Search

Background An understanding of the clinical features of inflammation in low back pain with or without leg symptoms may allow targeted evaluations of anti-inflammatory treatment in randomised-controlled-trials and clinical practice. Purpose This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of clinical features to predict the presence/absence of histologically confirmed inflammation in herniated disc specimens removed at surgery in patients with lumbar disc herniation and associated radiculopathy (DHR). Study design Cohort Study. Methods Disc material from patients with DHR undergoing lumbar discectomy was sampled and underwent histological/immunohistochemistry analyses. Control discs were sampled from patients undergoing surgical correction for scoliosis. Baseline assessment comprising sociodemographic factors, subjective examination, physical examination and psychosocial screening was conducted and a range of potential clinical predictors of inflammation developed based on the existing literature. Multi-variate analysis was undertaken to determine diagnostic accuracy. Results Forty patients with DHR and three control patients were recruited. None of the control discs had evidence of inflammation compared to 28% of patients with DHR. Predictors of the presence of histologically confirmed inflammation included back pain Conclusion In a sample of patients with lumbar DHR a combination of clinical features predicted the presence or absence of histologically confirmed inflammation. Clinical relevance These clinical features may enable targeted anti-inflammatory treatment in future RCTs and in clinical practice.

Muscle, bone and tendon respond anabolically to mechanical forces. Whether the intervertebral disc (IVD) can benefit from exercise is unclear. To examine whether exercise can beneficially affect IVD characteristics. This is a single-blinded 6-month randomised controlled trial (ACTRN12615001270505) in an exercise and physiotherapy clinic. Forty patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (NSCLBP) are included in this study. The primary outcome was lumbar IVD T2 time (MRI). Secondary outcomes included IVD diffusion coefficient and IVD expansion with short-duration lying. Twenty patients progressively loaded their lumbar IVDs (exercise) via an exercise programme involving progressive upright aerobic and resistance exercises targeting the trunk and major muscle groups and were compared to twenty patients who performed motor control training and manual therapy (control). Testing occurred at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. Seventeen exercise and fifteen control patients completed the interventions. There were no group-by-time differences in T2 time of the entire IVD (exercise 94.1 ± 10.0 ms vs. control 96.5 ± 9.3 ms, p = 0.549). Exercise patients had shorter T2 time in the posterior annulus at 6 months (82.7 ± 6.8 ms vs. 85.1 ± 8.0 ms, p = 0.028). Exercise patients showed higher L5/S1 apparent diffusion coefficients and decreased IVD height at 3 months (both p ≤ 0.050). After adjustments for multiple comparisons, differences lost statistical significance. Per-protocol and intent-to-treat analyses yielded similar findings. This trial found that 6 months of exercise did not benefit the IVD of people with NSCLBP. Based on this index study, future studies could investigate the effect of exercise on IVD in different populations, with different types, durations and/or intensities of exercise, and using different IVD markers. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

IntroductionChronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, ‘usual care’ and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.Methods and analysisSix electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.PROSPERO registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify a multivariate predictive model for 6-month outcomes on overall pain, leg pain and activity limitation in patients undergoing lumbar discectomy. Identification of predictors of outcome for lumbar discectomy has the potential to assist identifying treatment targets, clinical decision making and disease understanding.Materials and methods: Prospective cohort design. Ninety-seven patients deemed by study surgeons to be suitable for lumbar discectomy completed a comprehensive clinical and radiological baseline assessment. At 6-months post surgery outcome measures of overall and leg pain (visual analogue scale) as well as activity limitation (Oswestry Disability Index) were completed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the best multivariate predictive model of outcome.Results: In the multivariate model, presence of a compensation claim, longer duration of injury and presence of below knee pain and/or parasthesia were negative prognostic indicators for at least two of the outcomes. Peripheralization in response to mechanical loading strategies was a positive prognostic indicator for overall pain and leg pain. A range of other prognostic indicators for one outcome were also identified. The prognostic model explained up to 32% of the variance in outcome.Conclusions: An 11-factor prognostic model was identified from a range of clinically and radiologically assessed variables in accordance with a biopsychosocial model. The multivariate model has potential implications for researchers and practitioners in the field. Further high quality research is required to externally validate the prognostic model, evaluate effect of the identified prognostic factors on treatment effectiveness and explore potential mechanisms of effect.

PurposeIndividualised physiotherapy is an effective treatment for low back pain. We sought to determine how this treatment works by using randomised controlled trial data to develop a Bayesian Network model.Methods300 randomised controlled trial participants (153 male, 147 female, mean age 44.1) with low back pain (of duration 6–26 weeks) received either individualised physiotherapy or advice. Variables with potential to explain how individualised physiotherapy works were included in a multivariate Bayesian Network model. Modelling incorporated the intervention period (0–10 weeks after study commencement–“early” changes) and the follow-up period (10–52 weeks after study commencement–“late” changes). Sequences of variables in the Bayesian Network showed the most common direct and indirect recovery pathways followed by participants with low back pain receiving individualised physiotherapy versus advice.ResultsIndividualised physiotherapy directly reduced early disability in people with low back pain. Individualised physiotherapy exerted indirect effects on pain intensity, recovery expectations, sleep, fear, anxiety, and depressionviaits ability to facilitate early improvement in disability. Early improvement in disability, led to an early reduction in depression both directly and via more complex pathways involving fear, recovery expectations, anxiety, and pain intensity. Individualised physiotherapy had its greatest influence on early change variables (during the intervention period).ConclusionIndividualised physiotherapy for low back pain appears to work predominately by facilitating an early reduction in disability, which in turn leads to improvements in other biopsychosocial outcomes. The current study cannot rule out that unmeasured mechanisms (such as tissue healing or reduced inflammation) may mediate the relationship between individualised physiotherapy treatment and improvement in disability. Further data-driven analyses involving a broad range of plausible biopsychosocial variables are recommended to fully understand how treatments work for people with low back pain.Trials registrationACTRN12609000834257.

Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of individualised functional restoration plus guideline-based advice compared to advice alone in people with non-reducible discogenic pain (NRDP). Design Subgroup analysis within a multicentre, parallel group randomised controlled trial. Setting Fifteen primary care physiotherapy clinics. Participants Ninety-six participants with clinical features indicative of NRDP (6 week to 6 month duration of injury). Interventions Over a 10 week period physiotherapists provided 10 sessions of individualised functional restoration plus guideline-based advice or two sessions of advice alone Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were back and leg pain (separate numerical rating scales) and activity limitation (Oswestry Disability Index). Results Between-group differences favoured individualised functional restoration over advice for back pain (1.1, 95% CI 0.1 to 2.1), leg pain (1.5, 95% CI 0.4 to 2.6) and Oswestry (6.3, 95% CI 1.3 to 11.4) at 10 weeks as well as Oswestry at 26 weeks (6.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 11.8). Secondary outcomes and responder analyses also favoured physiotherapy functional restoration suggesting the differences were clinically important. Conclusions In people with NRDP of ≥6 weeks and ≤6 months duration, individualised functional restoration was more effective than advice for all primary outcomes at 10 weeks and sustained at 26 weeks for activity limitation. Our results suggest that for people with NRDP not recovering after 6 weeks, an individualised physiotherapy functional restoration program should be considered. Contribution of paper (1) A physiotherapist delivered functional restoration program individualised to pathoanatomical, psychosocial and neurophysiological barriers and incorporating guideline-based advice was more effective than advice alone in people with non-reducible discogenic low back pain of ≥6 weeks and ≤6 months duration. (2) This trial differs significantly from other studies on individualised physiotherapy, as it investigates a conservative management program that specifically targets the pathoanatomical subgroup non-reducible discogenic pain. ACTRN numbers: ACTRN12609000412235; ACTRN12609000834257.

A cost-utility analysis within a randomized controlled trial was conducted from the health care perspective.The aim of this study was to determine whether individualized physical therapy incorporating advice is cost-effective relative to guideline-based advice alone for people with low back pain and/or referred leg pain (≥6 weeks, ≤6 months duration of symptoms).Low back disorders are a burdensome and costly condition across the world. Cost-effective treatments are needed to address the global burden attributable to this condition.Three hundred participants were randomly allocated to receive either two sessions of guideline-based advice alone (n = 144), or 10 sessions of individualized physical therapy targeting pathoanatomical, psychosocial and neurophysiological factors, and incorporating advice (n = 156). Data relating to health care costs, health benefits (EuroQol-5D) and work absence were obtained from participants via questionnaires at 5, 10, 26, and 52-week follow-ups.Total health care costs were similar for both groups: mean difference $27.03 [95% confidence interval (95% CI): -200.29 to 254.35]. Health benefits across the 12-month follow-up were significantly greater with individualized physical therapy: incremental quality-adjusted life years = 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02-0.10). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $422 per quality-adjusted life year gained. The probability that individualized physical therapy was cost-effective reached 90% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $36,000. A saving of $1995.51 (95% CI: 143.98-3847.03) per worker in income was realized in the individualized physical therapy group relative to the advice group. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses all revealed a dominant position for individualized physical therapy; hence, the base case analysis was the most conservative.Ten sessions of individualized physical therapy incorporating advice is cost-effective compared with two sessions of guideline-based advice alone for people with low back disorders.2.

Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most burdensome health problems in the world. Guidelines recommend simple treatments such as advice that may result in suboptimal outcomes, particularly when applied to people with complex biopsychosocial barriers to recovery. Individualised physiotherapy has the potential of being more effective for people with LBP; however, there is limited evidence supporting this approach. A series of studies supporting the mechanisms underpinning and effectiveness of the Specific Treatment of Problems of the Spine (STOPS) approach to individualised physiotherapy have been published. The clinical and research implications of these findings are presented and discussed. Treatment based on the STOPS approach should also be considered as an approach to individualised physiotherapy in people with LBP.

ObjectivesExercise can be used as a treatment for depressive symptoms in the general population. However, little is known as to whether exercise has mental health benefits for adults experiencing chronic low back pain (CLBP). The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of two intervention protocols commonly used in clinical practice for treating chronic low back pain, but with differing exercise dose, on depressive symptoms.MethodsForty men and women (mean age = 35) experiencing chronic persistent (>3 months), non-specific low back pain were recruited into a randomised clinical trial during 2015-2016. Participants were randomised to receive motor control (low-dose exercise) and manual therapy (n = 20), or general strength and conditioning training (moderate-dose exercise) (n = 20). Depressive symptoms were assessed fortnightly throughout a 6-month follow-up period using the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D 10). Linear mixed models were used to examine within-group and between-group changes in depressive symptoms.ResultsMean CES-D 10 score at baseline was 9.17 (SD = 4.32). There was evidence of a small decrease in average depressive symptoms over time (β -0.19 per fortnight, 95% CI = -0.34, -0.02). However, there was no evidence that change over time was dependent on treatment group.ConclusionsReduction in depressive symptoms amongst adults with CLBP occurred with both treatment methods (motor control [low-dose exercise] and manual therapy; or general strength and conditioning [moderate-dose exercise]). Further interventions including a true control group are needed to draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of each of these treatment methods on depressive symptoms amongst adults with CLBP.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12615001270505. Registered on 20 November 2015.

Background Specific muscle activation (SMA) is a commonly used treatment for people with low back pain (LBP) however there is variability in systematic reviews to date on effectiveness. This may be because of the use of eligibility criteria incongruent with original descriptions of the SMA approach. Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of SMA on improving activity limitation, pain, work participation or recurrence for people with LBP. Study design Systematic review Methods Computer databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English up to September 6, 2019. Eligibility criteria were chosen to ensure all clinically relevant RCTs were included and trials of poorly defined or executed SMA excluded. Outcomes for activity limitation, pain, work participation or recurrence were extracted. Results Twenty-eight RCTs were included in this review with 18 being considered high quality. GRADE quality assessment revealed low to high quality evidence that SMA was more effective than exercise, conservative medical management, multi-modal physiotherapy, placebo, advice and minimal intervention. Conclusions This systematic review is the first to evaluate the effectiveness of SMA in accordance with the original clinical descriptions. We found significant evidence supporting the effectiveness of SMA for the treatment of LBP. Where significant results were demonstrated, the between-group differences were in many comparisons clinically important based on contemporary definitions and an effect size of 0.5 or more. Practitioners should consider SMA as a treatment component in their patients with LBP.

To identify predictors for back pain, leg pain, and activity limitation in patients with early persistent low back disorders (LBDs).Prospective inception cohort study.Primary care private physiotherapy clinics in Melbourne, Australia.Individuals (N=300) aged 18-65 years with low back and/or referred leg pain of ≥6 weeks and ≤6 months duration.Not applicable.Numeric rating scales for back pain and leg pain as well as the Oswestry Disability Scale.Prognostic factors included sociodemographics, treatment related factors, subjective/physical examination, subgrouping factors, and standardized questionnaires. Univariate analysis followed by generalized estimating equations were used to develop a multivariate prognostic model for back pain, leg pain, and activity limitation. Fifty-eight prognostic factors progressed to the multivariate stage where 15 showed significant (P.05) associations with at least 1 of the 3 outcomes. There were 5 indicators of positive outcome (2 types of LBD subgroups, paresthesia below waist, walking as an easing factor, and low transversus abdominis tone) and 10 indicators of negative outcome (both parents born overseas, deep leg symptoms, longer sick leave duration, high multifidus tone, clinically determined inflammation, higher back and leg pain severity, lower lifting capacity, lower work capacity, and higher pain drawing percentage coverage). The preliminary model identifying predictors of LBDs explained up to 37% of the variance in outcome.This study evaluated a comprehensive range of prognostic factors reflective of both the biomedical and psychosocial domains of LBDs. The preliminary multivariate model requires further validation before being considered for clinical use.

A pre-planned effect modifier analysis of the Specific Treatment of Problems of the Spine (STOPS) randomized controlled trial. To identify characteristics associated with larger or smaller treatment effects in people with low back disorders undergoing either individualized physical therapy or guideline-based advice. Identifying subgroups of people who attain a larger or smaller benefit from particular treatments has been identified as a high research priority for low back disorders. The trial involved 300 participants with low back pain and/or referred leg pain (≥6 weeks, ≤6 month duration), who satisfied criteria to be classified into five subgroups (with 228 participants classified into three subgroups relating to disc related disorders, and 64 classified into the zygapophyseal joint dysfunction subgroup). Participants were randomly allocated to receive either two sessions of guideline based advice (n = 144), or 10 sessions of individualized physical therapy targeting pathoanatomical, psychosocial and neurophysiological factors (n = 156). Univariate and multivariate linear mixed models determined the interaction between treatment group and potential effect modifiers (defined a priori) for the primary outcomes of back pain, leg pain (0–10 Numerical Rating Scale) and activity limitation (Oswestry Disability Index) over a 52-week follow-up. Participants with higher levels of back pain, higher Orebro scores (indicative of higher risk of persistent pain) or longer duration of symptoms derived the largest benefits from individualized physical therapy relative to advice. Poorer coping also predicted larger benefits from individualized physical therapy in the univariate analysis. These findings suggest that people with low back disorders could be preferentially targeted for individualized physical therapy rather than advice if they have higher back pain levels, longer duration of symptoms, or higher Orebro scores. Level of Evidence: 2

Over the past decade a wide variety of approaches for the management of low back disorders (LBD) have been developed and evaluated in clinical trials. As a consequence physiotherapists and researchers interested in LBD are faced with a range of issues to do with complexity. These issues will be explored and suggestions made to improve the delivery of high quality research evidence and better patient outcomes.

Objectives The lumbar intervertebral disc is a known source of low back pain (LBP). Various clinical features of discogenic pain have been proposed, but none have been validated. Several subgroups of discogenic pain have been hypothesised, with non-reducible discogenic pain (NRDP) proposed as a relevant clinical subgroup. The objectives of this study were to obtain consensus from an expert panel on the features of discogenic low back pain, the existence of subgroups of discogenic LBP, particularly NRDP, and the associated features of NRDP. Design Three-round Delphi survey. Participants Twenty-one international physiotherapists with expertise in LBP. Methods Panellists listed and ranked features that they believed to be indicative of discogenic pain and NRDP. On completion of Round 3, features with ≥50% agreement between panellists were deemed to have reached consensus. Results After three rounds, 10 features of discogenic LBP were identified. Nineteen of the panellists believed that NRDP was a subgroup of discogenic LBP, and nine features of NRDP were identified. Conclusion This study provides preliminary validation for the features associated with discogenic LBP. It also provides evidence supporting the existence and features of NRDP as a separate clinical subgroup of discogenic LBP.

Over the past decade research into the effectiveness of low back disorders (LBDs) has focused on the classification of subgroups more likely to respond to specific treatment. Much of this research has explicitly excluded a focus on pathoanatomical factors based on a questionable interpretation of the biopsychosocial model. Common justifications and potential issues with this approach are explored with recommendations made for future clinical and research practice.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment for post-acute (>6 weeks) low back pain (LBP) has been established. Physiotherapists have sufficient training to conduct less intensive functional restoration. The effectiveness of physiotherapy functional restoration (PFR) has not been evaluated using current systematic review methodology. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of PFR for post-acute LBP. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases searched include: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro and Cochrane CENTRAL. TRIAL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy treatment for post-acute LBP combining exercise and cognitive-behavioural intervention compared with other intervention, no intervention or placebo. TRIAL APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two authors independently extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro scale and overall quality of the body of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Treatment effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for pain, function and sick leave. RESULTS: Sixteen trials were included. Heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis for most comparisons. Meta-analyses showed moderate to high quality evidence of significant but small effects favouring PFR compared with advice for intermediate term function and intermediate and long term pain. There was however low to moderate quality evidence that PFR was no more effective than a range of other treatment types. Heterogeneous trials frequently contributed to very low quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate to high quality evidence was found of small effects favouring PFR compared with advice. Preliminary evidence suggested PFR is not different to other treatment types. Further high quality research is required replicating existing trial protocols.

Background Context Physical therapy is commonly sought by people with lumbar disc herniation and associated radiculopathy. It is unclear whether physical therapy is effective for this population. Purpose To determine the effectiveness of physical therapist-delivered individualized functional restoration as an adjunct to guideline-based advice in people with lumbar disc herniation and associated radiculopathy. Study Design This is a preplanned subgroup analysis of a multicenter parallel group randomized controlled trial. Patient Sample The study included 54 participants with clinical features of radiculopathy (6-week to 6-month duration) and imaging showing a lumbar disc herniation. Outcome Measures Primary outcomes were activity limitation (Oswestry Disability Index) and separate 0–10 numerical pain rating scales for leg pain and back pain. Measures were taken at baseline and at 5, 10, 26, and 52 weeks. Methods The participants were randomly allocated to receive either individualized functional restoration incorporating advice (10 sessions) or guideline-based advice alone (2 sessions) over a 10-week period. Treatment was administered by 11 physical therapists at private clinics in Melbourne, Australia. Results Between-group differences for activity limitation favored the addition of individualized functional restoration to advice alone at 10 weeks (7.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3–15.1) and 52 weeks (8.2, 95% CI 0.7–15.6), as well as back pain at 10 weeks (1.4, 95% CI 0.2–2.7). There were no significant differences between groups for leg pain at any follow-up. Several secondary outcomes also favored individualized functional restoration over advice. Conclusions In participants with lumbar disc herniation and associated radiculopathy, an individualized functional restoration program incorporating advice led to greater reduction in activity limitation at 10- and 52-week follow-ups compared with guideline-based advice alone. Although back pain was significantly reduced at 10 weeks with individualized functional restoration, this effect was not maintained at later timepoints, and there were no significant effects on leg pain, relative to guideline-based advice.

Background: It has been recommended that clinical trials on people with low back disorders (LBDs) should have a greater focus on subgroup specific treatment in order to increase the likelihood of clinically meaningful effects being demonstrated. Functional restoration is a treatment approach that has demonstrated some evidence of effectiveness in subacute and chronic LBDs. However, most studies to date have not used a clearly defined and appropriately detailed clinical protocol designed for and applied to a homogenous subgroup.Objectives: This paper presents a detailed classification and treatment protocol for people with a LBD and clinical features indicative of multifactorial persistent pain. The treatment is directed at psychosocial and neurophysiological barriers to recovery.Discussion: The classification and treatment components in the clinical protocol are discussed.Conclusion: The described clinical protocol will be used in the specific treatment of problems of the spine (STOPS) trials comp...

Background Manual therapy is frequently used to treat low back pain (LBP), but evidence of its effectiveness is limited. One explanation may be sample heterogeneity and inadequate sub-grouping of participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where manual therapy has not been targeted toward those likely to respond. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of specific manual therapy provided to sub-groups of participants identified as likely to respond to manual therapy. Data sources A systematic search of electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL). Trial eligibility criteria RCTs on manual therapy for participants identified as belonging to a sub-group of LBP likely to respond to manual therapy were included. Trial appraisal and synthesis methods Identified trials were assessed for eligibility. Data from included trials were extracted by two authors independently. Risk of bias in each trial was assessed using the PEDro scale and the overall quality of evidence rated according to the GRADE domains. Treatment effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for pain and activity. Results Seven RCTs were included in the review. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Significant treatment effects were found favouring sub-group specific manual therapy over a number of comparison treatments for pain and activity at short and intermediate follow-up. However, the overall GRADE quality of evidence was very low. Conclusions This review found preliminary evidence supporting the effectiveness of sub-group specific manual therapy. Further high quality research on LBP sub-groups is required.

Background: It has been widely recommended that clinical trials on people with low back disorders (LBDs) should have a greater focus on subgroup specific treatment in order to increase the likeliho...

Background: It has been widely recommended that clinical trials on people with low back disorders should have a greater focus on subgroup specific treatment in order to increase the likelihood of clinically meaningful effects being demonstrated. The McKenzie approach to assessing and treating patients with a directional preference is a potentially useful and widely used clinical method in providing specific treatment. Studies to date have not used a clearly defined and appropriately detailed clinical protocol for the McKenzie approach that is reproducible in the clinical or research setting.Objectives: This paper presents a detailed classification and treatment protocol for people with clinical features thought to be indicative of reducible discogenic pain with a directional preference that is responsive to mechanical loading strategies.Discussion: A pathoanatomical interpretation of the McKenzie approach, classification principles and particular treatment components in the clinical protocol are d...

Background: It has been widely recommended that clinical trials involving people with low back disorders should identify subgroups and provide specific treatment in order to increase the likelihood of clinically meaningful effects being demonstrated. The Maitland approach to providing manual therapy is an appropriate and widely used clinical method in providing specific treatment. However, few clinical trials have described a detailed clinical protocol that allows replication in clinical and research practice.Objectives: This paper presents a detailed classification and treatment protocol for people with clinical features indicating a likely positive response to specific manual therapy.Conclusion: The presented protocol will be used in the Specific Treatment for Problems of the Spine trials comparing specific physiotherapy to evidence-based advice.

Background and PurposeThe lumbar zygapophyseal joints (LZJs) are thought to be a source of low back pain (LBP); however, no valid or reliable indicators exist. The purpose of this study was to obtain a consensus from an expert panel on the indicators of LZJ pain.SubjectsA multidisciplinary panel of 20 experts in the field of LBP participated in this study.MethodsA 3-round Delphi survey designed to obtain a consensus on the indicators of LZJ pain was completed by use of accepted protocols. Subjects also were asked to justify their selection of each indicator.ResultsFollowing the 3 rounds, consensus was achieved, and 12 indicators were identified. Those that reached the highest levels of consensus were a positive response to facet joint injection, localized unilateral LBP, positive medial branch block, pain upon unilateral palpation of the LZJ or transverse process, lack of radicular features, pain eased by flexion, and pain, if referred, located above the knee. Justifications for the experts’ selection of the indicators, predominantly based on pathoanatomical mechanisms, also were described.Discussion and ConclusionThis Delphi survey identified 12 indicators of LZJ pain, each with an associated pathoanatomical mechanism justifying selection. This survey provides preliminary validation for these indicators, which will be of value in further research into the classification and treatment of LZJ pain.

The classification of low back pain has been proposed as a high research priority due to the possible confounding effect of sample heterogeneity on effect sizes for outcome studies investigating treatment efficacy. However, the literature is unclear regarding methodological criteria for the development and validation of low back pain classification systems. The objectives of this paper were to describe and discuss the methodology used in studies researching the development and validation of low back pain classification systems. A database search for relevant papers was conducted, and data describing the frequency of utilisation of specific methodologies extracted and summarised. Seventy-seven papers were included in the review. Considerable variability in the methodological approaches used was found. Based on the results of the review and a comparison with the theory of classification, recommendations are made for future research into the classification of low back pain.

Background: Successful management of workers on sick leave due to low back pain by the general physician and physiotherapist depends on reliable prognostic information on the course of low back pain and work resumption. Methods: Retrospective cohort study in 194 patients who were compensated because of chronic low back pain and who were treated by a physiotherapy functional restoration program. Patient-reported and clinician based prognostic indicators were assessed at baseline before patients entered the functional restoration program. We investigated the predictive value of these indicators on work status at 6 months. Relationships were studied using logistic regression analysis in a 2-step bootstrap modelling approach and a nomogram was developed. Discrimination and calibration of the nomogram was evaluated internally and the explained variation of the nomogram calculated. Results: Seventy percent of workers were back to work at 6 months. We found that including duration of complaints, functional disability, disc herniation and fear avoidance beliefs resulted in the "best" prognostic model. All these factors delayed work resumption. This model was used to construct a nomogram. The explained variation of the nomogram was 23.7%. Discrimination was estimated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and was 0.76 and for calibration we used the slope estimate that was 0.91. The positive predictive values of the nomogram at different cut-off levels of predicted probability were good. Conclusions: Knowledge of the predictive value of these indicators by physicians and physiotherapists will help to identify subgroups of patients and will thus enhance clinical decision-making. © 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Background Low back disorders are prevalent and directional preference management is a common treatment with mixed evidence for effectiveness. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of individualised directional preference management plus guideline-based advice versus advice alone in participants with reducible discogenic pain of 6-week to 6-month duration. Design Pre-planned secondary analysis of a multicentre, parallel group randomised controlled trial. Methods Participants were randomly allocated to receive a 10-week physiotherapy program of 10-sessions of individualised directional preference management plus guideline-based advice (n = 40) or 2-sessions of advice alone (n = 38). Primary outcomes were back pain, leg pain and activity limitation. Outcomes were taken at baseline and 5, 10, 26, and 52-weeks. Results Between-group differences significantly favoured directional preference management compared with advice for back pain at 5-weeks (1.28; 95% CI 0.34–2.23) and 10-weeks (1.45; 95% CI 0.51–2.40), and leg pain at 10-weeks (1.21; 95% CI 0.04–2.39). These short-term differences were not maintained. There were no significant differences between-groups for activity limitation. Secondary outcomes and responder analyses favoured directional preference management suggesting between-group differences were clinically important. Conclusions In people with reducible discogenic pain, individualised directional preference management plus guideline-based advice resulted in significant and rapid improvement in short-term back and leg pain compared with advice alone. These effects were not maintained at long-term and there were no differences in activity limitation. Individualised directional preference management could be considered for patients with reducible discogenic pain seeking rapid pain relief however further research is indicated.

Background Many patients with low-back disorders persisting beyond 6 weeks do not recover. This study investigates whether individualised physiotherapy plus guideline-based advice results in superior outcomes to advice alone in participants with low-back disorders. Methods This prospective parallel group multicentre randomised controlled trial was set in 16 primary care physiotherapy practices in Melbourne, Australia. Random assignment resulted in 156 participants receiving 10 sessions of physiotherapy that was individualised based on pathoanatomical, psychosocial and neurophysiological barriers to recovery combined with guideline-based advice, and 144 participants receiving 2 sessions of physiotherapist-delivered advice alone. Primary outcomes were activity limitation (Oswestry Disability Index) and numerical rating scales for back and leg pain at 5, 10, 26 and 52 weeks postbaseline. Analyses were by intention-to-treat using linear mixed models. Results Between-group differences showed significant effects favouring individualised physiotherapy for back and leg pain at 10 weeks (back: 1.3, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.8; leg: 1.1, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.7) and 26 weeks (back: 0.9, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.4; leg: 1.0, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.6). Oswestry favoured individualised physiotherapy at 10 weeks (4.7; 95% CI 2.0 to 7.5), 26 weeks (5.4; 95% CI 2.6 to 8.2) and 52 weeks (4.3; 95% CI 1.4 to 7.1). Responder analysis at 52 weeks showed participants receiving individualised physiotherapy were more likely to improve by a clinically important amount of 50% from baseline for Oswestry (relative risk (RR=1.3) 1.5; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8) and back pain (RR 1.3; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8) than participants receiving advice alone. Conclusions 10 sessions of individualised physiotherapy was more effective than 2 sessions of advice alone in participants with low-back disorders of ≥6 weeks and ≤6 months duration. Between-group changes were sustained at 12 months for activity limitation and 6 months for back and leg pain and were likely to be clinically significant. Clinical trial registration ACTRN12609000834257.

BackgroundProviding specific treatment based on symptom response for people with low back pain (LBP) and a directional preference (DP) is a widely used treatment approach. The efficacy of treatment using the principles of directional preference management (DPM) for LBP is unclear.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of treatment using the principles of DPM for people with LBP and a DP.MethodsComputer databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English up to January 2010. Only RCTs investigating DPM for people with LBP and a DP were included. Outcomes for pain, back specific function, and work participation were extracted.ResultsSix RCTs were included in this review. Five were considered high quality. Clinical heterogeneity of the included trials prevented meta-analysis. GRADE quality assessment revealed mixed results; however, moderate evidence was identified that DPM was significantly more effective than a number of comparison treatments for pain, function, and work participation at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-ups. No trials found that DPM was significantly less effective than comparison treatments.ConclusionsAlthough this systematic review showed mixed results, some evidence was found supporting the effectiveness of DPM when applied to participants with a DP, particularly at short-term and intermediate-term follow-ups. Further high-quality RCTs are warranted to evaluate the effect of DPM applied to people with LBP and a DP.

Background Low back disorders are a common and costly cause of pain and activity limitation in adults. Few treatment options have demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits apart from advice which is recommended in all international guidelines. Clinical heterogeneity of participants in clinical trials is hypothesised as reducing the likelihood of demonstrating treatment effects, and sampling of more homogenous subgroups is recommended. We propose five subgroups that allow the delivery of specific physiotherapy treatment targeting the pathoanatomical, neurophysiological and psychosocial components of low back disorders. The aim of this article is to describe the methodology of a randomised controlled trial comparing specific physiotherapy treatment to advice for people classified into five subacute low back disorder subgroups. Methods/Design A multi-centre parallel group randomised controlled trial is proposed. A minimum of 250 participants with subacute (6 weeks to 6 months) low back pain and/or referred leg pain will be classified into one of five subgroups and then randomly allocated to receive either physiotherapy advice (2 sessions over 10 weeks) or specific physiotherapy treatment (10 sessions over 10 weeks) tailored according to the subgroup of the participant. Outcomes will be assessed at 5 weeks, 10 weeks, 6 months and 12 months following randomisation. Primary outcomes will be activity limitation measured with a modified Oswestry Disability Index as well as leg and back pain intensity measured on separate 0-10 Numerical Rating Scales. Secondary outcomes will include a 7-point global rating of change scale, satisfaction with physiotherapy treatment, satisfaction with treatment results, the Sciatica Frequency and Bothersomeness Scale, quality of life (EuroQol-5D), interference with work, and psychosocial risk factors (Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire). Adverse events and co-interventions will also be measured. Data will be analysed according to intention to treat principles, using linear mixed models for continuous outcomes, Mann Whitney U tests for ordinal outcomes, and Chi-square, risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous outcomes. Discussion This trial will determine the difference in outcomes between specific physiotherapy treatment tailored to each of the five subgroups versus advice which is recommended in guidelines as a suitable treatment for most people with a low back disorder. Trial registration Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12609000834257.

To report the outcomes and adverse events of people diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation with associated radiculopathy (LDHR) who were treated with a physiotherapy functional restoration programme.Data on functional outcome (Oswestry score), work status, global rating of change, and adverse events were extracted from the files of all people with LDHR treated by three physiotherapists using functional restoration principles from 2001 to 2009.Ninety-five participants were included. The Oswestry score reduced by a mean of 15.9 (95% CI, 11.8-20.1) points between baseline and discharge following a mean (SD) of 8.7 (9.4) months of treatment. The proportion of participants working full-time increased from 37% to 67% between baseline and discharge (p 0.001). Eighty per cent of participants reported overall improvement between baseline and discharge on the global rating of change scale (p 0.001). Minor adverse events were reported by eight (8%) participants, while one (1%) participant developed adhesive capsulitis.People with LDHR who undertook a physiotherapy functional restoration programme achieved significant improvements in Oswestry disability scores, work status, and global rating of change, with few adverse events reported. A randomised controlled trial is warranted to determine the efficacy of functional restoration for people with this condition.

Study design A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Objective To determine the efficacy and adverse effects of conservative treatments for people who have lumbar disc herniation with associated radiculopathy (LDHR). Summary of background data Although conservative management is commonly used for people who have LDHR, the efficacy and adverse effects of conservative treatments for this condition are unclear. Methods We searched 10 computer databases for trials published in English between 1971 and 2008. Trials focusing on people with referred leg symptoms and radiologic confirmation of a lumbar disc herniation were included if at least 1 group received a conservative and noninjection treatment. Results Eighteen trials involving 1671 participants were included. Seven (39%) trials were considered of high quality. Meta-analysis on 2 high-quality trials revealed that advice is less effective than microdiscectomy surgery at short-term follow-up, but equally effective at long-term follow-up. Individual high-quality trials provided moderate evidence that stabilization exercises are more effective than no treatment, that manipulation is more effective than sham manipulation for people with acute symptoms and an intact anulus, and that no difference exists among traction, laser, and ultrasound. One trial showed some additional benefit from adding mechanical traction to medication and electrotherapy methods. Adverse events were associated with traction (pain, anxiety, lower limb weakness, and fainting) and ibuprofen (gastrointestinal events). Conclusion Advice is less effective than microdiscectomy in the short term but equally effective in the long term for people who have LDHR. Moderate evidence favors stabilization exercises over no treatment, manipulation over sham manipulation, and the addition of mechanical traction to medication and electrotherapy. There was no difference among traction, laser, and ultrasound. Adverse events were associated with traction and ibuprofen. Additional high-quality trials would allow firmer conclusions regarding adverse effects and efficacy.

Background and Purpose. The effectiveness of functional restoration (FR) for patients with lumbar disk herniation with associated radiculopathy (LDHR) is unclear. This case report describes how an FR program was used to rehabilitate a patient with such an injury. Case Description. The patient was a 26-year-old female child care worker with a 12-month history of back pain and a 4-month history of unremitting left leg symptoms. She had clinical and radiological evidence of an L5–S1 disk extrusion with associated left S1 radiculopathy. Interventions. The patient completed a 9-week FR program supervised by a physical therapist. Exercises then were continued more independently for a 2-year period at a public gymnasium. Outcomes. Following 9 weeks of supervised FR, the patient demonstrated marked improvement in symptoms and functional ability, and resolution of neurological signs. Fourteen months after commencing FR, a follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scan demonstrated resolution of the L5–S1 disk extrusion and relief of S1 nerve root compression. Functional improvements continued and were maintained 2 years following the start of intervention. Discussion. A patient with chronic LDHR who underwent FR made significant improvements. Research is needed to determine the efficacy of an FR approach for treating such patients.

Physiotherapists commonly record detailed patient information regarding subjective complaints for low back pain (LBP), particularly to assist in the process of classifying patients into specific subgroups. A self-administered Subjective Complaints Questionnaire for LBP (SCQ-LBP) measuring such information was developed for the purposes of future clinical research, particularly in the area of LBP classification. The development comprised literature review, feedback from experienced physiotherapists and pilot questionnaire testing in a patient population. Test-retest reliability of the questionnaire in a self administered format as well as concurrent validity against a suitable reference standard was evaluated. The agreement between the self administered questionnaire compared to when administered by a physiotherapist was also tested as the latter method is the most common form of retrieving subjective complaints in clinical practice. Thirty participants with LBP were recruited and at least moderate test-retest reliability was demonstrated in 56 of the 57 self administered questionnaire items. Preliminary evidence was found supporting the concurrent validity of selected items. At least moderate agreement was demonstrated in 51 of the 57 items when comparing between the self administered and physiotherapist administered conditions. The questionnaire is a useful tool for collecting subjective complaints information, particularly for clinical research on the classification of LBP, however, further research regarding validity is required.

of the brachial plexus. Initial symptoms of insidious onset, severe upper limb pain, non-dermatomal and non-mechanical in nature, was not relieved by analgesia. Exclusion of potential differential diagnoses, such as mass lesions, cervical disc herniation, foraminal stenosis andadhesive capsulitiswas confirmedwith imaging. There were no initial signs of mobility loss, muscle weakness or atrophy, however weakness in the right upper limb was evident within 3 weeks, limiting active range of shoulder movement, with maintenance of passive range. In particular, weakness of serratus anterior, deltoid, supraspinatus, infraspinatus and triceps was noted, implicating involvement of the axillary, long thoracic and suprascapular nerves. Discussion: A comprehensive literature review, cadaveric anatomical dissection and video images of the case report were examined. Common peripheral nerves affected in ParsonageTurner Syndromeare the long thoracic nerve arising fromtheupper trunk (C5 and C6 nerve roots), long thoracic nerve arising from the upper and middle trunks (C5, C6, C7 nerve roots) and the axillary nerve arising from the posterior cord (C5, C6 nerve roots). Insidious onset or following viral illness, trauma, surgery and vaccination have been reported as possible causes, however Parsonage-Turner Syndrome can be a diagnostic challenge for the clinician. Diagnosis is based on thorough history, physical examination, exclusion of co-morbidities and confirmed with electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction studies (NCS). A key diagnostic clue is evidence of muscle weakness and atrophy in different peripheral nerves rather than dermatomal or myotomal pattern. The male athlete demonstrated loss of active shoulder range within 3 weeks of initial onset, with neurological examination demonstrating normal sensation and reflex testing but reduced isometricmuscle strength tests. At this stage EMG andNCS demonstrated denervation in the axillary, long thoracic and suprascapular nerves which when repeated at 9 months revealed re-innervation signs. Physiotherapy was undertaken in early stages to maintain mobility and muscle strength of unaffected musculature. Once re-innervation had been established, a graduated strengthening program was instituted with single muscle activation, muscle patterning and motor retraining. Active elevation was achieved by 18 months, with residual strength deficits resolving. Physiotherapy played a crucial role in facilitating an early diagnosis via onward referral for EMG andNCS confirmation, early pain management, education, prevention of secondary loss of mobility and further muscle atrophy, followed by implementation of targeted muscle and motor pattern retraining and subsequent sport specific rehabilitation.