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.

Assessing pain severity and treatment outcomes in patients with low back pain: A Structural equation modeling approach at the center for the rehabilitation of the Paralysed, Bangladesh.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to observe the associated risk factors of lower back pain and the factors that increase the pain severity. So, the main objective of this research is to identify the factors which may cause the lower back pain and the causal effect on the pain severity and respective treatment. This study also tries to determine the demographical characteristics of the low back pain patients and determine the inter relationship of psychological health, work stress and treatment effect with the pain disability index. STUDY DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study, 200 patients with lower back pain were interviewed who were taking treatments from the physiotherapy department at the Center for the Rehabilitation of the Paralysed, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh. METHODS: A quantitative research model has been performed to observe the relationship between different causes of low back pain effects on the patients. Different statistical analysis including structural equation modeling have been performed to observe their pain severity and treatment effect. RESULTS: The study found 64% (128) of the total participants as male and 36% (72) as female among 200 patients of low back pain. The study also observed the highest portion of the patients belong to the age group 39 to 45 years (21.5%). On the basis of BMI, obese weight respondents were 26.5% (53), overweight respondents were 37% (74), normal weight respondents were 33% (66), and underweight respondents were only 3.5% (7). Here, sex, body mass index (BMI), living place and educational status have significant association with pain disability index (PDI). On the other hand, smoking tendency of patients has insignificant relationship (p>0.05) with pain disability index (PDI). The path coefficients of the structural equation model identified that all the null hypotheses of no significant relationship have been rejected for 5% level of significance. The hypothesis of psychological health is positively related to pain severity of a patient has an acceptable strength (ß = 0.745, p<0.001) and a positive direction. Another hypothesis (Psychological health is positively related to the treatment of a patient) shows an acceptable strength (ß = 0.401, p <0.001) and a positive direction. Work stress is also found to be positively related to pain severity of a patient with an acceptable strength (ß = 0.544, p < 0.001) and a positive direction. The hypothesis (Work stress is positively related to the treatment of a patient) has an acceptable strength (ß = 0.322, p< 0.05) and a positive direction. The hypothesis (pain severity is positively related to the treatment of patients) shows an acceptable strength (ß = 0.801, p < 0.001) and a positive direction. CONCLUSION: The research found out the psychological health situation and work stress of patients are significantly related with pain severity with acceptable strength. Also, Pain severity is significantly associated with treatment scheme intensity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A Comparative Study of Endoscopic versus Percutaneous Epidural Neuroplasty in Lower Back Pain: Outcomes at Six-Month Follow Up.

Background and Objectives: Endoscopic epidural neuroplasty (EEN) facilitates adhesiolysis through direct epiduroscopic visualization, offering more precise neural decompression than that exhibited by percutaneous epidural neuroplasty (PEN). We aimed to compare the effects of EEN and PEN for 6 months after treatment with lower back and radicular pain in patients. Methods: This retrospective study compared the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores in patients with low back and radicular pain who underwent EEN or PEN with a steering catheter. The medical records of 107 patients were analyzed, with 73 and 34 undergoing EEN and PEN, respectively. Results: The VAS and ODI scores decreased at all time points after EEN and PEN. VAS and ODI scores decreased more in the EEN group than those in the PEN group at 1 day and 1- and 6-months post-procedure, indicating superior pain relief for both lower back and radicular pain through EEN. Conclusions: EEN is a superior treatment of pain control than PEN in lower back and radicular pain patients.

Physiotherapeutic and non-conventional approaches in patients with chronic low-back pain: a level I Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a major cause of disability and healthcare expenditure worldwide. Its prevalence is increasing globally from somatic and psychosocial factors. While non-pharmacological management, and in particular physiotherapy, has been recommended as a first-line treatment for cLBP, it is not clear what type of physiotherapeutic approach is the most effective in terms of pain reduction and function improvement. This analysis is rendered more difficult by the vast number of available therapies and a lack of a widely accepted classification that can effectively highlight the differences in the outcomes of different management options. This study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. In January 2024, the following databases were accessed: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase. All the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the efficacy of physiotherapy programs in patients with cLBP were accessed. Studies reporting on non-specific or mechanical cLPB were included. Data concerning the Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Data from 12,773 patients were collected. The mean symptom duration was 61.2 ± 51.0 months and the mean follow-up was 4.3 ± 5.9 months. The mean age was 44.5 ± 9.4 years. The mean BMI was 25.8 ± 2.9 kg/m2. The Adapted Physical Exercise group evidenced the lowest pain score, followed by Multidisciplinary and Adapted Training Exercise/Complementary Medicine. The Adapted Physical Exercise group evidenced the lowest RMQ score followed by Therapeutic Exercises and Multidisciplinary. The Multidisciplinary group evidenced the lowest ODI score, followed by Adapted Physical Exercise and Physical Agent modalities. Within the considered physiotherapeutic and non-conventional approaches to manage nonspecific and/or mechanic cLBP, adapted physical exercise, physical agent modalities, and a multidisciplinary approach might represent the most effective strategy to reduce pain and disability.

Efficacy of neuromobilization in the treatment of low back pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability. Neuromobilization (NM) as a physical therapy technique, offers some degree of symptom improvement. However, some studies have shown that NM can significantly reduce the symptoms of LBP, while others have failed to find similar positive effects. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of NM for LBP. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted across five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science) from their inception to December 2023. Study main measures assessed pain, disability, and straight leg raise angle to determine the degree of improvement in patients. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. The findings indicated that NM interventions in patients with LBP were more effective than control groups in improving Visual Analog Scale scores (mean difference = 0.62, 95% CI (0.03, 1.21)) and Oswestry Disability Index scores (mean difference = 7.54, 95% CI (4.98, 10.10)). There was no significant difference in straight leg raise results (mean difference = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.08, 0.44)). CONCLUSIONS: NM demonstrated effectiveness in improving Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in patients with LBP, but straight leg raise outcomes are still uncertain and until more high-quality studies are included, the effectiveness of NM for SLR remains unknown.

The effect of pelvic clock exercises on pain reduction and lumbopelvic proprioception in middle-aged women with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP).

INTRODUCTION: Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most common causes of disability in adults. There are many non-invasive interventions to improve this condition, of which the use of exercise therapy is one of the most widely used. But there is contradictory evidence regarding the effectiveness of different types of exercise methods. Therefore, the current research aimed to investigate the effect of pelvic clock exercises on pain reduction and lumbopelvic proprioception in women with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental study with a controlled pre-test-post-test design. The study population included middle-aged women with CNSLBP with an age range of 35-50 years. A total of 30 eligible middle-aged women with CNSLBP were selected using purposive and convenience sampling. The pelvic clock exercise was carried out by the researcher in a gym for eight 45- min sessions each week (three sessions each week). A visual analog scale (VAS) and goniometer were used to measure pain and lumbopelvic proprioception, respectively. However, the control group only participated in the pre-test and post-test stages. For intra-group and inter-group comparisons, paired t-test and independent t-test were used at P < 0.05, respectively. RESULTS: The results showed that eight-week pelvic clock exercises had an effect on decreased pain and increase lumbopelvic proprioception in middle-aged women with CNSLBP, but no effect was observed in the control group (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: According to the results of the present study, pelvic clock exercises should be used as a new and practical method to reduce pain and improve lumbopelvic proprioception in middle-aged women with CNSLBP.

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.

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.

Integrating randomized and observational studies to estimate optimal dynamic treatment regimes.

Sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMARTs) are the gold standard for estimating optimal dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs), but are costly and require a large sample size. We introduce the multi-stage augmented Q-learning estimator (MAQE) to improve efficiency of estimation of optimal DTRs by augmenting SMART data with observational data. Our motivating example comes from the Back Pain Consortium, where one of the overarching aims is to learn how to tailor treatments for chronic low back pain to individual patient phenotypes, knowledge which is lacking clinically. The Consortium-wide collaborative SMART and observational studies within the Consortium collect data on the same participant phenotypes, treatments, and outcomes at multiple time points, which can easily be integrated. Previously published single-stage augmentation methods for integration of trial and observational study (OS) data were adapted to estimate optimal DTRs from SMARTs using Q-learning. Simulation studies show the MAQE, which integrates phenotype, treatment, and outcome information from multiple studies over multiple time points, more accurately estimates the optimal DTR, and has a higher average value than a comparable Q-learning estimator without augmentation. We demonstrate this improvement is robust to a wide range of trial and OS sample sizes, addition of noise variables, and effect sizes.

Appropriateness of exercise therapy delivery in chronic low back pain management: cross-sectional online survey of physiotherapy practice in Germany.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, exercise therapy represents the most commonly prescribed physiotherapy service for non-specific, chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). So far, little is known about current practice patterns of German physiotherapists in delivering this intervention. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the appropriateness of exercise therapy delivered to NSCLBP patients in German physiotherapy care and to identify practitioner-related drivers of appropriate exercise delivery. METHODS: We used a vignette-based, exploratory, cross-sectional, online-survey study design (76-items; data collection between May and July 2023). Eligible participants were required to hold a professional degree in physiotherapy and were required to be practicing in Germany. Access links to anonymous online surveys were spread via established German physiotherapy networks, educational platforms, social media, e-mail lists, and snowball sampling. Appropriateness of exercise therapy was calculated by an equally weighted total score (400 points) including scales on shared-decision-making, exercise dose selection, pain knowledge and self-management promotion. "Appropriate exercise delivery" was determined by a relative total score achievement of > 80%. "Partly appropriate exercise delivery" was determined by a relative total score achievement of 50-79%, and "inappropriate exercise delivery" by a score achievement of < 50%. Practitioner-related drivers of exercise appropriateness were calculated by bivariate and multiple linear regression analyses. RESULTS: 11.9% (N = 35) of 298 physiotherapists' exercise delivery was considered "appropriate", 83.3% (N = 245) was "partly appropriate", and 4.8% (N = 14) was "inappropriate". In the final multiple regression model, most robust parameters positively influencing appropriate delivery of exercise therapy were increased scientific literacy (B = 10.540; 95% CI [0.837; 20.243]), increased average clinical assessment time (B = 0.461; 95% CI [0.134; 0.789]), increased self-perceived treatment competence (B = 7.180; 95% CI [3.058; 11.302], and short work experience (B = - 0.520; 95% CI [-0.959; - 0.081]). CONCLUSION: Appropriate exercise delivery in NSCLBP management was achieved by only 11.9% of respondents. However, the vast majority of 95.2% of respondents was classified to deliver exercise therapy partly appropriate. Long work experience seemed to negatively affect appropriate exercise delivery. Positive influences were attributed to scientific literacy, the average clinical assessment time per patient as well as the perceived treatment competence in NSCLBP management. REGISTRATION: Open science framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/S76MF .

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).

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).