How Do Standing Neutral, Supine Lateral, Standing Flexion, and Standing Extension Radiographs Compare in Detecting the Presence and Magnitude of Stable and Dynamic Spondylolisthesis?

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend standing radiographs as the most appropriate imaging for detecting degenerative spondylolisthesis, although reliable evidence about the standing position is absent. To our knowledge, no studies have compared different radiographic views and pairings to detect the presence and magnitude of stable and dynamic spondylolisthesis. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the percentage of new patients presenting with back or leg pain with stable (3 mm or greater listhesis on standing radiographs) and dynamic (3 mm or greater listhesis difference on standing-supine radiographs) spondylolisthesis? (2) What is the difference in the magnitude of spondylolisthesis between standing and supine radiographs? (3) What is the difference in the magnitude of dynamic translation among flexion-extension, standing-supine, and flexion-supine radiographic pairs? METHODS: This cross-sectional, diagnostic study was performed at an urban, academic institution between September 2010 and July 2016; 579 patients 40 years or older received a standard radiographic three-view series (standing AP, standing lateral, and supine lateral radiographs) at a new patient visit. Of those individuals, 89% (518 of 579) did not have any of the following: history of spinal surgery, evidence of vertebral fracture, scoliosis greater than 30°, or poor image quality. In the absence of a reliable diagnosis of dynamic spondylolisthesis using this three-view series, patients may have had flexion and extension radiographs, and approximately 6% (31 of 518) had flexion and extension radiographs. A total of 53% (272 of 518) of patients were female, and the patients had a mean age of 60 ± 11 years. Listhesis distance (in mm) was measured by two raters as displacement of the posterior surface of the superior vertebral body in relation to the posterior surface of the inferior vertebral body from L1 to S1; interrater and intrarater reliability, assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients, was 0.91 and 0.86 to 0.95, respectively. The percentage of patients with and the magnitude of stable spondylolisthesis was estimated on and compared between standing neutral and supine lateral radiographs. The ability of common pairs of radiographs (flexion-extension, standing-supine, and flexion-supine) to detect dynamic spondylolisthesis was assessed. No single radiographic view or pair was considered the gold standard because stable or dynamic listhesis on any radiographic view is often considered positive in clinical practice. RESULTS: Among 518 patients, the percentage of patients with spondylolisthesis was 40% (95% CI 36% to 44%) on standing radiographs alone, and the percentage of patients with dynamic spondylolisthesis was 11% (95% CI 8% to 13%) on the standing-supine pair. Standing radiographs detected greater listhesis than supine radiographs did (6.5 ± 3.9 mm versus 4.9 ± 3.8 mm, difference 1.7 mm [95% CI 1.2 to 2.1 mm]; p < 0.001). Among 31 patients, no single radiographic pairing identified all patients with dynamic spondylolisthesis. The listhesis difference detected between flexion-extension was no different from the listhesis difference detected between standing-supine (1.8 ± 1.7 mm versus 2.0 ± 2.2 mm, difference 0.2 mm [95% CI -0.5 to 1.0 mm]; p = 0.53) and flexion-supine (1.8 ± 1.7 mm versus 2.5 ± 2.2 mm, difference 0.7 mm [95% CI 0.0 to 1.5]; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: This study supports current clinical guidelines that lateral radiographs should be obtained with patients in the standing position, because all cases of stable spondylolisthesis of 3 mm or greater were detected on standing radiographs alone. Each radiographic pair did not detect different magnitudes of listhesis, and no single pair detected all cases of dynamic spondylolisthesis. Clinical concern for dynamic spondylolisthesis may justify standing neutral, supine lateral, standing flexion, and standing extension views. Future studies could identify and evaluate a set of radiographic views that provides the greatest capacity to diagnose stable and dynamic spondylolisthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Lifetime Smoking History and Prevalence of Osteoporosis and Low Bone Density in U.S. Adults, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2010.

Background: Osteoporosis is common among older adults. Women are more likely to have osteoporosis than men. The prevalence varies with race/ethnicity, with the highest prevalence observed among non-Hispanic, Asian women. Prior studies identified a negative association between smoking and bone mineral density (BMD). The association between smoking and osteoporosis has not been investigated according to race/ethnicity. Materials and Methods: We included 4,226 U.S. adults aged 50 years or older with complete information on smoking history, BMD, and other independent variables from the 2005-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. Design-based multinomial logistic regression was utilized to estimate prevalence odds ratios (POR) of osteoporosis (T-score ≤ -2.5) and of low bone density (T-score between -1.0 and -2.5) in relation to lifetime smoking pack-years, stratified by sex and race/ethnicity. Results: Participants were 61.5 (standard error 0.21) years old on average and 48% women (n = 2,027). Among women, a smoking history ≥30 pack-years was positively associated with osteoporosis (POR: 2.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.42-4.06). Similar POR were observed among non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Mexican American women. However, POR for ≥30 pack-years and low bone density were positive but not statistically significant. Among men, null associations of smoking history, osteoporosis, and low bone density were observed, except for a positive association of ≥30 pack-years and low bone density among non-Hispanic Black men. Conclusion: Osteoporosis was twice as prevalent among women who smoked ≥30 pack-years than among women who never smoked, regardless of race/ethnicity. Smoking history and osteoporosis were not associated among men.

Protocol for mindfulness-oriented recovery enhancement (MORE) in the management of lumbosacral radiculopathy/radiculitis symptoms: A randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: Lumbosacral radiculopathy/radiculitis (LR) or "sciatica" is a commonly intractable sequelae of chronic low back pain (LBP), and challenges in the treatment of LR indicate that persistent pain may have both mechanical and neuropathic origins. Mindfulness-based interventions have been demonstrated to be effective tools in mitigating self-reported pain in LBP patients. This paper describes the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the effects of the specific mindfulness-based intervention Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE) on LR symptoms and sequelae, including mental health and physical function. Methods: Participants recruited from the Portland, OR area are screened before completing a baseline visit that includes a series of self-report questionnaires and surface electromyography (sEMG) of the lower extremity. Upon enrollment, participants are randomly assigned to the MORE (experimental) group or treatment as usual (control) group for 8 weeks. Self-reported assessments and sEMG studies are repeated after the intervention is complete for pre/post-intervention comparisons. The outcome measures evaluate self-reported pain, physical function, quality of life, depression symptoms, trait mindfulness, and reinterpretation of pain, with surface electromyography (sEMG) findings evaluating objective physical function in patients with LR. To our knowledge, this is the first trial to date using an objective measure, sEMG, to evaluate the effects of a mindfulness-based intervention on LR symptoms. Hypotheses: We hypothesize that MORE will be effective in improving self-reported pain, physical function, quality of life, depression symptoms, mindfulness, and reinterpretation of pain scores after 8 weeks of mindfulness training as compared to treatment as usual. Additionally, we hypothesize that individuals in the MORE group with abnormal sEMG findings at baseline will have improved sEMG findings at their 8-week follow-up visit.

A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial for Aerobic and Strengthening Exercises on Physical Function and Pain for Hip Osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Hip osteoarthritis (OA) limits lower extremity physical function. Exercise therapy may improve physical function and reduce pain in patients with hip OA. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to measure the effect of a structured hip-specific resistance and aerobic exercise program on physical function and self-reported pain in adults with hip OA. DESIGN: Pilot RCT. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty one adults with radiographic hip OA. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to a 3-month structured exercise intervention (n = 21) or a 3-month waitlist control (n = 10). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 6-minute walk test was the primary outcome measure. Self-reported physical function was assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical function subscale and pain visual analog scale (VAS). Measures of feasibility were assessed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: From baseline to 3 months, the median change from baseline in distance covered during the 6-minute walk test in the intervention group (49 m) was double that of the control group (22 m), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .13). Likewise, the WOMAC physical function subscale score median changes in the intervention group (5 points) were double that of the controls (2 points), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = .06). Median change in pain scores was slightly reduced in each group but not significantly different between groups (P = .53). CONCLUSION: Although no statistically significant between-group differences were found in this pilot RCT, improvements were seen in measures of physical function compared to controls. A larger RCT of this structured exercise program may be warranted.

Prevalence and Clinical Significance of Incidental Vertebral Marrow Signal Abnormality in Thoracolumbar Spine MRI.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the prevalence of incidental vertebral marrow signal abnormality (VMSA) in thoracolumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) ordered for the evaluation of back and/or leg pain and assess the clinical work-up for VMSAs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patients presenting with back pain are often referred for spine MRI for diagnostic evaluation. VMSA is most frequently found in the lumbar spine and is of clinical concern because it can represent malignancy. Standardized procedures for reporting and managing VMSAs do not exist. METHODS: The radiology database at the Oregon Health & Science University health system was queried to identify patients with thoracolumbar spine MRI scans performed between January 2014 and June 2016. Patients 16 years or older with MRIs ordered by providers at a multidisciplinary spine specialty clinic for the diagnostic evaluation of back and/or leg pain were included. Radiology reports were searched for keywords pertaining to VMSAs, such as "malignancy." Medical records of these patients were further reviewed for the clinical work-up and final diagnoses pertaining to the VMSA. RESULTS: The study sample included 1503 individual patients, of whom 65 (4%) had MRI radiology reports that described a VMSA. Thirty-one (48%) of the 65 patients with VMSAs had further evaluation recommended by radiology. Ten (32%) of these 31 patients were followed clinically without further diagnostic testing for the VMSA. Of the 65 patients with VMSAs, only one was diagnosed with malignancy (multiple myeloma). CONCLUSION: While VMSAs are not frequently found on thoracolumbar MRIs ordered to evaluate back and/or leg pain, there is a large amount of heterogeneity in how these abnormalities are documented and managed. This may indicate the need for clinical guidelines for the reporting and management of VMSAs detected on spine MRI and for improvement in communication between radiologists and ordering providers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

A Prospective Study of Back Pain and Risk of Falls Among Older Community-dwelling Men.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain is associated with increased fall risk among older men. However, the association of back pain, the most prevalent type of pain in this population, and fall risk is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a prospective investigation among 5,568 community-dwelling U.S. men at least 65 years of age from the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study (MrOS). Baseline questionnaires inquired about back pain and its location (such as low back), severity, and frequency in the past year. During 1 year of follow-up, falls were summed from self-reports obtained every 4 months. Outcomes were recurrent falls (≥2 falls) and any fall (≥1 fall). Associations of back pain and fall risk were estimated with risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from multivariable log-binomial regression models adjusted for age, dizziness, arthritis, knee pain, urinary symptoms, self-rated health, central nervous system medication use, and instrumental activities of daily living. RESULTS: Most (67%) reported any back pain in the past year. During follow-up, 11% had recurrent falls and 25% fell at least once. Compared with no back pain, any back pain was associated with elevated recurrent fall risk (multivariable RR = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1, 1.5). Multivariable RRs for 1, 2, and 3+ back pain locations were, respectively, 1.2 (95% CI: 1.0, 1.5), 1.4 (1.1, 1.8), and 1.7 (95% CI: 1.3, 2.2). RRs were also elevated for back pain severity and frequency. Back pain was also associated with risk of any fall. CONCLUSIONS: Among older men, back pain is independently associated with increased fall risk.

Understanding and managing the back pain of pregnancy.

Approximately 50% of all pregnant women experience back pain during pregnancy. The causes and risk factors associated with the back pain encountered during pregnancy continue to be evaluated. The key to evaluating and managing these patients is the history and physical examination. Recognizing characteristics of the frequently encountered back pain of pregnancy as well as uncommon sources of back pain during pregnancy is essential in establishing an accurate diagnosis and initiating prompt and effective management.