Search

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has greatly limited patients' access to care for spine-related symptoms and disorders. However, physical distancing between clinicians and patients with spine-related symptoms is not solely limited to restrictions imposed by pandemic-related lockdowns. In most low- and middle-income countries, as well as many underserved marginalized communities in high-income countries, there is little to no access to clinicians trained in evidence-based care for people experiencing spinal pain. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to describe the development and present the components of evidence-based patient and clinician guides for the management of spinal disorders where in-person care is not available. MethodsUltimately, two sets of guides were developed (one for patients and one for clinicians) by extracting information from the published Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) papers. An international, interprofessional team of 29 participants from 10 countries on 4 continents participated. The team included practitioners in family medicine, neurology, physiatry, rheumatology, psychology, chiropractic, physical therapy, and yoga, as well as epidemiologists, research methodologists, and laypeople. The participants were invited to review, edit, and comment on the guides in an open iterative consensus process. ResultsThe Patient Guide is a simple 2-step process. The first step describes the nature of the symptoms or concerns. The second step provides information that a patient can use when considering self-care, determining whether to contact a clinician, or considering seeking emergency care. The Clinician Guide is a 5-step process: (1) Obtain and document patient demographics, location of primary clinical symptoms, and psychosocial information. (2) Review the symptoms noted in the patient guide. (3) Determine the GSCI classification of the patient’s spine-related complaints. (4) Ask additional questions to determine the GSCI subclassification of the symptom pattern. (5) Consider appropriate treatment interventions. ConclusionsThe Patient and Clinician Guides are designed to be sufficiently clear to be useful to all patients and clinicians, irrespective of their location, education, professional qualifications, and experience. However, they are comprehensive enough to provide guidance on the management of all spine-related symptoms or disorders, including triage for serious and specific diseases. They are consistent with widely accepted evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. They also allow for adequate documentation and medical record keeping. These guides should be of value during periods of government-mandated physical or social distancing due to infectious diseases, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. They should also be of value in underserved communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries where there is a dearth of accessible trained spine care clinicians. These guides have the potential to reduce the overutilization of unnecessary and expensive interventions while empowering patients to self-manage uncomplicated spinal pain with the assistance of their clinician, either through direct in-person consultation or via telehealth communication.

Low back pain and depression have been globally recognized as key public health problems and they are considered co-morbid conditions. This study explores both cross-sectional and longitudinal comorbid associations between back pain and major depression in the adult population in the United States. We used data from the Midlife in the United States survey (MIDUS), linking MIDUS II and III with a sample size of 2358. Logistic regression and Poisson regression models were used. The cross-sectional analysis showed significant associations between back pain and major depression. The longitudinal analysis indicated that back pain at baseline was prospectively associated with major depression at follow-up (PR 1.96, CI: 1.41, 2.74), controlling for health behavioral and demographic variables. Major depression at baseline was also prospectively associated with back pain at follow-up (PR 1.48, CI: 1.04, 2.13), controlling for a set of related confounders. These findings of a bidirectional comorbid association fill a gap in the current understanding of these comorbid conditions and could have clinical implications for the management and prevention of both depression and low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Examining workplace psychosocial risk factors for back pain becomes increasingly important because of the changing nature of work and rising healthcare costs. Some psychosocial risk factors for back pain, such as work and family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment, and job insecurity, are understudied for the working population in the United States. METHODS: Data used in this study came from the Quality of Work Life Survey (QWL), a supplementary module of the General Social Survey conducted in the United States. Data from the 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2018 QWL surveys were used in these analyses, giving a total sample size of 6661. Five domains of workplace psychosocial risk factors for back pain were examined, including job strain, low social support, work-family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment (harassment and discrimination), and job insecurity. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of each psychosocial risk factor for back pain with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was estimated using a multivariable logistic regression model after controlling for job physical factors, occupation, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. RESULTS: Significant associations were found between back pain and several psychosocial factors including job strain (aOR 1.19; CI 1.00,1.41), work-family imbalance (aOR,1.42; CI 1.22,1.64), harassment (aOR 1.40; CI 1.15,1.71), and discrimination (aOR 1.20 CI 1.00,1.44). CONCLUSION: This study contributes to the understanding of the relationship between a variety of workplace psychosocial factors and back pain. Our findings suggest directions in future longitudinal research to examine emerging workplace psychosocial factors for back pain.

PurposeThe focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability.MethodsOn September 17-18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the participants to object and provide comments.ResultsIn total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disorders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes.ConclusionsSPINE20's initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.

ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were to estimate prevalence of low back pain, to investigate associations between low back pain and a set of emerging workplace risk factors, and to identify worker groups with an increased vulnerability for low back pain in the United States.MethodsThe data used for this cross-sectional study came from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey, which was designed to collect data on health conditions and related risk factors from the US civilian population. The variance estimation method was used to compute weighted data for prevalence of low back pain. Multivariable logistic regression analyses stratified by sex and age were performed to determine the odds ratios (ORs) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for low back pain. The examined work-related psychosocial risk factors included work-family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment, and job insecurity. Work hours, occupation, and other work organizational factors (nonstandard work arrangements and alternative shifts) were also examined.ResultsThe prevalence of self-reported low back pain in the previous 3 months among workers in the United States was 25.7% in 2010. Female or older workers were at increased risk of experiencing low back pain. We found significant associations between low back pain and a set of psychosocial factors, including work-family imbalance (OR 1.27, CI 1.15-1.41), exposure to hostile work (OR 1.39, CI 1.25-1.55), and job insecurity (OR 1.44, CI 1.24-1.67), while controlling for demographic characteristics and other health-related factors. Older workers who had nonstandard work arrangements were more likely to report low back pain. Women who worked 41 to 45 hours per week and younger workers who worked >60 hours per week had an increased risk for low back pain. Workers from several occupation groups, including male health care practitioners, female and younger health care support workers, and female farming, fishing, and forestry workers, had an increased risk of low back pain.ConclusionsThis study linked low back pain to work-family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment, job insecurity, long work hours, and certain occupation groups. These factors should be considered by employers, policymakers, and health care practitioners who are concerned about the impact of low back pain in workers.

BackgroundNeck pain is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition among workers in the United States. This study explores a set of workplace psychosocial and organization-related factors for neck pain.MethodsData used for this study come from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey which provides a representative sample of the US population. To account for the complex sampling design, the Taylor linearized variance estimation method was used. Logistic regression models were constructed to measure the associations.ResultsThis study demonstrated significant associations between neck pain and a set of workplace risk factors, including work-family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment and job insecurity, non-standard work arrangements, multiple jobs, and long work hours.ConclusionWorkers with neck pain may benefit from intervention programs that address issues related to these workplace risk factors. Future studies exploring both psychosocial risk factors and physical risk factors with a longitudinal design will be important. Am. J. Ind. Med. 59:549-560, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

ObjectivePrevious studies have shown that cortical-evoked potentials on magnetic stimulation of muscles are influenced by muscle contraction, vibration, and muscle spasm. This study was carried out to determine whether these potentials correlate with palpatory muscle spasm, patient symptoms, and disability in patients with low back pain.MethodsA prospective observational study was performed on 13 subjects with a history of low back pain visiting an orthopedic hospital-based clinic. Patients were screened for serious pathologic conditions by an orthopedic surgeon. The patients were then evaluated for the presence of muscle spasm by one of the investigators who was blinded to the results of the evoked potential studies. Patients were asked to complete a low back pain visual analogue scale (VAS) and a Roland-Morris Activity Scale (RMAS). Cortical-evoked potentials were recorded with a magnetic stimulator placed over the lumbar paraspinal muscles with the patient in the prone position. The palpatory examination, VAS, RMAS, and the cortical potentials were repeated after 2 weeks of therapy commonly used to reduce muscle spasm.ResultsThe patients demonstrated a significant decrease in low back pain VAS and RMAS scores after treatment compared with before treatment. There was a reduction in the amount of palpatory muscle spasm in 11 of 13 cases. The cortical potentials before treatment were attenuated compared with previously reported controls and showed a significant increase before and after treatment in the amplitude of these potentials with multivariate analysis of variance. There was significant correlation between the changes in cortical potentials after treatment and the changes noted in paraspinal muscle spasm and VAS and RMAS scores.ConclusionsThis study confirms the previous report that the amplitude of cerebral-evoked potentials on magnetic stimulation of paraspinal muscles is depressed in the presence of palpable muscle spasm. The close correlation among these potentials, paraspinal muscle spasm, and clinical symptoms suggests that the measurement of muscle activity may be more important in the assessment of low back pain than is commonly accepted.

H-reflexes in normals were elicited by percutaneous electrical and magnetic stimulation of proximal nerve roots at the cauda equina. H-M interval to S1 nerve root stimulation at the level of the S1 foramen was 6.8 +/- 0.33 ms, with side to side difference of 0.16 +/- 0.13 ms. Compression/ischemia of the sciatic nerve in the mid-thigh abolished the H-reflex to stimulation of the tibial nerve at the popliteal fossa when the H-reflex to S1 nerve root stimulation was preserved. The length of the S1 nerve root in human cadavers was measured to be 17.5 +/- 03 cm, providing an estimated dorsal root conduction velocity of 67.3 m/s and a ventral root conduction velocity of 54 m/s. We conclude that the H-M interval to S1 root stimulation can provide reliable measures of conduction within the spinal canal including proximal afferents, anterior horn cells and ventral roots.

We tested the hypothesis that magnetic stimulation of muscle evokes cerebral potentials by causing a muscle contraction that then activates muscle receptors. We measured cerebral evoked potentials accompanying magnetic stimulation of muscle in 3 patients during surgery both before and after muscle paralysis with succinylcholine, a depolarizing agent. The magnetic stimulation was at low intensity (30%) and at a 2/s rate. The administration of succinylcholine sufficient to produce muscle paralysis did not alter cerebral potentials evoked by either low-intensity magnetic stimulation of muscle (gastrocnemius/soleus) or electrical stimulation of peripheral nerve (tibial nerve). In 1 normal subject, the S1 nerve root action potentials conducting at rapid velocity (> 60 m/s) were detected at the S1 foramen with a needle electrode using electrical stimulation of the tibial nerve. However, no S1 nerve root potentials could be identified to magnetic stimulation of muscle that evoked a cerebral potential. We conclude that magnetic stimulation of muscle activates terminal afferents in the muscle to provide the afferent drive for the cerebral potentials independent of muscle contraction. The failure to detect the afferent volley in S1 nerve root to magnetic stimulation suggests that only a few afferents are activated or that the activation of afferents is temporally dispersed.

Cerebral somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) were elicited by magnetic stimulation of paraspinal muscles unilaterally at the L2 and L5 levels in 20 healthy subjects and 16 patients with low back pain and unilateral muscle spasm. A magnetic coil with a mean diameter of 4.7 cm was placed tangentially to the skin. The stimulus strength was sufficient to induce a visible muscle twitch without producing muscle contraction in the legs. The potentials recorded over the scalp consisted of several components (P30, N40, P55, N70, and P90) and were elicited in all subjects. In both healthy and patient subjects, paraspinal muscle evoked potentials were readily elicited. Vibration applied to paraspinal muscles, as well as voluntary contraction of paraspinal muscles, was associated with attenuation of the evoked potentials. This finding suggests that muscle spindle receptors provide the afferent input responsible for the early components of the magnetically evoked cerebral potentials. In patients with unilateral muscle spasm, the amplitudes of P30-N40, N40-P50, and P50-N70 were decreased significantly on the affected side when compared with values on stimulation of the unaffected side, as well as those obtained from control subjects. The cerebral evoked potentials returned to normal amplitude when the muscle spasm subsided following a period of time and after the application of spinal manipulative therapy. The technique has potential for quantitative evaluation of muscle spasm in low back pain.