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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Recent clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain: a global comparison.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a significant health problem worldwide, with a lifetime prevalence of 84% in the general adult population. To rationalise the management of LBP, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been issued in various countries around the world. This study aims to identify and compare the recommendations of recent CPGs for the management of LBP across the world. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and major guideline databases were searched from 2017 to 2022 to identify CPGs. CPGs focusing on information regarding the management and/or treatment of non-specific LBP were considered eligible. The quality of included guidelines was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. RESULTS: Our analysis identified a total of 22 CPGs that met the inclusion criteria, and were of middle and high methodological quality as assessed by the AGREE II tool. The guidelines exhibited heterogeneity in their recommendations, particularly in the approach to different stages of LBP. For acute LBP, the guidelines recommended the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), therapeutic exercise, staying active, and spinal manipulation. For subacute LBP, the guidelines recommended the use of NSAIDs, therapeutic exercise, staying active, and spinal manipulation. For chronic LBP, the guidelines recommended therapeutic exercise, the use of NSAIDs, spinal manipulation, and acupuncture. CONCLUSIONS: Current CPGs provide recommendations for almost all major aspects of the management of LBP, but there is marked heterogeneity between them. Some recommendations lack clarity and overlap with other treatments within the guidelines.

Effects of hand-press pellet on pain and daily life of elders with chronic lower back pain: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For elderly people with chronic lower back pain who need long-term management, there is a need for a nursing intervention study that is effective, is easy to perform, and applies complementary and alternative therapies to manage pain without repulsion. Hand pressure therapy is a treatment indigenous to Korea used to reduce pain and improve functions of daily life by applying acupuncture, pressure sticks, and moxibustion to parts of the hand as they relate to parts of the body. This research is to identify the effects of pellet pressed on the hand on pain and the daily lives of elders with chronic lower back pain (CLBP). METHODS: The hand pressed-pellet intervention period was six weeks long. Twenty-seven patients in the intervention group and twenty-four patients in the placebo control group were recruited from elderly over sixty-five who used welfare centers. In the intervention group, hand pressed-pellet therapy was conducted in eleven acupressure response zones related to CLBP, and the placebo control group was provided with similar therapy and zones, but unrelated to CLBP. The research tool measured the intensity of CLBP using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Korean Owestry Disability Index (K-ODI), which are subjective indicators, and the Compact Digital Algometer, which is an objective indicator. RESULT: The pain intensity (VAS) measured after six weeks of hand pressed-pellet therapy showed significant difference between the two groups compared to their pain before the experiment (F = 60.522, p < .001). There was a significant difference between the two groups in the pain pressure threshold using pressure statistics (F = 8.940, p < .001), and in CLBP dysfunction evaluation index (K-ODI) after applying pressed pellet to the hand (Z = - 3.540, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Subjective indicators were measured to verify the effect of hand pressed-pellet therapy on CLBP, and the result confirmed that the hand pressed-pellet therapy was effective in alleviating CLBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered retrospectively with reference number KCT0008024 on 23/12/2022.

Disability reduction following a lumbar stabilization exercise program for low back pain: large vs. small improvement subgroup analyses of physical and psychological variables.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about why patients with low back pain (LBP) respond differently to treatment, and more specifically, to a lumbar stabilization exercise program. As a first step toward answering this question, the present study evaluates how subgroups of patients who demonstrate large and small clinical improvements differ in terms of physical and psychological changes during treatment. METHODS: Participants (n = 110) performed the exercise program (clinical sessions and home exercises) over eight weeks, with 100 retained at six-month follow-up. Physical measures (lumbar segmental instability, motor control impairments, range of motion, trunk muscle endurance and physical performance tests) were collected twice (baseline, end of treatment), while psychological measures (fear-avoidance beliefs, pain catastrophizing, psychological distress, illness perceptions, outcome expectations) were collected at four time points (baseline, mid-treatment, end of treatment, follow-up). The participants were divided into three subgroups (large, moderate and small clinical improvements) based on the change of perceived disability scores. ANOVA for repeated measure compared well-contrasted subgroups (large vs. small improvement) at different times to test for SUBGROUP × TIME interactions. RESULTS: Statistically significant interactions were observed for several physical and psychological measures. In all these interactions, the large- and small-improvement subgroups were equivalent at baseline, but the large-improvement subgroup showed more improvements over time compared to the small-improvement subgroup. For psychological measures only (fear-avoidance beliefs, pain catastrophizing, illness perceptions), between-group differences reached moderate to strong effect sizes, at the end of treatment and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The large-improvement subgroup showed more improvement than the small-improvement subgroup with regard to physical factors typically targeted by this specific exercise program as well as for psychological factors that are known to influence clinical outcomes.

Coccydynia: A Review of Anatomy, Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

¼ Coccydynia is a painful condition affecting many patients at the terminal caudal end of the spine.¼ An understanding of coccyx anatomy and variations of morphology is necessary for proper diagnosis. A multifactorial etiology for pain may be responsible for this clinical entity.¼ Several treatment options exist. Successful outcomes for patients depend on individual patient characteristics and the etiology of pain.

Exploring the immediate and short-term effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold: a randomized controlled trial of healthy participants.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a common intervention used to treat low back pain (LBP); however, the exact neurophysiological mechanisms of SMT reducing pain measured through pain pressure threshold (PPT) have not been fully explored beyond an immediate timeframe (e.g., immediately or five-minutes following) referencing a control group. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT compared to deactivated ultrasound using PPT immediately following and 30-minutes following SMT. METHODS: A longitudinal, randomized controlled trial design was conducted between September to October 2023. Fifty-five participants were randomized into a control group of deactivated ultrasound (n = 29) or treatment group of right sidelying lumbar SMT (n = 26). PPT, recorded at the right posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS), was documented for each participant in each group prior to intervention, immediately, and 30-minutes after. A repeated measures ANOVA, with a post-hoc Bonferroni adjustment, was used to assess within-group and between-group differences in PPT. The significance level was set at a < 0.05 a priori. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the deactivated ultrasound and lumbar SMT groups immediately (p = .05) and 30-minutes (p = .02) following intervention. A significant difference in the lumbar SMT group was identified from baseline to immediately following (p < .001) and 30-minutes following (p < .001), but no differences between immediately following and 30-minutes following intervention (p = .10). The deactivated ultrasound group demonstrated a difference between baseline and immediately after intervention with a reduced PPT (p = .003), but no significant difference was found from baseline to 30-minutes (p = .11) or immediately after intervention to 30-minutes (p = 1.0). CONCLUSION: A right sidelying lumbar manipulation increased PPT at the right PSIS immediately after that lasted to 30-minutes when compared to a deactivated ultrasound control group. Future studies should further explore beyond the immediate and short-term neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT to validate these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered on 4 December 2023 in ClinicalTrials (database registration number NCT06156605).

Assessing muscle energy technique and foam roller self-myofascial release for low back pain management in two-wheeler riders.

Pain in the lower back is a major concern in today's era due to prolonged sitting in two-wheeler riders, mainly due to hamstring tightness. It also creates physical disability and impairment in activities of daily living. The study aimed to compare the efficacy of muscle energy technique (MET) and self-myofascial release (SMFR) using the foam roller on hamstring flexibility, dynamic balance, and physical disability amongst two-wheeler riders with chronic low back pain (LBP). Participants were randomized into two intervention groups, MET and SMFR using the envelope method, with each group having 20 participants. Hamstring flexibility and range of motion for knee extension and the lower back were assessed using the active knee extension test (AKE-L and AKE-R) and sit and reach test (SRT), while the dynamic balance was assessed by the star excursion balance test (SEBT) and physical disability by Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, (RMDQ). Measurements were taken at baseline and after 4 weeks of intervention. This study demonstrated that both SMFR using a foam roller and MET are effective in enhancing hamstring muscle flexibility, (SRT-F(1, 38) = 299.5, p < 0.001; AKE-R-F(1, 38) = 99.53, p < 0.001; AKE-L-F(1, 38) = 89.67, p < 0.001). Additionally, these techniques significantly improved dynamic balance in various directions, including anterior (ANT), anteromedial (AMED), medial (MED), posteromedial (PMED), posterior (POST), posterolateral (PLAT), lateral (LAT), and anterolateral (ALAT) directions (p < 0.01). Furthermore, there was a significant reduction in physical disability (RMDQ-F(1, 38) = 1307, p < 0.001), among two-wheeler riders suffering from chronic LBP. Compared to MET, SMFR using foam rollers was found to be more effective in enhancing hamstring flexibility, improving balance, and decreasing disability level on the RMDQ after 4 weeks.

Low back pain management in primary healthcare: findings from a scoping review on models of care.

INTRODUCTION: Models of care (MoCs) describe evidence-informed healthcare that should be delivered to patients. Several MoCs have been implemented for low back pain (LBP) to reduce evidence-to-practice gaps and increase the effectiveness and sustainability of healthcare services. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise research evidence regarding core characteristics and key common elements of MoCs implemented in primary healthcare for the management of LBP. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Searches on MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature databases were conducted. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible records included MoCs implemented for adult LBP patients in primary healthcare settings. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction was carried out independently by two researchers and included a summary of the studies, the identification of the MoCs and respective key elements, concerning levels of care, settings, health professionals involved, type of care delivered and core components of the interventions. Findings were investigated through a descriptive qualitative content analysis using a deductive approach. RESULTS: 29 studies reporting 11 MoCs were included. All MoCs were implemented in high-income countries and had clear objectives. Ten MoCs included a stratified care approach. The assessment of LBP patients typically occurred in primary healthcare while care delivery usually took place in community-based settings or outpatient clinics. Care provided by general practitioners and physiotherapists was reported in all MoCs. Education (n=10) and exercise (n=9) were the most common health interventions. However, intervention content, follow-ups and discharge criteria were not fully reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study examines the features of MoCs for LBP, highlighting that research is in its early stages and stressing the need for better reporting to fill gaps in care delivery and implementation. This knowledge is crucial for researchers, clinicians and decision-makers in assessing the applicability and transferability of MoCs to primary healthcare settings.

Low back pain patients' experience and expectations: A qualitative study focusing on physiotherapist and physician care.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common and disabling musculoskeletal disorder. LBP experiences and expectations can vary from one person to another and influence their clinical outcomes. Despite the existence of numerous evidence-based treatment recommendations, LBP management in primary care remains challenging. This study aims to investigate the experiences and expectations of patients with LPB in primary care settings. METHODS: A qualitative study with an inductive thematic analysis was conducted. Semi-structured interviews were performed using individuals who had experienced LBP in the past year and had consulted a family physician (FP) or a physiotherapist (PT). RESULTS: Ten participants with LBP were interviewed (5 women, 5 men, mean age 49 ± 17). Five themes were identified: (1) I am always upset because I can't do anything; (2) I waited to consult; I thought it would go away; (3) I want to see what is going on with my LBP; (4) I want to see the person that will provide the right treatment; (5) I need support to get over it. Participants consulted when their pain was severe and disabling. They expected an imaging test to explain the cause of their LBP and placed more importance on the imaging test results than the FP's or PT's evaluation. Their opinions on care selection and being listened to were important for the participants. CONCLUSION: This study has highlighted the importance of the patient's point of view in their care. This consideration is important to ensure a comprehensive and collaborative approach with evidence-based practice care.

Understanding social determinants of health and physical therapy outcomes in patients with low back pain: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the number one cause of disability worldwide; however, it is not clear how social determinants of health (SDOH) impact care management and outcomes related to physical therapy (PT) services for patients with LBP. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this scoping review are to examine and assimilate the literature on how SDOH and PT care relate to non-specific LBP outcomes and identify gaps in the literature to target for future research. METHODS: Data were extracted from eight electronic databases from January 2011 to February 2022. Reviewers independently screened all studies using the PRISMA extension for scoping review guidelines. Data related to study design, type of PT, type of non-specific LBP, patient demographics, PT intervention, SDOH, and PT outcomes were extracted from the articles. RESULTS: A total of 30,523 studies were screened, with 1961 articles undergoing full text review. Ultimately, 76 articles were identified for inclusion. Sex and age were the most frequent SDOH examined (88% and 78% respectively) followed by education level (18%). Approximately half of the studies that examined age, sex, and education level identified no effect on outcomes. The number of studies examining other factors was small and the types of outcomes evaluated were variable, which limited the ability to pool results. CONCLUSIONS: Sex and age were the most frequent SDOH examined followed by education level. Other factors were evaluated less frequently, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Study design and heterogeneity of determinants and outcomes were barriers to examining the potential impact on patients with LBP.

Evaluation of deep oscillation therapy for the treatment of lumbar pain syndrome using motion capture systems: A systematic review.

Low back pain is a painful disorder that prevents normal mobilization, increases muscle tension and whose first-line treatment is usually non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, together with non-invasive manual therapies, such as deep oscillation therapy. This systematic review aims to investigate and examine the scientific evidence of the effectiveness of deep oscillation therapy in reducing pain and clinical symptomatology in patients with low back pain, through the use of motion capture technology. To carry out this systematic review, the guidelines of the PRISMA guide were followed. A literature search was performed from 2013 to March 2022 in the PubMed, Elsevier, Science Director, Cochrane Library, and Springer Link databases to collect information on low back pain, deep oscillation, and motion capture. The risk of bias of the articles was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Finally, they were included 16 articles and 5 clinical trials which met the eligibility criteria. These articles discussed the effectiveness of deep oscillation therapy in reducing pain, eliminating inflammation, and increasing lumbar range of motion, as well as analyzing the use of motion capture systems in the analysis, diagnosis, and evaluation of a patient with low back pain before, during and after medical treatment. There is no strong scientific evidence that demonstrates the high effectiveness of deep oscillation therapy in patients with low back pain, using motion capture systems. This review outlines the background for future research directed at the use of deep oscillation therapy as a treatment for other types of musculoskeletal injuries.