Validación de test de flexión-relajación para definir un déficit lumbar con electrodos tetrapolares / Validation of the flexion-relaxation test to define a lumbar deficit with tetrapolar electrodes

Introducción y objetivo: Obtener un nuevo punto de corte (PC) para un test de flexión-relajación (FR) lumbar efectuado con electrodos (e.) tetrapolares, desde valores ya definidos con dispositivos bipolares.Materiales y métodosLa muestra del estudio consta de 47 pacientes en situación de incapacidad temporal por dolor lumbar (DL). Fueron evaluados mediante un test de dinamometría isométrica, una prueba cinemática y una valoración del fenómeno FR.Se plantean dos experimentos con curvas ROC. El primero, con 47 pacientes que efectuaron de modo consecutivo el test FR con ambos tipos de electrodos, utilizándose como variable de clasificación el punto de corte conocido para los e. bipolares (2,49uV). En el segundo, con los datos de la EMGs registrados con e. tetrapolares en 17 pacientes, se efectúa un test de DeLong que compara las 2 curvas ROC que construimos, por un lado, al clasificar la muestra desde pruebas de dinamometría y cinemática, y por el otro, al clasificarlos con los valores de la EMGs bipolar.ResultadosUn total de 34 pacientes completaron adecuadamente las valoraciones del primer experimento y 17 pacientes el segundo. El primer estudio arroja un punto de corte de 1,2uV, con un AUC del 87,7%; sensibilidad 84,2% y especificidad 80%. El segundo muestra un PC para los e. bipolares de 1,21uV (AUC 87,5%) y para los e. tetrapolares de 1,43 (AUC 82,5%) con un test de DeLong sin diferencias significativas entre ambas curvas (p>0,4065).ConclusionesLa metodología de validación con curvas ROC ha permitido obtener un nuevo PC para la prueba FR de modo práctico, simplemente simultaneando ambos test sobre el mismo grupo de pacientes hasta obtener una muestra significativa. (AU)

Introduction and objective: To obtain a new cut-off point (CP) for a lumbar flexion-relaxation (RF) test established with tetrapolar (e.) electrodes, from values already defined with bipolar devices.Materials and methodsThe study sample consists of 47 patients in a situation of temporary disability due to low back pain (DL). They were evaluated by means of an isometric dynamometry test, a kinematic test and an assessment of the FR phenomenon.Two experiments with ROC curves are proposed. The first, with 47 patients who consecutively performed the RF test with both types of electrodes, using the cut-off point (CP) known for the e. bipolar (2.49μV). In the second, with the EMG data recorded with e. tetrapolar in 17 patients, a DeLong test was performed that compares the 2 ROC curves that were constructed on the one hand, by classifying the sample from dynamometry and kinematic tests, and on the other, by classifying them with the bipolar EMG values.ResultsA total of 34 patients adequately completed the evaluations of the first experiment and 17 patients the second. The first study shows a cut-off point of 1.2μV, with an AUC of 87.7%; Sensitivity 84.2% and Specificity 80%. The second shows a PC for e. bipolars of 1.21μV (AUC 87.5%) and for e. tetrapolar values of 1.43 (AUC 82.5%) with a DeLong test without significant differences between both curves (p>0.4065).ConclusionsThe validation methodology with ROC curves has made it possible to obtain a new PC for the RF test in a practical way, simply by simultaneously performing both tests on the same group of patients until a significant sample is obtained. (AU)

One spinal manipulation session reduces local pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability in individuals with chronic low back pain: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain. However, the effects of spinal manipulation have contradictory findings compared to placebo intervention. Therefore, this study investigated the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and postural stability in people with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Second, we investigated the immediate effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pain intensity and the interference of the participant beliefs about which treatment was received in the PPT, postural stability, and pain intensity. METHODS: A two-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was performed. Eighty participants with nonspecific cLPB and a minimum score of 3 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale received one session of lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40) or simulated lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40). Primary outcomes were local and remote PPTs and postural stability. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and participant's perceived treatment allocation. Between-group mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated the treatment effect. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to assess whether beliefs about which treatment was received influenced the outcomes. RESULTS: Participants had a mean (SD) age of 34.9 (10.5) years, and 50 (62.5%) were women. Right L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.55 (95%CI 0.19 to 0.90)], left L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.45 (95%CI 0.13 to 0.76)], right L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.41 (95%CI 0.05 to 0.78)], left L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.57 (95%CI 0.15 to 0.99)], left DT [between-group mean difference = 0.35 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.65)], and right LE [between-group mean difference = 0.34 (95%CI 0.08 to 0.60)] showed superior treatment effect in the spinal manipulation group than sham. Neither intervention altered postural stability. Self-reported pain intensity showed clinically significant decreases in both groups after the intervention. A higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group achieved more than two points of pain relief (spinal manipulation = 90%; sham = 60%). The participants' perceived treatment allocation did not affect the outcomes. CONCLUSION: One spinal manipulation session reduces lumbar pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability compared to a sham session in individuals with cLPB. Self-reported pain intensity lowered in both groups and a higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group reached clinically significant pain relief. The participant's belief in receiving the manipulation did not appear to have influenced the outcomes since the adjusted model revealed similar findings.

Iatrogenic rectal perforation after coccygeal radiofrequency ablation.

Coccygodynia (pain of the coccygeal bone) can be treated locally with anti-inflammatory drugs, local steroid injections, surgical removal of the coccyx and, more recently, with radiofrequency thermal ablation. Complications, such as perforation of the colon, can occur as a consequence of the close relationship between the rectum and the sacrococcyx and with the heat from the thermal ablation expanding to the surrounding tissue causing delayed damage with severe consequences. The treatment of this complication requires the combined effort of the gastrointestinal surgeon as well as a gastroenterologist. In this case report, we describe the treatment of this complication and the clinical course after a perforation of the rectum due to thermal ablation of the coccyx to treat long-standing coccygodynia.

MyBack - effectiveness and implementation of a behavior change informed exercise programme to prevent low back pain recurrences: a hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common health condition and the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Most LBP episodes have a favourable prognosis, but recurrences within a year are common. Despite the individual and societal impact related to LBP recurrences, there is limited evidence on effective strategies for secondary prevention of LBP and successful implementation of intervention programmes in a real-world context. The aim of this study is to analyse the effectiveness of a tailored exercise and behavioural change programme (MyBack programme) in the secondary prevention of LBP; and evaluate acceptability, feasibility and determinants of implementation by the different stakeholders, as well as the implementation strategy of the MyBack programme in real context. METHODS: This protocol describes a hybrid type I, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of MyBack programme in the context of primary health care. The Behaviour Change Wheel framework and FITT-VP principles will inform the development of the behaviour change and exercise component of MyBack programme, respectively. Patients who have recently recovered from an episode of non-specific LBP will be randomly assigned to MyBack and usual care group or usual care group. The primary outcome will be the risk of LBP recurrence. The secondary outcomes will include disability, pain intensity, musculoskeletal health, and health-related quality of life. Participants will be followed monthly for 1 year. Costs data related to health care use and the MyBack programme will be also collected. Implementation outcomes will be assessed in parallel with the effectiveness study using qualitative methods (focus groups with participants and health providers) and quantitative data (study enrolment and participation data; participants adherence). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the effectiveness and implementation of a tailored exercise and behaviour change programme for prevention of LBP recurrences. Despite challenges related to hybrid design, it is expected that data on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation of the MyBack programme may contribute to improve health care in patients at risk of LBP recurrences, contributing to direct and indirect costs reduction for patients and the health system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05841732.

Basivertebral Nerve Radiofrequency Ablation (Intracept): Procedural Technique.

Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation is indicated for the treatment of chronic vertebrogenic low back pain with failure of at least 6 months of conservative treatment. This article details patient positioning and setup, step-by-step instructions for the procedure, and postoperative management. Pearls and pitfalls are also discussed. In addition, an instructional procedure video accompanies this paper and can be found online (at https://vimeo.com/791578426/de0e90cfbe).

The effects of a prehabilitation programme based on therapeutic exercise, back care education, and pain neuroscience education in patients scheduled for lumbar radiculopathy surgery: A study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this present clinical trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of a multicomponent prehabilitation programme administered through educational videos versus another programme based on written exercise recommendations, in patients scheduled for lumbar radiculopathy surgery. This study will be a multicentre, controlled, randomised, parallel clinical trial. One hundred participants undergoing lumbar radiculopathy surgery who meet the established inclusion criteria will be recruited at different Spanish hospitals. The experimental group will follow a 4-week prehabilitation programme combining therapeutic exercise, back care education, and pain neuroscience education delivered through videos designed for consumption at home. The control group will be provided with written instructions to perform therapeutic exercises during the same prehabilitation time period. The primary outcome of the study will be disability, assessed using the Spanish version of the Oswestry Disability Index. The secondary outcomes will be pain perception, health-related quality of life, fear avoidance, kinesiophobia, catastrophising, anxiety, depression, physical activity, and the treatment satisfaction of the patients. This study will provide evidence for the effectiveness of a home-based multicomponent prehabilitation programme that addresses some already identified barriers to patient attendance in face-to-face programmes. Understanding the medium and long-term effects of pre-surgery lumbar muscle training and pain neuroscience education administered via instructional videos watched by patients at home, will help improve the design of prehabilitation programmes in this population while also improving the cost-effectiveness of such interventions.

Lower back pain and associated factors among weavers working in Bahir Dar City, Northwest Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study.

Background: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are widespread among workers of informal small-scale enterprises. Specifically, lower back pain is a prevalent occupational health problem across various industries, including weaving factories. Lower back pain significantly impairs the functioning, performance, and productivity of weavers. However, information on the prevalence and associated factors of low back pain among weavers of Bahir Dar City and nationwide is scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the prevalence and associated factors of lower back pain among weavers working in Bahir Dar City. Method: A multicentered institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted on 403 weavers in Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia, from April to May 2023 using a structured face-to-face interview questionnaire. Samples were proportionally allocated to each institution, and study participants were selected using a simple random sampling technique. Variables with a P-value < 0.25 in the bivariate logistic regression were adopted for the multivariate logistic regression analysis after verifying the model fitness. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and a P-value < 0.05 were considered to identify the associated factors of lower back pain among weavers. Result: The results revealed that the overall annual prevalence of lower back pain was 63.5% (95% CI = 58.8-68.5). Longer working hours [AOR = 2.580 (CI = 1.517-4.384)], lack of back support [AOR = 1.938 (CI = 2.089-3.449)], repetitive movement of the back during weaving [AOR = 5.940 (CI = 2.709-13.02)], awkward posture [AOR = 2.915 (CI = 1.677-5.065), static working posture [AOR = 4.505 (CI = 2.298-8.831)], and job stress [AOR = 3.306 (CI = 1.896-5.765)] were significantly associated with lower back pain among weavers. Conclusions: Lower back pain among weavers was found to be highly prevalent. Working longer hours, lack of back support, repetitive movement of the back, awkward posture, static posture, and job stress were significantly associated with lower back among weavers. The study recommends prompt interventions on weavers to ensure that they use sitting support, weave for <8 h per day, change positions every 2 h, reduce job-related stress, and minimize task repetition, thereby enhancing their working conditions and minimizing the occurrence of lower back pain.

Effectiveness of a pain neuroscience education programme on the physical activity of patients with chronic low back pain compared with a standard back school programme: protocol for a randomised controlled study (END-LC).

INTRODUCTION: Education is recognised as an effective and necessary approach in chronic low back pain. Nevertheless, data regarding the effectiveness of education in promoting physical activity in the medium term or long term are still limited, as are the factors that could lead to successful outcomes. Our study aims to assess the effectiveness of a pain neuroscience education programme compared with traditional back school on physical activity 3 months and 1 year after educational sessions coupled with a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme. Additionally, we seek to evaluate the effects of these educational interventions on various factors, including pain intensity and psychobehavioural factors. Finally, our goal is to identify the determinants of success in educational sessions combined with the rehabilitation programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will involve 82 adults with chronic low back pain. It will be a monocentric, open, controlled, randomised, superiority trial with two parallel arms: an experimental group, 'pain neuroscience education', and a control group, 'back school'. The primary outcome is the average number of steps taken at home over a week, measured by an actigraph. Secondary outcomes include behavioural assessments. Descriptive and inferential analysis will be conducted. Multivariate modelling will be performed using actimetric data and data from the primary and secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Committee for Personal Protection of Ile de France VII (CPP) gave a favourable opinion on 22 June 2023 (National number: 2023-A00346-39). The study was previously registered with the National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (IDRCB: 2023-A00346-39). Participants signed an informed consent during the inclusion visit. This protocol is the version submitted to the CPP entitled 'Protocol Version N°1 of 03/29/2023'. The results of the study will be presented nationally and internationally through conferences and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05840302.

Effectiveness of in-group versus individually administered pain neuroscience education on clinical and psychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled study protocol.

Objective: (1) This trial will compare the clinical and psychosocial effectiveness of in-group and individually pain neuroscience education (PNE) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). In addition, (2) the influence of social determinants of health on post-treatment results will be analyzed. Methods: A three-arm randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Sixty-nine participants with CLBP will be recruited in a 1:1:1 ratio. Participants, assessor, and statistician will be blinded to group assignment. The PNE intervention will be adapted to the context of the participants. An experimental group (n = 33) will receive PNE in an in-group modality, the other experimental group (n = 33) will receive PNE in an individually modality and the control group (n = 33) will continue with usual care. Additionally, participants will be encouraged to stay active by walking for 20-30 min 3-5 times per week and will be taught an exercise to improve transversus abdominis activation (bracing or abdominal following). The outcome measures will be fear avoidance and beliefs, pressure pain threshold, pain self-efficacy, catastrophizing, pain intensity, and treatment expectation. Outcome measures will be collected at one-week before intervention, immediately post-intervention, and four-weeks post-intervention. Conclusion: The innovative approach of PNE oriented to fear beliefs proposed in this study could broaden the application strategies of this educational therapeutic modality. Impact. Contextualized PNE delivered by physical therapist could be essential to achieve a good cost-effectiveness ratio of this intervention to improve the clinical condition of people with CLBP.

Pay-for-performance and low back pain with interaction of overwork: findings from the cross-sectional Korean working conditions survey.

Background: Pay-for-performance (PFP) is a type of incentive system where employees receive monetary rewards for meeting predefined standards. While previous research has investigated the relationship between PFP and health outcomes, the focus has primarily been on mental health. Few studies have explored the impact of PFP on specific physical symptoms like pain. Methods: Data from the Korean Working Conditions Survey (KWCS) was analyzed, encompassing 20,815 subjects with information on PFP and low back pain (LBP). The associations between types of base pay (BP) and PFP with LBP were examined using multivariate logistic regression models, taking into account a directed acyclic graph (DAG). The interaction of overtime work was further explored using stratified logistic regression models and the relative excess risk for interaction. Results: The odds ratio (OR) for individuals receiving both BP and PFP was statistically significant at 1.19 (95% CI 1.04-1.35) compared to those with BP only. However, when the DAG approach was applied and necessary correction variables were adjusted, the statistical significance indicating a relationship between PFP and LBP vanished. In scenarios without PFP and with overtime work, the OR related to LBP was significant at 1.54 (95% CI 1.35-1.75). With the presence of PFP, the OR increased to 2.02 (95% CI 1.66-2.45). Conclusion: Pay-for-performance may influence not just psychological symptoms but also LBP in workers, particularly in conjunction with overtime work. The impact of management practices related to overtime work on health outcomes warrants further emphasis in research.

Rehabilitation of back pain in the pediatric population: a mixed studies systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of children and adolescents experience back pain. However, a comprehensive systematic review on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate benefits and harms of rehabilitation interventions for non-specific low back pain (LBP) or thoracic spine pain in the pediatric population. METHODS: Seven bibliographic electronic databases were searched from inception to June 16, 2023. Moreover, reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews, three targeted websites, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched. Paired reviewers independently conducted screening, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data related to study characteristics, methodology, subjects, and results. Certainty of evidence was evaluated based on the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We screened 8461 citations and 307 full-text articles. Ten quantitative studies (i.e., 8 RCTs, 2 non-randomized clinical trials) and one qualitative study were included. With very low to moderate certainty evidence, in adolescents with LBP, spinal manipulation (1-2 sessions/week over 12 weeks, 1 RCT) plus exercise may be associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing clinically important pain reduction versus exercise alone; and group-based exercise over 8 weeks (2 RCTs and 1 non-randomized trial) may reduce pain intensity. The qualitative study found information provided via education/advice and compliance of treatment were related to effective treatment. No economic studies or studies examining thoracic spine pain were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal manipulation and group-based exercise may be beneficial in reducing LBP intensity in adolescents. Education should be provided as part of a care program. The overall evidence is sparse. Methodologically rigorous studies are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019135009 (PROSPERO).

Bacterial growth in patients with low back pain and Modic changes: protocol of a multicentre, case-control biopsy study.

INTRODUCTION: Bacterial infection and Modic changes (MCs) as causes of low back pain (LBP) are debated. Results diverged between two randomised controlled trials examining the effect of amoxicillin with and without clavulanic acid versus placebo on patients with chronic LBP (cLBP) and MCs. Previous biopsy studies have been criticised with regard to methods, few patients and controls, and insufficient measures to minimise perioperative contamination. In this study, we minimise contamination risk, include a control group and optimise statistical power. The main aim is to compare bacterial growth between patients with and without MCs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre, case-control study examines disc and vertebral body biopsies of patients with cLBP. Cases have MCs at the level of tissue sampling, controls do not. Previously operated patients are included as a subgroup. Tissue is sampled before antibiotic prophylaxis with separate instruments. We will apply microbiological methods and histology on biopsies, and predefine criteria for significant bacterial growth, possible contamination and no growth. Microbiologists, surgeons and pathologist are blinded to allocation of case or control. Primary analysis assesses significant growth in MC1 versus controls and MC2 versus controls separately. Bacterial disc growth in previously operated patients, patients with large MCs and growth from the vertebral body in the fusion group are all considered exploratory analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Norway (REC South East, reference number 2015/697) has approved the study. Study participation requires written informed consent. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03406624). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences and patient fora. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03406624.

Cryoneurolysis versus radiofrequency ablation outcome on pain experience in chronic low back pain (COPE): a single-blinded randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: A comparison of cryoneurolysis or radio frequency (RF) with placebo in patients with facetogenic chronic low back pain (LBP) for patient global impression of change (PGIC), pain intensity, function and quality of life, with 1-year follow-up. DESIGN: Single-centre, single-blinded placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Single-centre study. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion from March 2020 to September 2022: consenting adults over 18 years of age, LBP>3 months, average Numeric Rating Scale LBP≥4 average last 14 days and a positive response to a diagnostic medial branch block (>50% pain reduction after 60 min). INTERVENTIONS: 120 patients were block randomised 1:1:1 to cryoneurolysis, RF or placebo of the medial branch nerves. Physical therapy was added after 4 weeks for all groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was PGIC 4 weeks after the intervention. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS), quality of life (Short Form 36, EQ-5D-5L), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), depression (Major Depression Inventory) and catastrophising (Pain Catastrophising Scale). Outcomes were measured at 4 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in PGIC at 4 weeks between cryoneurolysis and placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2; 95% CI 0.75 to 5.33, p=0.17) and RF and placebo (RR 1.6; 95% CI 0.57 to 4.49, p=0.37), except PGIC for cryoneurolysis at 6-month follow-up (RR 5.1; 95% CI 1.20 to 22.03, p=0.03). No statistically significant differences were found in secondary follow-up endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Denervation of the medial branch nerve by either cryoneurolysis or RF compared with placebo did not demonstrate significant improvement in PGIC, pain intensity, function and quality of life in patients with facetogenic chronic LBP at short-term or long-term follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04786145.

Implementation of an integrated primary care prevention and management program for chronic low back pain (LBP): patient-reported outcomes and predictors of pain interference after six months.

BACKGROUND: Integrated primary care programs for patients living with chronic pain which are accessible, interdisciplinary, and patient-centered are needed for preventing chronicity and improving outcomes. Evaluation of the implementation and impact of such programs supports further development of primary care chronic pain management. This study examined patient-reported outcomes among individuals with low back pain (LBP) receiving care in a novel interdisciplinary primary care program. METHODS: Patients were referred by primary care physicians in four regions of Quebec, Canada, and eligible patients received an evidence-based interdisciplinary pain management program over a six-month period. Patients were screened for risk of chronicity. Patient-reported outcome measures of pain interference and intensity, physical function, depression, and anxiety were evaluated at regular intervals over the six-month follow-up. A multilevel regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between patient characteristics at baseline, including risk of chronicity, and change in pain outcomes. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-four individuals (mean age 55.4y, 63% female) completed the program. The majority (≥ 60%) experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in pain intensity and interference at six months. Patients with moderate (71%) or high risk (81%) of chronicity showed greater improvement in pain interference than those with low risk (51%). Significant predictors of improvement in pain interference included a higher risk of chronicity, younger age, female sex, and lower baseline disability. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of this novel LBP program will inform wider implementation considerations by identifying key components for further effectiveness, sustainability, and scale-up of the program.

BACK-to-MOVE: Machine learning and computer vision model automating clinical classification of non-specific low back pain for personalised management.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a major global disability contributor with profound health and socio-economic implications. The predominant form is non-specific LBP (NSLBP), lacking treatable pathology. Active physical interventions tailored to individual needs and capabilities are crucial for its management. However, the intricate nature of NSLBP and complexity of clinical classification systems necessitating extensive clinical training, hinder customised treatment access. Recent advancements in machine learning and computer vision demonstrate promise in characterising NSLBP altered movement patters through wearable sensors and optical motion capture. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a machine learning model (i.e., 'BACK-to-MOVE') for NSLBP classification trained with expert clinical classification, spinal motion data from a standard video alongside patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: Synchronised video and three-dimensional (3D) motion data was collected during forward spinal flexion from 83 NSLBP patients. Two physiotherapists independently classified them as motor control impairment (MCI) or movement impairment (MI), with conflicts resolved by a third expert. The Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) architecture, HigherHRNet, was chosen for effective pose estimation from video data. The model was validated against 3D motion data (subset of 62) and trained on the freely available MS-COCO dataset for feature extraction. The Back-to-Move classifier underwent fine-tuning through feed-forward neural networks using labelled examples from the training dataset. Evaluation utilised 5-fold cross-validation to assess accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, and F1 measure. RESULTS: Pose estimation's Mean Square Error of 0.35 degrees against 3D motion data demonstrated strong criterion validity. Back-to-Move proficiently differentiated MI and MCI classes, yielding 93.98% accuracy, 96.49% sensitivity (MI detection), 88.46% specificity (MCI detection), and an F1 measure of .957. Incorporating PROMs curtailed classifier performance (accuracy: 68.67%, sensitivity: 91.23%, specificity: 18.52%, F1: .800). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to demonstrate automated clinical classification of NSLBP using computer vision and machine learning with standard video data, achieving accuracy comparable to expert consensus. Automated classification of NSLBP based on altered movement patters video-recorded during routine clinical examination could expedite personalised NSLBP rehabilitation management, circumventing existing healthcare constraints. This advancement holds significant promise for patients and healthcare services alike.

Which patients with chronic low back pain respond favorably to multidisciplinary rehabilitation? A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify prognostic variables at baseline associated with being responding favorably to multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: A responder analysis was conducted based on data from a randomized controlled trial with 26-week follow-up including 165 patients with CLBP treated at a Danish multidisciplinary rehabilitation center. Patients were dichotomized into responders and non-responders based on the outcome of a minimal clinically important difference of six points on the Oswestry Disability Index. The associations between prognostic variables and responders were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 139 patients completed the study, of which 42% were classified as responders. Sex and employment status were statistically significant, with a decreased odds ratio (OR) of being a responder found for males compared to females (OR = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.02-0.48) and for being on temporary or permanent social benefits (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.10-0.75) compared to being self-supporting or receiving retirement benefits. Statistically significant interaction (OR = 8.84, 95% CI = 1.11-70.12) was found between males and being on temporary or permanent social benefits. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CLBP, female patients as well as patients who were self-supporting or receiving retirement benefits were significantly more likely than male patients or patients on temporary or permanent social benefits to be a responder to multidisciplinary rehabilitation.

Extravertebral low back pain: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for consultation in general practice. Currently, LBP is categorised into specific and non-specific causes. However, extravertebral causes, such as abdominal aortic aneurysm or pancreatitis, are not being considered. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed across MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library, complemented by a handsearch. Studies conducted between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2020, where LBP was the main symptom, were included. RESULTS: The literature search identified 6040 studies, from which duplicates were removed, leaving 4105 studies for title and abstract screening. Subsequently, 265 publications were selected for inclusion, with an additional 197 publications identified through the handsearch. The majority of the studies were case reports and case series, predominantly originating from specialised care settings. A clear distinction between vertebral or rare causes of LBP was not always possible. A range of diseases were identified as potential extravertebral causes of LBP, encompassing gynaecological, urological, vascular, systemic, and gastrointestinal diseases. Notably, guidelines exhibited inconsistencies in addressing extravertebral causes. DISCUSSION: Prior to this review, there has been no systematic investigation into extravertebral causes of LBP. Although these causes are rare, the absence of robust and reliable epidemiological data hinders a comprehensive understanding, as well as the lack of standardised protocols, which contributes to a lack of accurate description of indicative symptoms. While there are certain disease-specific characteristics, such as non-mechanical or cyclical LBP, and atypical accompanying symptoms like fever, abdominal pain, or leg swelling, that may suggest extravertebral causes, it is important to recognise that these features are not universally present in every patient. CONCLUSION: The differential diagnosis of extravertebral LBP is extensive with relatively low prevalence rates dependent on the clinical setting. Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for extravertebral aetiologies, especially in patients presenting with atypical accompanying symptoms.