Lumbar disc degeneration is one of the leading causes of chronic low back pain. The degenerative cascade is often initiated by an imbalance between catabolic and anabolic processes in the ...intervertebral discs. As a consequence of extracellular matrix degradation, neoinnervation and neovascularization take place. Ultimately, this degenerative process results in disc bulging and loss of nucleus pulposus and water content and subsequent loss of disc height. Most patients respond to conservative management and surgical interventions well initially, yet a significant number of patients continue to suffer from chronic low back pain. Because of the high prevalence of long-term discogenic pain, regenerative biological therapies, including gene therapies, growth factors, cellular-based injections, and tissue-engineered constructs, have attracted significant attention in light of their potential to directly address the degenerative process. Understanding the pathophysiology of degenerative disc disease is important in both refining existing technologies and developing innovative techniques to reverse the degenerative processes in the discs. In this review, we aimed to cover the underlying pathophysiology of degenerative disc disease as well as its associated risk factors and give a comprehensive summary about the developmental, structural, radiological, and biomechanical properties of human intervertebral discs.
The objectives of this study were to explore the existence of subgroups in a cohort with chronic low back pain (n = 294) based on the results of multimodal sensory testing and profile subgroups on ...demographic, psychological, lifestyle, and general health factors. Bedside (2-point discrimination, brush, vibration and pinprick perception, temporal summation on repeated monofilament stimulation) and laboratory (mechanical detection threshold, pressure, heat and cold pain thresholds, conditioned pain modulation) sensory testing were examined at wrist and lumbar sites. Data were entered into principal component analysis, and 5 component scores were entered into latent class analysis. Three clusters, with different sensory characteristics, were derived. Cluster 1 (31.9%) was characterised by average to high temperature and pressure pain sensitivity. Cluster 2 (52.0%) was characterised by average to high pressure pain sensitivity. Cluster 3 (16.0%) was characterised by low temperature and pressure pain sensitivity. Temporal summation occurred significantly more frequently in cluster 1. Subgroups were profiled on pain intensity, disability, depression, anxiety, stress, life events, fear avoidance, catastrophizing, perception of the low back region, comorbidities, body mass index, multiple pain sites, sleep, and activity levels. Clusters 1 and 2 had a significantly greater proportion of female participants and higher depression and sleep disturbance scores than cluster 3. The proportion of participants undertaking <300 minutes per week of moderate activity was significantly greater in cluster 1 than in clusters 2 and 3. Low back pain, therefore, does not appear to be homogeneous. Pain mechanisms relating to presentations of each subgroup were postulated. Future research may investigate prognoses and interventions tailored towards these subgroups.
The Epidemiology of low back pain Hoy, D; Brooks, P; Blyth, F ...
Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology,
12/2010, Letnik:
24, Številka:
6
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Low back pain is an extremely common problem that most people experience at some point in their life. While substantial heterogeneity exists among low back pain epidemiological studies limiting the ...ability to compare and pool data, estimates of the 1 year incidence of a first-ever episode of low back pain range between 6.3% and 15.4%, while estimates of the 1 year incidence of any episode of low back pain range between 1.5% and 36%. In health facility- or clinic-based studies, episode remission at 1 year ranges from 54% to 90%; however, most studies do not indicate whether the episode was continuous between the baseline and follow-up time point(s). Most people who experience activity-limiting low back pain go on to have recurrent episodes. Estimates of recurrence at 1 year range from 24% to 80%. Given the variation in definitions of remission and recurrence, further population-based research is needed to assess the daily patterns of low back pain episodes over 1 year and longer. There is substantial information on low back pain prevalence and estimates of the point prevalence range from 1.0% to 58.1% (mean: 18.1%; median: 15.0%), and 1 year prevalence from 0.8% to 82.5% (mean: 38.1%; median: 37.4%). Due to the heterogeneity of the data, mean estimates need to be interpreted with caution. Many environmental and personal factors influence the onset and course of low back pain. Studies have found the incidence of low back pain is highest in the third decade, and overall prevalence increases with age until the 60–65 year age group and then gradually declines. Other commonly reported risk factors include low educational status, stress, anxiety, depression, job dissatisfaction, low levels of social support in the workplace and whole-body vibration. Low back pain has an enormous impact on individuals, families, communities, governments and businesses throughout the world. The Global Burden of Disease 2005 Study (GBD 2005) is currently making estimates of the global burden of low back pain in relation to impairment and activity limitation. Results will be available in 2011. Further research is needed to help us understand more about the broader outcomes and impacts from low back pain.
Qualitative interview study.
Explore attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions related to low back pain (LBP) and analyze how these might influence the perceived threat associated with back pain.
...Psychological factors that contribute to the perceived threat associated with LBP play an important role in back pain development and the progression to persistent pain and disability. Improved understanding of underlying beliefs may assist clinicians to investigate and assess these factors.
Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 12 participants with acute LBP (<6-wk duration) and 11 participants with chronic LBP (>3 mo duration). Data were analyzed thematically using the framework of Interpretive Description.
The back was viewed as being vulnerable to injury due to its design, the way in which it is used, and personal physical traits or previous injury. Consequently, participants considered that they needed to protect their back by resting, being careful with or avoiding dangerous activities, and strengthening muscles or controlling posture. Participants considered LBP to be special in its nature and impact, and they thought it difficult to understand without personal experience. The prognosis of LBP was considered uncertain by those with acute pain and poor by those with chronic pain. These beliefs combined to create a negative (mis)representation of the back.
Negative assumptions about the back made by those with LBP may affect information processing during an episode of pain. This may result in attentional bias toward information indicating that the spine is vulnerable, an injury is serious, or the outcome will be poor. Approaching consultations with this understanding may assist clinicians to have a positive influence on beliefs.
3.
Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is highly associated with inflammation in the context of low back pain. Currently, inflammation is associated with adverse symptoms related to the stimulation of nerve ...fibers that may lead to pain. However, inflammation has also been indicated as the main factor responsible for LDH regression. This apparent controversy places inflammation as a good prognostic indicator of spontaneous regression of LDH. This review addresses the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in LDH regression, including matrix remodeling and neovascularization, in the scope of the clinical decision on conservative versus surgical intervention. Based on the evidence, a special focus on the inflammatory response in the LDH context is given, particularly in the monocyte/macrophage role. The phenomenon of spontaneous regression of LDH, extensively reported in the literature, is therefore analyzed here under the perspective of the modulatory role of inflammation.
Objective: Walking is commonly recommended to relieve pain and improve function in chronic low back pain. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized ...controlled trials concerning the effectiveness of walking interventions compared to other physical exercise on pain, disability, quality of life and fear-avoidance, in chronic low back pain.
Methods: Randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of walking alone compared to exercise and to exercise with added walking on adults with chronic low back pain were identified using the MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsychINFO, and SPORT Discus
TM
databases. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and extracted the results. Study quality was assessed using the PEDro scale and the clinical relevance of each outcome measure was evaluated.
Results: Meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria was performed. The effectiveness of walking and exercise at short-, mid-, and long-term follow-ups appeared statistically similar. Adding walking to exercise did not induce any further statistical improvement, at short-term.
Conclusions: Pain, disability, quality of life and fear-avoidance similarly improve by walking or exercise in chronic low back pain. Walking may be considered as an alternative to other physical activity. Further studies with larger samples, different walking dosages, and different walking types should be conducted.
Implications for Rehabilitation
Walking is commonly recommended as an activity in chronic low back pain.
Pain, disability, and fear-avoidance similarly improve by walking or exercise.
Adding walking to exercise does not induce greater improvement in the short-term.
Walking may be a less-expensive alternative to physical exercise in chronic low back pain.
IMPORTANCE: Effective treatments for chronic spinal pain are essential to reduce the related high personal and socioeconomic costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare pain neuroscience education combined with ...cognition-targeted motor control training with current best-evidence physiotherapy for reducing pain and improving functionality, gray matter morphologic features, and pain cognitions in individuals with chronic spinal pain. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted from January 1, 2014, to January 30, 2017, among 120 patients with chronic nonspecific spinal pain in 2 outpatient hospitals with follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized into an experimental group (combined pain neuroscience education and cognition-targeted motor control training) and a control group (combining education on back and neck pain and general exercise therapy). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were pain (pressure pain thresholds, numeric rating scale, and central sensitization inventory) and function (pain disability index and mental health and physical health). RESULTS: There were 22 men and 38 women in the experimental group (mean SD age, 39.9 12.0 years) and 25 men and 35 women in the control group (mean SD age, 40.5 12.9 years). Participants in the experimental group experienced reduced pain (small to medium effect sizes): higher pressure pain thresholds at primary test site at 3 months (estimated marginal EM mean, 0.971; 95% CI, –0.028 to 1.970) and reduced central sensitization inventory scores at 6 months (EM mean, –5.684; 95% CI, –10.589 to –0.780) and 12 months (EM mean, –6.053; 95% CI, –10.781 to –1.324). They also experienced improved function (small to medium effect sizes): significant and clinically relevant reduction of disability at 3 months (EM mean, –5.113; 95% CI, –9.994 to –0.232), 6 months (EM mean, –6.351; 95% CI, –11.153 to –1.550), and 12 months (EM mean, –5.779; 95% CI, –10.340 to –1.217); better mental health at 6 months (EM mean, 36.496; 95% CI, 7.998-64.995); and better physical health at 3 months (EM mean, 39.263; 95% CI, 9.644-66.882), 6 months (EM mean, 53.007; 95% CI, 23.805-82.209), and 12 months (EM mean, 32.208; 95% CI, 2.402-62.014). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Pain neuroscience education combined with cognition-targeted motor control training appears to be more effective than current best-evidence physiotherapy for improving pain, symptoms of central sensitization, disability, mental and physical functioning, and pain cognitions in individuals with chronic spinal pain. Significant clinical improvements without detectable changes in brain gray matter morphologic features calls into question the relevance of brain gray matter alterations in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02098005
Altered pronociceptive and antinociceptive mechanisms are often implicated in painful conditions and have been increasingly studied over the past decade. For some painful conditions, alterations are ...well-established, but in populations with low back pain (LBP), there remains considerable debate whether these mechanisms are altered. The present systematic review aimed to address this issue by identifying studies assessing conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and/or temporal summation of pain (TSP) in patients with LBP, comparing with either a healthy control group or using a method with reference data available. Qualitative synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis of group differences were performed. For CPM and TSP, 20 and 29 original articles were eligible, with data for meta-analysis obtainable from 18 (1500 patients and 505 controls) and 27 (1507 patients and 1127 controls) studies, respectively. Most studies were of poor-to-fair quality with significant heterogeneity in study size, population, assessment methodology, and outcome. Nonetheless, CPM was impaired in patients with LBP compared with controls (standardized mean difference = -0.44 -0.64 to -0.23, P < 0.001), and the magnitude of this impairment was related to pain chronicity (acute/recurrent vs chronic, P = 0.003), duration (RS = -0.62, P = 0.006), and severity (RS = -0.54, P = 0.02). Temporal summation of pain was facilitated in patients with LBP compared with controls (standardized mean difference = 0.50 0.29-0.72, P < 0.001), and the magnitude of this facilitation was weakly related to pain severity (RS= 0.41, P = 0.04) and appeared to be influenced by test modality (P < 0.001). Impaired CPM and facilitated TSP were present in patients with LBP compared with controls, although the magnitude of differences was small which may direct future research on the clinical utility.
Systematic review of interventions.
To assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for chronic low-back pain.
SMT is one of the many therapies for the treatment of low-back pain, which is ...a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention.
Search methods. An experienced librarian searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple databases up to June 2009. Selection criteria. RCTs that examined manipulation or mobilization in adults with chronic low-back pain were included. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. Data collection and analysis. Two authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence.
We included 26 RCTs (total participants = 6070), 9 of which had a low risk of bias. Approximately two-thirds of the included studies (N = 18) were not evaluated in the previous review. There is a high-quality evidence that SMT has a small, significant, but not clinically relevant, short-term effect on pain relief (mean difference -4.16, 95% confidence interval -6.97 to -1.36) and functional status (standardized mean difference -0.22, 95% confidence interval -0.36 to -0.07) in comparison with other interventions. There is varying quality of evidence that SMT has a significant short-term effect on pain relief and functional status when added to another intervention. There is a very low-quality evidence that SMT is not more effective than inert interventions or sham SMT for short-term pain relief or functional status. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT.
High-quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. Determining cost-effectiveness of care has high priority.
Retrospective analysis of an insurance claims database.
To examine the comorbidities, treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and direct medical costs of patients with chronic low back ...pain (CLBP) in clinical practice.
Although the socioeconomic impact of CLBP is substantial, characterization of comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and health care resource use/costs of patients with CLBP relative to non-CLBP controls have been infrequently documented.
Using the LifeLink Health Plan Claims Database (IMS Health Inc., Watertown, MA), patients with CLBP, defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, were identified and matched (age, sex, and region) with non-CLBP individuals. Comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and health care service use/costs (pharmacy, outpatient, inpatient, total) were compared for the 2 groups during 2008.
A total of 101,294 patients with CLBP and controls were identified (55% women; mean age was 47.2 ± 11.6 years). Relative to controls, patients with CLBP had a greater comorbidity burden including a significantly higher (P < 0.0001) frequency of musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain conditions and common sequelae of pain such as depression (13.0% vs. 6.1%), anxiety (8.0% vs. 3.4%), and sleep disorders (10.0% vs. 3.4%). Pain-related pharmacotherapy was significantly greater (P < 0.0001) among patients with CLBP including opioids (37.0% vs. 14.8%; P < 0.0001), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (26.2% vs. 9.6%; P < 0.0001), and tramadol (8.2% vs. 1.2%; P < 0.0001). Prescribing of "adjunctive" medications for treating conditions associated with pain (i.e., depression, anxiety, and insomnia) was also significantly greater (P < 0.0001) among patients with CLBP; 36.3% of patients received combination therapy. Health care costs were significantly higher in the CLBP cohort (P < 0.0001), reflecting greater resource utilization. Total direct medical costs were estimated at $8386 ± $17,507 in the CLBP group and $3607 ± $10,845 in the control group; P < 0.0001).
Patients with CLBP are characterized by greater comorbidity and economic burdens compared with those without CLBP. This economic burden can be attributed to greater prescribing of pain-related medications and increased health resource utilization.
PDF
