.05 in all cases). Working was independently associated with consulting a complementary practitioner (Exp (B) = 2.0, p=0.00)
1) beliefs and attitudes about LBP 2) reported practice (using a clinical vignette)
A total of 3602 questionnaires were posted to simple random samples of UK registered chiropractors (n=611), osteopaths (n=1367) and physiotherapists (n=1624). Intervention packages were sent to consenting practitioners in March 2004, and the follow-up is planned for September 2004.
The objective of this study was to explore and identify perceptions, attitudes and beliefs held by practitioners from these three professional groups about their approaches to the care of LBP patients.
Preliminary categories of themes that emerged were: Evidence; Perceived Knowledge; Personality Characteristics; Professional Identity; The Patient; and Motivation. Of particular interest, practitioners seem to have mixed opinions with regard to basing their practice on evidence from external research.
Four male patients aged 33, 44, 45 and 52 years, who had undergone different spinal stabilisation procedures consisting of flexible stabilisation (DNESYS), posterior instrumented fusion, and anterior interbody fusion with facet fixation were investigated. Images were acquired and analysed in the same way except that a larger number of images (500 per screening) was utilised in each case. Four operated levels and 2 adjacent levels were analysed. All motion patterns were easily distinguishable from those of the normal subjects. The PLIF and DYNESYS stabilisations demonstrated no motion at the instrumented levels. The anterior inter-body fusion-transfacet fixation patient was shown to have developed a pseudarthrosis.
Explored patient’s or practitioners; beliefs and expectations, or both. Studied patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, which does not have a known systemic, inflammatory or malignant origin treated in primary or community care. The full review group resolved disagreements. Full text articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be obtained and coded further into non-randomised studies, randomised studies and qualitative studies. Data abstraction forms will be developed for each type of study. Data abstraction will be undertaken by two members of the group working independently.
Registration of the images of each vertebra by templates which are automatically tracked and whose output is converted to inter-vertebral kinematic parameters and averaged for display and reporting. Results are currently displayed as inter-vertebral angles throughout the motion that indicate whether or not solid fusion has been achieved. The Instrument Measurement Error is quantifiable and will vary with image quality, but can be improved by averaging. The technology is applicable to any imaging system of sufficient speed and resolution and may, for example, be used with MR in the future.
The traditional biomedical model of managing musculoskeletal problems, such as low back pain (LBP), tends to be pathology driven, in which the aim is to locate an objectively identified disturbance. Appropriate treatment is conceptualised as a physical intervention that will compensate for or correct the identified disturbance. There is growing appreciation of the need to consider other factors, e.g. the meaning of the problem to the patient and professional, his/her experiences, cognitions, motivations and preferences. Improving the understanding about the beliefs and expectations of patients and health professionals is fundamental, since a better understanding of these factors, and any mismatch between professionals and patients, will facilitate improved management. A multidisciplinary group of researchers (chiropractor, GP, osteopath, physiotherapist, psychologist, sociologist) have developed a collaborative research programme to investigate the decision-making processes in the care of patients with musculoskeletal pain. The programme uses mixed methods, including systematic reviews, survey research, focus groups and semi-structured interviews with patients and practitioners. Three studies have already started: patient and health professional beliefs and expectations for the causes and treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain. 1) Funded by the ARC, the purpose is to develop an understanding of the relationships between the different, professional and lay, theoretical frameworks used to diagnose and treat chronic musculoskeletal pain, and how these affect care. 2) Clinicians cognitions in apparently ineffective treatment of low back pain: funded by the ESRC, the purpose is to identify the reasons clinicians continue to treat LBP in the absence of improvement. Research on risk factors for the transition from acute to chronic LBP has concentrated on patient characteristics (psychological and social). It is possible that clinicians’ behaviour, advice and even treatment contribute to maintaining the problem indirectly. 3) Overcoming barriers to evidence-based practice (EBP) in LBP management in the physical therapy professions; funded by the Department of Physiotherapy Studies, Keele University, this study aims to explore the perceptions of physiotherapists, chiropractors and osteopaths, about the opportunities and threats of taking an EBP approach to LBP management and identify methods by which implementation of evidence can be facilitated. This collaboration is the first of its kind and was developed through shared interests in the decision-making processes in the healthcare of people with musculoskeletal pain. We are keen to share the ideas and work in progress with the wider musculoskeletal pain research community.
This study compared the effect of manipulation with a period of normal activity on the range of intervertebral sidebending. Thirty asymptomatic male volunteers were randomised to treatment or control groups. All were subjected to low-dose X-ray screening through 80° of passive lumbar spine side-bending. Motion sequences were digitised at a 5Hz sampling rate. The treatment group (n=16) had rotary manipulation to each lumbar linkage, followed by normal activity. The control group (n=14) had normal activity only. Both groups were then re-screened. Each vertebral pair was tracked and intervertebral rotation throughout the motion measured. Three subjects were analysed 10 times for reliability and all intervertebral motion was tracked twice. Twenty-one manipulated linkages and 10 controls met the reliability criteria. For non-manipulated segments the mean range at first screening was 14.2° (SD 1.39) and manipulated segments 12.8° (SD 3.81). The range of the non-manipulated segments increased by +0.9o and the manipulated segments by +0.4°. The change in manipulated segments was negligible and similar to controls, although the instrument can be sufficiently reliable to measure a 2° difference. The technique is sufficiently robust to determine if spinal manipulation changes these ranges in selected patients.