Search

Background: Although many studies have investigated the prevalence of low back pain (LBP) among Indian subjects, no meta-analysis has been conducted to determine the comprehensive epidemiological point, annual, lifetime prevalence of LBP among Indian subjects., Objective: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the point, annual, and lifetime prevalence of LBP in the Indian population., Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies that reported point, annual, or lifetime prevalence of LBP among Indian subjects. Pooled point, annual and lifetime prevalence rates were calculated. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment were performed., Results: Ninety-seven studies were included in this review. Fifty-four studies included in the review (55.5%) were found to be of higher methodological quality. The pooled point, annual, and lifetime prevalence of LBP in India was 48% (95% CI 40-56%); 51% (95% CI 45-58%), and 66% (95% CI 56-75%), respectively. The pooled prevalence rates were highest among females, the rural population, and among elementary workers., Conclusion: The point, annual, and lifetime prevalence rates of LBP in the Indian population is higher compared to global and other ethnic populations affecting a large proportion of the population, especially among women, rural population and in elementary workers. The findings of this study can be the basis for formulating policy regarding the prevention and treatment of LBP in a large part of the global population.

Study Design: Retrospective., Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of body mass index (BMI) on pain and disability in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain (LBP) treated with multimodal rehabilitation., Summary of Background Data: Despite being a well-known risk factor for developing LBP, there is minimal data on the effect of BMI on pain and disability in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain (LBP) treated with multimodal rehabilitation., Methods: Data from patients with chronic mechanical LBP who underwent multimodal rehabilitation treatment at a chain of spine rehabilitation outpatient clinics in one of the three BMI groups-1564 patients in normal body weight (BMI ≥18.5-24.9), 1990 patients in overweight (BMI ≥25-29.9), and 891 patients in obese (BMI ≥ 30) groups-were retrospectively analyzed. Pre- and post-treatment Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and final treatment outcomes were compared between the three groups. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the association between pre-treatment covariates and post-treatment clinical outcomes., Results: Post-treatment, the mean NPRS (P = 0.005) and mean ODI (P < 0.001) scores were significantly higher with a significantly lower percentage of full success outcome (P = 0.009) in the obese group when compared to normal and overweight groups. However, multivariate analysis showed a significant correlation between age, the number of treatment sessions, pre-treatment NPRS and ODI scores, and post-treatment NPRS and ODI scores and treatment failure, and no correlation with patient BMI., Conclusion: Patient BMI may not affect pain and disability outcomes in patients undergoing a multimodal rehabilitation treatment for chronic LBP. In contrast to BMI, other covariates such as age, treatment sessions, and pre-treatment NPRS and ODI scores may be associated with increased risk for poor treatment outcome. Obese individuals can expect clinical outcomes similar to normal or overweight individuals with multimodal physical rehabilitation for chronic LBP.Level of Evidence: 3., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant frequency-specific microcurrent (FSM) application on pain and disability in patients treated with physical rehabilitation for mechanical low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP)., Methods: In this retrospective case-control study, pre- and post-treatment numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, neck disability index (NDI) score, disability categories, and treatment outcome categories were compared between 213 patients in the FSM group (167 patients with LBP, 46 patients with NP) and 78 patients in the control group (61 patients with LBP, 17 patients with NP)., Results: In LBP patients, mean post-treatment NPRS score was significantly lower (p = 0.02) and a significantly higher percentage of patients were in the ≤3 NPRS score (p = 0.02), in the minimal disability (p = 0.01), and the full success (p = 0.006) categories post-treatment in the FSM group when compared to the control group. In NP patients, there was no significant difference in the post-treatment pain intensity, disability or treatment outcome when the 2 groups were compared., Conclusions: The use of adjuvant FSM application in patients treated with physical rehabilitation for LBP significantly improved pain and disability when compared to patients in the control group. Frequency specific microcurrent could be a useful adjuvant in the rehabilitation treatment of patients with low back pain., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest There are no conflicts of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript and this research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This retrospective study aimed to determine the efficacy of an integrated active, rehabilitation protocol in patients ≥ 65 years of age with chronic mechanical low back pain and compare the results in similar patients in 50-64 years age group., Methods: Pre- and post-treatment mean numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) score, mean Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, treatment outcome category and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds achieved for NPRS and ODI scores post-treatment were compared among 697 patients in the 50-64 years and 495 patients in the ≥ 65 years age groups., Results: At a mean treatment duration of 57 days (range, 30-90 days), both mean NPRS score (p < 0.0001) and mean ODI score (p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the ≥ 65 years age group when compared to the 50-64 years age group. However, post-treatment outcome categories (p = 0.17) and percentage of patients who achieved MCID thresholds for NPRS score (p = 0.13) and ODI score (p = 0.18) were not significantly different between the two groups. There was a significant correlation between post-treatment NPRS score and patient age and pre-treatment NPRS score and between post-treatment ODI score and incidence of osteoporosis and pre-treatment ODI score., Conclusion: Although mean NPRS and ODI scores achieved were significantly better in patients of 50-64 years of age, our integrated active, rehabilitation protocol helped achieve significant improvement in NPRS score, MCID thresholds for NPRS and ODI scores and treatment outcomes in patients ≥ 65 years of age, similar to patients in the 50-64 years of age group, at the end of 3 months of treatment. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

BACKGROUND: Although many studies have investigated the physical and ergonomic risks of spine pain in specific occupation groups, the literature is lacking on occupation-based clinical and psychological presentation in patients with spine pain. OBJECTIVE: To analyze occupation-based variation in demographic, clinical, and psychological presentation in patients with spine pain. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed the clinical data of 71727 patients with spine pain visiting a chain of spine rehabilitation clinics. Demographic and clinical variables such as gender, age, affected site, symptom duration, clinical symptoms and presentation, pain intensity, disability, and STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) risk were compared between 9 occupational groups. RESULTS: The service and sales workers (44%) and students (43.5%) groups had the highest percentage of patients who presented with central spine pain; military personnel had the highest percentage of patients who presented with unilateral radicular pain (51.5%); and the retired or unemployed group had the highest percentage of patients who presented with severe myotomal loss (grade≤3) (6%). Homemakers had significantly higher pain intensity and disability (p < 0.001) and had the highest percentage of patients who presented with severe pain (47%), severe and crippled disability (59.5%), and medium to high risk (59%) with SBT when compared to other occupational groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with spine pain showed variation in demographic, clinical, and psychological presentation based on their occupation. The findings of this study can be the basis for identifying risk factors for spine pain and helping plan preventive and treatment measures based on their occupation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite increased usage of telemedicine to deliver treatment during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the efficacy of telerehabilitation for spine pain is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the effect of telerehabilitation on pain and disability in patients with spine pain treated during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare the results to in-clinic rehabilitation. In this propensity score-matched analysis, 428 patients with spine pain who underwent telerehabilitation during the 6 months of COVID-19 pandemic lockdown and 428 patients who underwent in-clinic multimodal rehabilitation treatment during the 6-month period prior to lockdown were compared. Propensity score matching was done based on gender, age, pre-treatment pain, and disability. Post-treatment numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), Oswestry or Neck disability index (ODI or NDI), and minimal clinical important difference (MCID) achieved for NPRS and ODI/NDI scores were compared between the 2 groups. Post-treatment, the mean NPRS (mean difference − 1, p < 0.0001) and ODI/NDI (mean difference − 5.8, p < 0.0001) scores, were significantly lower in the telerehabilitation group when compared to control group. Similarly, the percentage of patients who achieved MCID of ≥ 2 for NPRS (mean difference − 6%, p = 0.0007) and MCID of ≥ 10 for ODI/NDI (mean difference − 7.5%, p = 0.005) scores were significantly higher in the telerehabilitation group. Telerehabilitation achieved significant reduction in pain and disability among patients with spine pain, better than in-clinic rehabilitation. These encouraging results during the COVID-19 pandemic indicate the need to further explore and test the efficacy and wider application of telerehabilitation for treating spine pain. Telerehabilitation can help achieve significant reduction in pain and disability among patients with spine pain. These encouraging results indicate the need to further explore a wider application of telerehabilitation for treating patients with spine pain during non-pandemic times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surgery is often prescribed to patients with significant reduction in standing time (ST) and walking time (WT) due to degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). The efficacy of a multimodal physical rehabilitation protocol (MPRP) in improving ST and WT in patients with DLS is not known. To investigate the effect of MPRP on ST and WT in patients with DLS and compare the results with similar patients treated with other physiotherapy treatment (OPT) methods. Outcomes including numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, ST and WT were compared in patients in the MPRP and OPT groups. Data from 25 patients in MPRP group and 10 patients in OPT group were analyzed. In the MPRP group, the mean NPRS and ODI scores, ST, and WT improved significantly (p <.0001) after MPRP at a mean follow-up of 328 days. The mean NPRS score was significantly lower (p =.0001); mean ST (p =.03), and mean WT (p =.03) were significantly higher; and the mean NPRS improvement (p <.0001), mean ST improvement (p =.001), and mean WT improvement (p =.008) were significantly higher in MPRP group when compared to the OPT group at final follow-up. Patients with low-grade DLS showed significant improvement in ST and WT after MPRP when compared to similar patients who underwent other physiotherapy treatments. These encouraging results indicate that MPRP can be utilized as a primary treatment option in patients with significantly reduced ST and WT due to DLS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]