Search

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]