Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging findings among sciatica patients classified as centralizers or non-centralizers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare if the degenerative findings from MRI differ between the sciatica patients classified as centralizers (CEN) and non-centralizers (Non-CEN) according to the McKenzie Method of mechanical diagnosis and therapy. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. METHODS: Patients (N = 100) referred to a spine clinic of a single tertiary hospital for specialist consultation for sciatica. The McKenzie-based assessment was performed by the mechanical diagnosis and therapy-trained physiotherapists. Clinical data and prevalence of lumbar MRI findings were compared between the groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in leg pain intensity between the groups. The Non-CEN had significantly more intense back pain, mean 56 (SD 30) and were more disabled 44 (SD 15) compared to the CEN mean 41 (SD 25) and mean 31 (11), measured with a visual analogue scale (0-100), and the Oswestry Disability Index (0-100), respectively. The CEN had more severe degenerative findings on MRI than the Non-CEN: vertebral end-plate changes were 63% and 43%; mean Pfirrmann's disc degeneration lumbar summary score was 12.8, and 10.6; and severity score of total damage was 12.0 and 10.1, respectively. There were differences neither in disc contour changes nor nerve root stenosis on MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Sciatica patients classified as non-centralizers had significantly more severe back pain, and were significantly more disabled than centralizers, who instead had more severe degenerative findings on MRI. Thus, classification to non-centralizers by the McKenzie method seems not predict higher incidence of degenerative findings on MRI compared to centralizers.

Orthopaedic manual therapy, McKenzie method or advice only for low back pain in working adults: a randomized controlled trial with one year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of 2 manual therapy methods compared with one counselling session with a physiotherapist with "advice-only to stay active" for treating low back pain/leg pain and disability. DESIGN: A randomized, controlled trial with a 1-year follow-up. SUBJECTS: A total of 134 subjects with low back disorders. METHODS: Participants with acute to chronic first or recurrent low back pain, excluding those with "red flag" criteria, were assigned randomly to one of the 3 intervention groups: an orthopaedic manual therapy group (n=45), a McKenzie method group (n=52), and an "advice only to be active" group (advice-only) (n=37). Data on leg and low back pain intensity and disability (Roland-Morris Disability questionnaire) were collected at baseline, and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up points. RESULTS: At the 3-month follow-up point, significant improvements had occurred in all groups in leg and low back pain and in the disability index, but with no significant differences between the groups. At the 6-month follow-up, leg pain (-15 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) -30 to -1), back pain (effect: -15 mm; -27 to -4), and disability index (-4 points; -7 to -1) improved (p < 0.05) more in the McKenzie method group than in the advice-only group. At the 1-year follow-up, the McKenzie method group had (p=0.028) a better disability index (-3 points; -6 to 0) than did the advice-only group. In the orthopaedic manual therapy group at the 6-month and 1-year follow-up visits, improvements in the pain and disability index were somewhat better than in the advice-only group (p=0.067 and 0.068, respectively). No differences emerged between the orthopaedic manual therapy and McKenzie method groups in pain- and disability-score changes at any follow-up. CONCLUSION: The orthopaedic manual therapy and McKenzie methods seemed to be only marginally more effective than was one session of assessment and advice-only.

Interexaminer reliability of low back pain assessment using the McKenzie method.

STUDY DESIGN: A test-retest design was used. OBJECTIVE: To assess interexaminer reliability of the McKenzie method for performing clinical tests and classifying patients with low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Clinical methods and tests classifying patients with nonspecific low back pain have been based mainly on symptom duration or extent of pain referral. The McKenzie mechanical diagnostic and classification approach is a widely used noninvasive, low-technology method of assessing patients with low back pain. However, little is known about the interexaminer reliability of the method, previous studies having yielded conflicting results. METHODS: For this study, 39 volunteers with low back pain, mean age 40 years (range, 24-55 years), were blindly assessed by two physical therapists trained in the McKenzie method. The variability of two examiners for binary decisions was expressed by the kappa coefficient, and by the proportion of observed agreement, as calculated from a 2 x 2 contingency table of concordance. RESULTS: On the basis of pure observation alone, agreement among clinical tests on the presence and direction of lateral shift was 77% (kappa = 0.2; P < 0.248) and 79% (kappa = 0.4; P < 0.003), respectively. Agreement on the relevance of lateral shift and the lateral component according to symptom responses was 85% (kappa = 0.7; P < 0.000) and 92% (kappa= 0.4; P < 0.021), respectively. Using the repeated movements and static end-range loading strategy to define the centralization phenomenon and directional preference, agreement was 95% (kappa = 0.7; P < 0.002) and 90% (kappa = 0.9; P < 0.000), respectively. When patients with low back pain were classified into the McKenzie main syndromes and into specific subgroups, agreement was 95% (kappa = 0.6; P < 0.000) and 74% (kappa = 0.7; P < 0.000), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Interexaminer reliability of the McKenzie lumbar spine assessment in performing clinical tests and classifying patients with low back pain into syndromes were good and statistically significant when the examiners had been trained in the McKenzie method.