Search

Introduction Low back pain is a significant burden to society and the lack of reliable outcome measures, combined with a prevailing inability to quantify the biopsychosocial elements implicated in the disease, impedes clinical decision- making and distorts treatment efficacy. This paper aims to validate the utility of a biopsychosocial spine platform to provide standardized wearable sensor- derived functional motion assessments to assess spine function and differentiate between healthy controls and patients. Secondarily, we explored the correlation between these motion features and subjective biopsychosocial measures. Methods An observational study was conducted on healthy controls (n=50) and patients with low back pain (n=50) to validate platform utility. The platform was used to conduct functional assessments along with patient- reported outcome assessments to holistically document cohort differences. Our primary outcomes were motion features; and our secondary outcomes were biopsychosocial measures (pain, function, etc). Results Our results demonstrated statistically significant differences in motion features between healthy and patient cohorts across anatomical planes. Importantly, we found velocity and acceleration in the axial plane showed the largest difference, with healthy controls having 49.7% and 55.7% higher values, respectively, than patients. In addition, we found significant correlations between motion features and biopsychosocial measures for pain, physical function and social role only. Conclusions Our study validated the use of wearable sensor- derived functional motion metrics in differentiating healthy controls and patients. Collectively, this technology has the potential to facilitate holistic biopsychosocial evaluations to enhance spine care and improve patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical management of sacroiliac disease has proven challenging from both diagnostic and therapeutic perspectives. Although it is widely regarded as a common source of low back pain, little consensus exists on the appropriate clinical management of sacroiliac joint pain and dysfunction. Understanding the biomechanics, innervation, and function of this complex load bearing joint is critical to formulating appropriate treatment algorithms for SI joint disorders. ASPN has developed this comprehensive practice guideline to serve as a foundational reference on the appropriate management of SI joint disorders utilizing the best available evidence and serve as a foundational guide for the treatment of adult patients in the United States and globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the potential link between cognitive dissonance or its related constructs (emotional dissonance, emotional labor) and musculoskeletal disorders. Background: The etiology of musculoskeletal disorders is complex, as pain arises from complex interactions among physical, social, and psychological stressors. It is possible that the psychological factor of cognitive dissonance may contribute to the etiology and/or maintenance of musculoskeletal disorders. Method: MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL Plus databases were searched for studies investigating cognitive dissonance or its related constructs as exposure(s) of interest and outcomes related to physical health (including, but not limited to, musculoskeletal pain). Risk of bias was assessed using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) tool. Results: The literature search yielded 7 studies eligible for inclusion. None of the included studies investigated cognitive dissonance directly but instead investigated dissonance-related constructs of emotional dissonance and emotional labor, in which a mismatch between required and felt emotions might elicit a psychological response consistent with the cognitive dissonance state. Moderate effect sizes between dissonance-related constructs and musculoskeletal disorders were noted (OR 1.25–2.22). Conclusion: There is likely a relationship between the two factors studied. However, as the included studies were cross-sectional in nature, a causal relationship between cognitive dissonance-related constructs and musculoskeletal disorders cannot be inferred. Therefore, future study proposing and validating a causal pathway between these variables is warranted. Application: Cognitive dissonance and its related constructs may serve as risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders that have not been considered previously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Surgical decompression is the definitive treatment for managing symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis; however, select patients are poor surgical candidates. Consequently, minimally invasive procedures have gained popularity, but there exists the potential for failure of therapy necessitating eventual surgical decompression. Purpose: To evaluate the incidence and characteristics of patients who require surgical decompression following minimally invasive procedures to treat lumbar spinal stenosis. Study Design/Setting: Retrospective review. Patient Sample: Patients who underwent minimally invasive procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis (Percutaneous Image‐guided Lumbar Decompression [PILD] or interspinous spacer device [ISD]) and progressed to subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the rate of surgical decompression within 5 years following the minimally invasive approach. Secondary outcomes included demographic and comorbid factors associated with increased odds of requiring subsequent surgery. Methods: Patient data were collected using the PearlDiver‐Mariner database. The rate of subsequent decompression was described as a percentage while univariable and multivariable regression analysis was used for the analysis of predictors. Results: A total of 5278 patients were included, of which 3222 (61.04%) underwent PILD, 1959 (37.12%) underwent ISD placement, and 97 (1.84%) had claims for both procedures. Overall, the incidence of subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years was 6.56% (346 of 5278 patients). Variables associated with a significantly greater odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of requiring subsequent surgical decompression included male gender and a prior history of surgical decompression by 1.42 ([1.14, 1.77], p = 0.002) and 2.10 times ([1.39, 3.17], p < 0.001), respectively. In contrast, age 65 years and above, a diagnosis of obesity, and a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of three or greater were associated with a significantly reduced OR [95% CI] by 0.64 ([0.50, 0.81], p < 0.001), 0.62 ([0.48, 0.81], p < 0.001), and 0.71 times ([0.56, 0.91], p = 0.007), respectively. Conclusions: Minimally invasive procedures may provide an additional option to treat symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who do not desire open decompression; however, there still exists a subset of patients who will require subsequent surgical decompression. Factors such as gender and prior surgical decompression increase the likelihood of subsequent surgery, while older age, obesity, and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score reduce it. These findings aid in selecting suitable surgical candidates for better outcomes in the elderly population with lumbar spinal stenosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cognitive dissonance refers to a state where two psychologically inconsistent thoughts, behaviours, or attitudes are held at the same time. The objective of this study was to explore the potential role of cognitive dissonance in biomechanical loading in the low back and neck. Seventeen participants underwent a laboratory experiment involving a precision lowering task. To establish a cognitive dissonance state (CDS), study participants were provided negative feedback on their performance running counter to a pre-established expectation that their performance was excellent. Dependent measures of interest were spinal loads in the cervical and lumbar spines, calculated via two electromyography-driven models. The CDS was associated with increases to peak spinal loads in the neck (11.1%, p <.05) and low back (2.2%, p <.05). A greater CDS magnitude was also associated with a greater spinal loading increase. Therefore, cognitive dissonance may represent a risk factor for low back/neck pain that has not been previously identified. Practitioner summary: Upon establishing a cognitive dissonance state in a group of participants, spinal loading in the cervical and lumbar spines were increased proportional to the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance reported. Therefore, cognitive dissonance may represent a risk factor for low back and neck pain that has not been previously identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]