The Lumbar Spine Mechanical Diagnosis & Therapy Volume One
Ro bin McKenzie CNZM,
OBE,
FCSP (Hon), FNZSP (Hon), Dip MT
Stephen May MA, MCSp, Dip MDT, MSc
Spinal Publications New Zealand Ltd Waikanae, New Zealand
nte Lumbar Spine: Mechanical Dia�osis & Therapy FirsL Edition first published in 1981 by Spinal Publications New Zealand Ltd Second Edition first published in March 2003 by Spinal Publications New Zealand Ltd PO Box 93, Waikanae, New Zealand Email:
[email protected] © Robin McKenzie 2003
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyri.ght holder. ISBN 0-9583647-6-1
Design by Next Communications Edited by Writers' Ink Photography by John Cheese Illustrations by Paul Pugh Pri.nted and bound by Astra Print
Dedication To dear Joy, whom I love so dearly - who, through thick and thin, has patiently allowed my obsession to freely flow and who has never once complained about the hours, days and months of absence in my search for the final goal.
ivl
Foreword
When it first appeared, The Lumbar Spine was a slim edition that announced a new concept. It postulated what might be happening in patients with low back pain, and it provided a system of assessment and treatment. Since its inception, the McKenzie system has grown into a movement. The system captured the imagination of therapists and others, who adopted it. Their numbers grew to form an international organisation that o ffers training programmes and postgraduate degrees in several countries around the world. The system also attracted the attention of opponents , critics and non-aligned investigators. Over the years, tensions have developed as the McKenzie system has tried to keep pace with advances in spine science, but also as spine science has tried to keep pace with advances in McKenzie. In basic sciences, our understanding of the structure , function and pathology of the lumbar intervertebral disc has increased enormously. In clinical sciences, the advent of evidence-based medicine has demanded that interventions have evidence of reliability, validity and efficacy. These developments have challenged the McKenzie system, but have not threatened it. Indeed, in many respects, the McKenzie movement has led the way in undertaking research into its precepts, and has implicitly called upon other concepts in physical therapy to catch up. No other system in physical therapy has attracted as much research both from among its proponents and from its detractors. This new edition of The Lumbar Spine has become a tome . It still describes the original concept, albeit updated and revised, but the edition provides students and other readers wi th a compendium of all the literature pertaining to the lumbar intervertebral disc and the massive literature that now pertains to the McKenzie system. Readers receive an up-to-date review o f information on the structure and function of the disc, its pathology, and new data on its patho biomechanics. Related entities, such a zygapophysial join t pain and sacro-iliac joint, are comprehensively reviewed. As befitting a text on this subject, The Lumbar Spine contains a complete collection of all studies that have examined the McKenzie
system. These studies have sought the evidence for its reliability, validity and e fficacy Its reliability is now beyond doubt. Whereas research has shown that other methods of assessment lack reliability, McKenzie assessment has moved from strength to strength. Its reliability, however, is contingent upon training. While anyone can assess according to the system, it cannot be mastered by hearsay or assumption. Some steps have been taken towards establishing validity The early studies have been encouragingly positive, but perhaps self- fulfilling. The critical studies have yet to be performed and depend on establishing the efficacy of the treatment . The Lumba r Spine provides an exhaustive but honest and responsible
appraisal of studies of the efficacy of McKenzie treatment. Much of the world finds the evidence insuffi ciently compell ing, but the treatment has not been refuted. Proponents retain the prospect of still vindicating the treatment i f and once putatively confounding factors can be eliminated or controlled. To some observers McKenzie therapy may seem to be a glorified system of special manoeuvres and exercises , but such a view mistakes and understates its virtues. T hrough out its h i story, M c Kenzie treatment has emphasised educating patients and empowering them to take charge of their own management. Not only did this approach pre-empt contemporary concepts of best practice, i t has been vindicated by the evidence. Empowering the patient is seminal to the success o f any programme of management. Although 1 am not a McKenzie disciple or enthusiast, we have in our own research borrowed from the McKenzie system. In studying the efficacy of evidence-based practice for acute low back pai n in primmy care, 1 we talked to our patients and we addressed their fears; but to complement that we needed something more for the patien ts to take with them. For this purpose we drew on some of the simpler exercises described in The Lumbar Spine Not that we believed that these were therapeutic in their own right, but they empowered t he patients with sensible things that they could do to cope with their pain and maintain, if not improve, their mobility and function. This approach, a not -too distant cousin of what McKenzie promotes, was not only successful in a clinical sense, but received great approval from the consumers.
The patho -anatomic conce pts and the mechanical aspects o f McKenzie therapy may or may not b e absolutely material. They may or may not be vindicated in time. But what is already clearly evidence based is the central theme of McKenzie therapy: to enable patients confidently
to
care for themselves.
Nikolai Bogduk MD, PhD, DSc Professor of Pain Medicine University of Newcastle Royal Newcastle Hospital Newcastle , Australia
IMcGuirk B, King W, Govind J, Lowry J, Bogduk N. The safety, efficacy, and cost effectiveness of evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care. Spine 2001; 26.2615-2622.
Acknowledgments
I would like to give special thanks to my co-author and colleague, Stephen May, MA, M CSp, Dip MDT, MSc, who has provided the necessary expertise to make this second edition an evidence-based text of importance to all health professionals involved in non operative care of the lower back. I am also greatly indebted to the many faculty of the McKenzie Institute International, who have either directly or indirectly influenced the re finements t hat h ave been made to the descrip tions of the procedures of assessment and examination. The value of these contributions is immeasurable. I would also like to express my gratitude to Kathy Hoyt, a founder of the Institute in the United States, and Helen Clare of Australia , the Institute's Director of Education , who gave so much of their time to read the man uscripts and p rovide i nvaluable commentary and criticism. To Vert Mooney, who opened so many doors, to Ron Donelson for his continued support of the system and the Institute , and to those members of the I nternational Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine who have encouraged and supported my work, I give my thanks. Finally, to Jan , my daughter, who reorganised me and coordinated the various specialists required to successfully complete this major task, I give my heartfelt love and thanks. Robin McK enzie March 2003
IVii
liii I
About the Authors
Robin McKenzie was born in Auckland, N ew Zealand, in 1931 and graduated from the N ew Zealand School of Physiotherapy in 1 95 2 . He commenced p rivate practice i n Wellington, N e w Zealand i n 1953, specialising in the diagnosis and treatment of spinal disorders . During the 1960s, Robin McKenzie developed new concepts of diagnosis and treatment derived from a systematic analYSis of patients with both acute and chronic back problems. This system is now p ractised globally by speCialists in phYSiotherapy, medicine and chiropractic. The success of the McKenzie concepts of diagnosis and treatment for spinal problems has attracted interest from researchers worldwide . The importance of the diagnostic system is now recognised and the extent of the therapeutic e fficacy of the McKenzie Method is subject to ongoing investigation. Robin McKenzie is an Honorary Life Member of the American Physical Therapy Association "in recognition of distinguished and meritorious service to the art and science of physical therapy and to the welfare of mankind". He is a member of the I nternational SOCiety for the Study of the Lumbar Spine , a Fellow o f the American Back Society, an Honorary Fellow of the New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists, an Honorary Life Member of the New Zealand Manipulative Therapists Association, and an Honorary F ellow of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists i n the United Kingdom. I n the 1990 Queen's Birthday Honours, he was made an Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. 1n 1993, he received an Honorary Doctorate from the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. In the 2000 New Year's Honours List, Her Majesty the Queen appOinted Robin McKenzie as a Companion of the New Zealand Order o[Merit. In 2003, the University of Otago, in a joint venture with the McKenzie Institute I nternational , instituted a Post Graduate Diploma IMasters programme endorsed in Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy. Robin McKenzie has been made a Fellow in Physiotherapy at Otago and will be lecturing during the programme.
Robin McKenzie has authored four books: Treat Your Own Bach; Treat Your Own Nech; The Lumbar Spine: Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy; and The Cervical and Thoracic Spine: Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy. With the publication o f Mechanical Diagnosis & Therapy of the Human Extremities, Robin McKenzie , i n collaboration
with Stephen May, describes the application of his methods for the management of musculoskeletal disorders in general. As with his publications dealing with spine-related problems, the emphasis in this text is directed at providing self-treatment strategies for pain and disability among the general population . Stephen May was born in Kent, England, in 1958. His first degree was in English Literature from Oxford University. He trained to be a physiotherapist at Leeds and graduated in 1990. Since qualifying, he has worked for the National Health Service in England, principally in Primary Care. In 2002 he became a Senior Lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University. He developed a speCial interest in musculoskeletal medicine early i n h i s career a n d h a s always maintained a diligent inte rest i n the literature . One of the results of this was a regular supply o f articles and reviews to the McKenzie newsletter (UK) In 1995 Stephen completed the McKenzie diploma programme. In 1998 he completed an MSc in Health Services Research and Technology Assessment a t Sheffield Uni versi ty. Stephen is author or co-author o f several articles published i n international journals. H e has previously collaborated with Robin McKenzie on The Human Extremities: Mechanical Diagnosis & Therapy.
I xi
Contents
VOLUME ONE Introduction CHAPTER ONE
............ . . . ..... . . ... ..... .... 1
The Problem of Back Pain ..
. ..... 7
Introduction . ..... . . ... . . . .. . . .... . . . ..... . . ... . . . . .... . . .... . . . ..... . . Prevalence ...... . .
. . . . .
... ... . . . .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. .... . . . 7
.
..
.... 8
Natural history
....... . . 9
Disabili.ty . Cost
. . . 13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
16
Health care .... ...... . .... ...... . . ... . . . . . ..... ...... . . .... . . . .... . . . ..... . . . . .......... ... 18 Treatment ... .. . . .
. . . . .
Effectiveness ... .... . .
.... .. .
. . . .
.
. . . .
...
. . . . .
.
. . . . .
..
. . . .
.. .
. . . .... ......... ...... .
. . .
.
. .
.
. . . . . .
. . . . .
..
. . . . . .
. . .. . . .
.
.
. . . . . .
. . . . .
....
.
. . . . .
.... .. 23 . .
. .... 28
Conclusions .... ... .. .. .......... . ..... . . .... . . . ..... . . ........... ....... . CHAPTER TWO
Risk and Prognostic Factors i n L o w Back Pain
Introduction .. . .
. . .
... 2 1
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .
31
. . . . 31
.
Risk factors
. . . . . .
. . . 31
. . . . . . . .... ... .
.. . . . .
Individual risk factors
....... 32
Biomechanical risk factors
. ...... 33
Psychosocial risk factors
.... .. 35
All risk factors . . Onset .
. . . . .
..
..... 36
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... . . ..... . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. ......... . .......................... 3 7
Individual and clinical prognostic factors Biomechanical prognostic factors . Psychosocial prognostic factors
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39 39
.. . .. 41
.... .... . . ....... . . ..
. .
. . .
All prognostic factors ........ .. .. ... ... ... .. .. ... . . . . .... . . ... ... . ......... ... 42 . .
.
.
Conclusions CHAPTER THREE
....... . . 44
Pain and Connective Tissue Properties
Introduction ... ..... . . ...
..... . 45 .. .. 45
.
Nociception and pain . . .
..46
Sources o f back pain and sciatica
..... . . ...... . ..... . . . . ...... . . ... 4 7 .. .. 49
Types o f pain ... ...... ..... . ..... ....... ..... . . . . Activation of nociceptors ....
. . . . .
Mechanical nociception .. .... .
Chemical nociception
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Trauma as a cause o f pain ... .
.
.
. ........ .... ... .........
.
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
.
.
...
. . . . . .
.
. . . . .
.
...... 5 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
.
. . . . . .
..
. . . . .
..
. . . . .
.
. . . . . .
...
.
.
...
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
.. . .
. 52 . .
... 54 .
. . . .
54
Distinguishing chemical and mechanical pain Tissue repair process
Failure to remodel repair tissue Chronic pain states ...... . Conclusions CHAPTER FOUR
... . . ...........
. . ...... . .. . . 56
.
. .. 61
.
. ..... . 62
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Intervertebral Disc . .. .
Introduction . . .
. . . . . .
Structural changes Innervation
......... 54
......... ..... . . .... ..... .... . ...
. . . . . . .
.
. . . .
.
. . . . . . .
..... . .... . . ... . . ... . . . . .
. . . .
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
65 67
. . .. . . . .....
...6 7
. . ... . . . .... . .... . ... . . .. . . ... . ... . . .. . .. ... . ... . ...
67
. . . . .
.
. . . . . . ... ...
. . . .
. ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mechanical or chemical pain
. . . . .
. . .
.
.
. . . .
.. .
. . . . . .
.
.. . . . . .
. .
.69
. . . . .
............. . . . . . ........... 69
.
. . ... .. .. .. .. . . 71
Diagnosing a painfu l disc
. .
The mobile disc
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . ... . . . . . . . .
.
. .. 72
Discogenic pain . . . .... . . . ... . ..........
... 74
Radial fissures ................
. .. 75
Disc herniation
.
... . . ..... . .... . .... . . ... . ... . . ... . .... .... ... . ................... .... 77
Stress profi l ometry . .... . . . . . . . . .... ..... . ..... .................................... .... 83 Conclusions .... ....... . . ........................................ .... . ..... . . . .... . .... ... 84 CHAPTER F IVE
Disc Pathology - Clinical Features .. .. ............ ... . . ... . 87
Introduction . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .... . . ..... . . . . . .... . ...... . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . 8 7
.
Discogenic pain - prevalence
.87
Discogenic pain - clinical features
. . 88
Sciatica - prevalence
...... 90
Sciatica - c linical features .. . . . . State of the annular wall
. 91
.
.. ..... . . .... ..... ... . .. . ....... . ...
N atural h istory of disc herniation ........... .
. .
. ... .
.
. 95
.
.
. . . . .
. .. 97
Conclusions CHAPTER SIX
... 101
Biomechanics ... . ...... ..... . . ... . .... . . ..... .... . . . .. . . ... . . . . . ... ... ... . . . . . . . . . 103
Introduction
. . .
. . . . .
. . .
. .
. . . . .
...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Movements at the lumbar spine Range of movement . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
.
.. . . . .
Lumbar lordosis
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . .... . .......
.
.... 105 ... 106
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Effect of postures on lumbar curve
108
Biomechanics of the lumbar spine
. . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . .
Optimal sitting posture .
. .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
110
. III
Time factor and creep loading Creep in the lumbar spine
103
. . .. 1 04
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Loading strategies and symptoms .
. . . .
..104
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . .
. . . . .. . .
. .
.
.
.
. . . .
113
. . .... .. . .. . . . 115 . .
. .
.
.
.
Effect of time of day on movements and biomechanics
. .
.
. .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
117
I xiii Effect of posture on internal intervertebral disc stresses Conclusions . CHAPTER SEVEN
. .
.
. .
. . . . . .
..... . . ...... . . . . 119
. . . . . . . . . .
Diagnosis and Classification .......... ...... . . ...... . . . ...... . . ... 121
I ntroduction
...... . ..... . . .
. . .
Identification of specific pathology ..... Classification of back pain . .
. .
Quebec Task Force classification
. . . . . . . . .
Other classification systems Diagnostic triage
. .
.
. . . . ...... ... . . 121 .... ... ..... .. 122
.
.. ... . . . 125
. . . ....... .
. . . . . . . . .
.
. . .
Classification by pain pattern
.
. .
..
. . . .
....
. . . .
. ... .
. . . . . .
128 129
. . ........... ..... . . ..... . . .... . . ..
.
Factors in history that suggest a good response ..
. .
. . .
....
.. 134
. . . . .
. 136
.
Contraindications for mechanical diagnosis and therapy
.137 . . . 13 7
Conclusions ...
.... .... . . . ... . . . .......... . ...... . . . .......... . 139
Mechanical Diagnosis
. . . . . .... . . . . .... ...... . . ..... . . ....... ..... ... .. 139
Introduction .
.... . . ....... ... 140
Derangement syndrome
. ....... . . . 141
Dysfunction syndrome
. . . . ...143
Postural syndrome
. .. 1 44
Conclusions . . CHAPTER NINE
Derangement Syndrome - The Conceptual Model 149
Introduction
...149
Conceptual model
.... 150
Loading strategies
. . . . 152
Dynamic internal disc model Lateral shift
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . .
. . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . .
. 154
... . . . .... . . ...... . .... . . . .... . . . . .... . . . ... . . ...... 159 ..... . . . .. .... . . . ... 162
Place of the conceptual model
..... 165
Conclusions CHAPTER TEN
125
.. . 127
....... . ..... . .
...... ...
I ndications for mechanical diagnosis and therapy
CHAPTER EIGHT
117
Centralisation . . ... ........ . ...... ..... . .. . . . ...... . ..... . ...... . . ...... . . .... ... 167
I ntroduction
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. ... 167
Definition
. . .... . . . .. 168
Description of the centralisation phenomenon
..... ... . .. .. 1 72
Discovery and development of centralisation
173
Characteristics of centralisation . Literature on centralisation
. . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . .
.
. . . . . .
.
. . .
. ... . . . . .. .
Reliability o f assessment of symptomatic response Conclusions . . .... . . ..
167
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . .
174 178
.. .. . . .. .... . .. . . . .. 1 79
xivl CHAPTER
Literature Review ........................................
ELEVEN
Introduction . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
.
...... 181
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Systematic reviews and gUidelines
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . . . . .
. .. . 181 .
.
.
. . . . . . .
.. 185 . . .
.................... 193
.
.... .... . . .. .... . . ... 198
Studies into directional pre ference Reliability studies . . . . . . . . ... . . .
.
. ... . ... . . . ..... . 181
. .
Controlled trials and randomised controlled trials Other e fficacy trials .. . ..... . ... . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . ............ .. . ................. 201
.
Reliability of palpation studies ..... . . .. ...
. . . ...... . ... ... . . . 207
.
Studies into the prognostic and diagnostic utility of centralisation . 210 Conclusions . . . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . .
CHAPTER
Serious Spinal Pathology
TWELVE
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Cancer
. . . .
. ..... ....... . . . ... . 215 ... .. 217
. ... . ... . . . . . . ......... ...... 217
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
Infections Fractures
............ ...
. . . . .
Osteoporosis
.
..
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .. .. ... . .
. .
. . .
. .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . .
.. . .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . .
.
. . . . . .
218 220 222
. 223
. .. . ... . . . . . . . . 224
.. ..... . . . .. . . ....... . ... ... ...... . . ....... ..... . ....... 2 26
.
............ . .. . . . . ... . ....... 227 . . ......... 232
Conclusions . . . CHAPTER
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...... . . ...... . . ...... . . ...
Ankylosing spondylitis
THIRTEEN
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cauda equina syndrome Cord signs ..... .. . . ....
.
Other Diagnostic and Management Considerations 233
\ � E�:����e�::� \�r:!�:: I ntroduction .
. . . . . .
Spinal stenosis .
..... .
. ..... ..... .....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
Cy
.. .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . ... 233 ... .. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ..... . .. . . ..... .. . ....�:! . . . .
.
.
Zygapophyseal joint problems . . .... ............... .
. .. .
. . . . .
.
. . .
.
Mechanically inconclusive . . . . . Surgery . .
. .
. . .. . .
. .
. .
. .
. . .
. ... . . . ... . . ........ ".
. . ... . . . 267 . ...... 2 70
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
.. 257
. ... . . . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. ..... ... . ......
.......... 2 71
. . .
Post-surgical status . . . . ... . . .... . . ....... ........... . . . . Chronic pain
. ... 254
.
SpondylolYSiS and spondylolisthesis . . Instability .
. 234
. . . . . ....... .... ... 275
. .
. . ... ...... .....
Waddell's non-organic signs and symptoms
. . . . . . . . . .
.. .. .... 2 76
. . . .
.. 279
. .
Treating chronic backs - the McKenzie Institute International Rehabilitation Programme
. ... . . .. .. . . .
. .
. . .
. .
. . . . . . .
. . .
..
. . . . . . . . .
...
. . .
283
Conclusions
. ..... . . . .. ... .... . ... . ........ 288
Appendix
............. ..... ... 289
References
.... . . .. . .... . . . . . 297
I xv Glossary of Terms
.
. . .
.
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Index .. ....................................
..
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . .
. . .
.. 355 . .
.. .. 367
.
VOLUME TWO . ... . . . ..... . . ......... . . .... 3 75
CHAPTER
The History
FOURTEEN
lntroduction .. . .... . . ........ . . .... . . ... . . . Aims of history-taking . .... . . . .... . . .. . lnterview ..... ...... . .... . . ... . . ...... . . ..... Patient . . ... . . ..... . . .
.......... . . . ........ . . ... .. . . . . 3 75
.
. . ... 3 76
.
. 3 76
.
.. ... . .. . . . ...... . . ... . ..... .... 3 77
.
.. ...... . 3 79
Symptoms .. Previous history
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Specific questions .. .
Conclusions
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
.
. . . .
..
.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
CHAPTER
Physical Exam ination
FI FTEEN
lntroduction
..
. . . . .
.
..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
389 390 393
.. 395
. ................. ..................................... . . . .... . . . . . . . 395
Aims of physical examination
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sitting posture and its e ffect on pain Standing posture
. . .
Neurological tests
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...... ...... . . . ..... .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. .
. 396
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..... . . ..... . . .
397
. . .... 399
. . . . . ....... . .... . . . ..... . ..... . . ............... ..... 401
. . .
Movement loss . ...... .. . ...... .... . . . . . .... Repeated movements
..
. . .... 404
. .
. . .... . . ....
. . .
.. . . . . ..... . . . .... . . . .... . 408 ....... . . . ....
Examination o f repeated movements Examination of sustained postures . Testing inconclusive
. . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . .
.
. . . . . .
. . .
.
.. . .
. . . . . .
..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other examination procedures
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
.
. . . . . .
...
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
..
..
. . . .
. .
. . . . . .
413
. 418 41 9
. 421
.. .................... . . 422
Conclusions .... CHAPTER
Evaluation o f Clinical Presentations
SIXTEEN
Introduction .... .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
427
.. ...... . .... .................... . ........ ....... . . . ..... .. 4 2 7
Symptomatic presentation
. .
.
... .......... . .. ................... . . . . . 4 2 8
Assessment of symptomatic response
. . 431
. .
Use of symptom response to guide loading strategy Mechanical presentation
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assessment of mechanical presentation
. . . . . . . . . .
.
. .
. . .
433
. ... . . . . . ...... ........ 435 . ... . . ... 436
. . . .
Use of mechanical response to gUide loading strategy
. .
. . . . . . . . . . .
440
Symptomatic and mechanical presentations to identify mechanical syndromes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chronic pain - interpretation of symptomatic responses Conclusions
. .
441
. 442
. .............. . . ...................... ..... 444
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
Procedures of Mechanical Therapy for the
. .. .. .
Lumbar Spine
. . .
Introduction ... . . . .. . .... . . ... .
. .
.
. . . .
.
.
.........445
.
.445
Force progression ... . ......... ..... ..... . .... Force alternatives ... . ... . . .... . . .........
. ... ...... ......... 446
.
....... . . . . . .. . ... ... ... ... 448
.
Repeated movements or sustained postures Procedures . . ....
.. . ...
.
. .
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. . 448 .
.. ... . 449
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
Extension principle - static .. . .
..... 451
Extension principle - dynamic
... ....... 458
Extension principle with lateral component - dynamic
.
. . . .
. . . 471 . .
Lateral principle - descrip tion of lateral procedures. . ...
Flexion principle
. .
.
. . . .
. . .
E IGHTEEN
. .
. .
. . 4 77
... ........ ... ....... ..... 487
.
Flexion principle with lateral component . CHAPTER
.
Patient Management .................
. . . . . . . .
. ... 491
.
........ . . .. . . ... ...... 499
. .
. . 499
Introduction ..
Education component of management . . .... . . . . . ... . .. . . ... ....... ... . . . . 500 Educational interventions for back pain . ..... ...... . ... . ... ... ... . . ... . 501 . . . . ... . . . .... ... ..... . ..... ... .. . . 503
Educating patients .. . ... ..... . ... . . . .
Active mechanical therapy component
.
Compliance or therapeutic alliance? To treat or not to treat? ... ............
.
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
..
. . . .
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .. 506 . .
. .
.
.. . .... ............ 507
.
. 508
.
.. . . . . . . . . . ........ . . .. . . ..... . 509
Communication
.... . ....... . . .... ....... . . . . .. . . . ... .... 511
Patient satisfaction
. .... 512
Conclusions . . ...
......... 513
CHAPTER
Follow-up Evaluations .
NINETEEN
Introduction
.513
Reaching a conclusion
.513
Review process Implications
. . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 514 .
. . . .
5 17
Conclusions . . . . . .... . .... .. ......... . . .... . . ................... . ....... . . . . . . ... ... .. 518 CHAPTER
Clinical Reasoning ....... . . . ... . . .... ................ . ... . . . . .. . ....... . . .. 521
TWENTY
Introduction
. . .
.
. . .
.
. . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clinical reasoning . . .. .
.
.
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
Knowledge base
.
.. .
.... . . ....... .......... . . ... . . .. . . ...... . . . . .
Clinical experience .
.
521
... . .... . ..... .. ....................522
. .
Elements that inform the clinical reasoning process Data gathering
. . . .
. . . . .
. . .. . .
. . . ..... . ... . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . .
.
. . .
523
........ . ... . . . .. 523 ...... .............. 524 ..... 5 2 7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Errors i n clinical reasoning ... . ... . . ... . . . .
. .
.
.. .... ... . . . . .. 528
I xvii Example of clinical reasoning process ......... ...... Conclusions . . . . . . . . . .. ... .. . . . . . . . . ... . CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
. ..... 529
.
536
.
... . . .. 537
Recurrences and Prophylaxis
. . . ... . . . .... . . . ..... . ..... . . ....... . . . . ..... . . ....... .. . . . 537
Introduction ... . Preventative strategies
. . . ..... . . ..... . . . . ... . . . ..... . . . ... 538
Patient's perspective
..... . ...... . . . . .... . . . . . .... . . . . . . 541 . .. ....... . . ... .. . . ...... . . 543
Conclusions . ...... . .... .............. . . . . .... CHAPTER
Derangement Syndrome - Characteristics
TWENTY-TWO
Introduction . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
545
. . . . ..... . . 545 ............ . 546
Characteristics of derangement syndrome
... . . . ....... . ........ 552
Conclusions CHAPTER
Derangement Syndrome - Presentation and
TWENTY-THREE
Classification .
. . .
. . ........ . . ......... 553
. ........ . .... . .........
Introduction .
. . . .. . .... .
........ 553
Clinical presentation
............ ..... . . . ...... ...... . ..... .... 554
Treatment principles
. ...... . . 560 .562
Conclusions CHAPTER
Derangement Syndrome - Management Principles 565
TWENTY-FOUR
Introduction Stages of management
. . .
. .... . . .. ...
. .... . . . ..
. . . . ...... 565
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
565
. ..... . ...... ... . ..... . . ......... . . . ..... . . . ... . . . 5 74
Treatment principles . .
.. . . . .... . . . .... . . . . .... . . . ... . . . 5 84
Irreducible derangements
.... 5 84
Conclusions CHAPTER
Management of Derangements - Central Symmetrical
TWENTY-FIVE
(Previously Derangements 1,2, 7) Introduction .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...... ..... ............
.
.
. . . . . . . .
.... . . . . .... . . ... ... . . . 5 8 7
Treatment pathways in derangement
..5 8 7
Management of derangements - centraVsymmetrical pain Extension principle - history and physical examination Extension principle - management guidelines . .
Extension principle - review
. . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
.
. . . . . . . . . .
Flexion principle - history and physical examination Flexion principle - management gUidelines Flexion principle - review
587
. . .
.
. . . . . .
589
. . 589 . . .
. . .
.... 5 9 2 ..594 . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
5 96 597
.... 598
xviii I CHAPTER
Management of Derangements - Unilateral
TWENTY-SIX
Asymmetrical Symptoms to Knee
(Previously Derangements 3, 4, 7) ..
.... . ... . .. . .... . . .. . . ... 601
Assessment - determining the appropriate strategy Identification of lateral component
.
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
Management - lateral component , no lateral shift
. . .
Management - lateral principle, soft or hard lateral shift Flexion principle
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER
Management of Derangements - Unilateral
TWENTY -SEVEN
Asymmetrical to Below Knee
. . . .
(Previously Derangements 5, 6) lntroduction
602
. ... . ............ ... 609
. . . . .
610 615 620
.623
. ... . .... . . ... . . ... ..... . ... . ... ... ... . . .... . ... 623
. . . .
Differemial diagnosis
. ... . . ....... ...... . .... . ....... ....
. . . . . .
..624
Management of derangemem - unilateral asymmetrical below knee . .
............ ...... . . . ... ... ..........
.
....626
Management - first twelve weeks or three months
. . . . .
. 627 .
Differential diagnosis between reducible derangemem, nerve roOL .
entrapment and adherent nerve root Repeated movements
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 642 . .
. . . .
642
CHAPTER
Dysfunction Syndrome .... .. . ... ..... . . . . . .. . . .... .... . . ... ... . ... . . ... 647
TWENTY-EIGHT
Introduction
...... 647
Categories of dysfunction . . Pain mechanism Clinical picture
. ... 648 ..............
. . . . . . . .
.649 ............ 652
.............
. . .
Physical examination .. .. . .
. .
............. .... ......... . .... 654
. .
Management of dysfunction syndrome
. . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Instructions LO all patients with dysfunction syndrome Literature on stretching .. .
. . . .
... . . .
. .
. . . .
.
. . . .
Management of extension dysfuncLion
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. . . . .
.......... .. . . ....
CHAPTER
Dysfunction of Adherent Nerve Root (ANR)
I ntroduction .
Clinical presentation History ............ . . .. . . . ... .. . . .. Physical examination .. Management
. . . . . . . . . .
. . ..........
Development of adherent nerve rOOL
660
. ... 667
TWENTY-NINE
. . . . . . . .
657
...662
.
. .
655
. .. 658
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Management of flexion dysfunction ........... Conclusions
. . .
669
. .. 669 .
. . .
.
. . . . . . . .
. . .
669
........... . . .......... . . . . . 672 .
......... ..... 673 ..... 674 . . ...... . . ... ....... .. . 675
I xix CHAPTER
Postural Syndrome
THIRTY
Introduction
. . . . . . . .
Pain mechanism .
.
... . . ....... . ..... . .... . .. . . ... . ....... . .
. . . .
. . . .
..... . . ........ . ...... .... 681
. . .. .
. . . .. 681
.. . . ..... ...... . . . ....... . . ... 682
. .
Effect of posture on symptoms in normal population Clinical picture .. .......................... . . . .... . Physical examination
. . . . .
. . . .
. ..... . . . ....... .
.. ..... . ... .
Postures involved . . ..
. . .
.
. . . . .
. ... 685
.
..... 688
. . . . . . .
.. .. 688
.
...... 689
Posture syndrome - aggravating factor standing Posture syndrome - aggravating factor lying
..
...... ...... . . . .
Posture syndrome - aggravating factor sitting
........ 695 .............. . ........ 696
. .... . . .... . . . .... . . . ..... . ...... ...... ... ....... . ...... 697
Appendix
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Glossary of Terms Index .............
683
.. ........ 686
Management of postural syndrome
Conclusions
. . . .
.
. . .
701
.. . . ....... . . ...... . . . . ... 709 . .......... .. ... ...... 721
xx i
List of Figures
1.1
The assumed and real natural history of back pain
1.2
T h e direct and indirect costs o f back pain ....
1 .3
. .
13
. 17
Ratios of back surgery rates to back surgery rate in the U5 (1988 - 1989) . ............
...................... ...........
. 22 . 61
3.1
Matc h i ng the stage of the condition to management
4. 1
Commonly found fissures of the annulus ribrosus
4.2
Grades o f radial fissures according to discography ..
4.3
Four stages of disc herniations - i n reality there wi l l be
. .
. 68 ..76
. . . ... . .... .. . ... . .. ...... 78
many sub-stages .. ..... . ..... . . . . ..... ..... . 4.4
Routes and extrusion points o f herniations
4 .5
At L 4 - L5, a lateral disc herniation (le ft) affects the exiting
. . . . . . . . . . . .
80
nerve root (L 4) ; a postero-lateral disc herniation (right) affects the descending nerve root (L5) .. ........ . . . . ........ ... ... 81 . 98
5.1
Recovery from severe sciatica ..
5 .2
Recovery from sciatica in first three months
6.1
T h e e ffect o f different postures o n t h e lumbar curve .... . 108
8. 1
Mechanical and n on-mechanical diagnosis - relative roles 146
8.2
Classification algorithm
9.1
Centralisation of pain - the progressive abolition of distal
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
147
... . ... . ... . ... . ........ .... . . . ... ... . 156
pain 9 .2
....... 99
Conceptual model and procedures; relating procedures to . . ... ....... 164
direction of derangement ....... ..... . . .. .
.
.
10.1 Centralisation of pain - t he progressive reduction and abolition of distal pain 13.1
.
...........
. ............... 168
Back pain during pregnancy
......... ... 250 403
15.1 Typical areas of pain and sensory loss L4 , L5 , 51 15.2 Principles of management in mechanical therapy 15.3 Classification algorithm
.
.. .. ......... . .... .
. . . .
423
. ........... 426
25.1 Derangement - management considerations (relevant chapter) . .
... . . .... .... . .... ................. .. . ...... 588
25.2 Derangement treatment principles and symptoms . . . .
27.1 Classification pathway for sciatica
. . . . .
589 627
Ixxi
List of Tabl es
1.1
Prevalence of back pain in selected large populationbased studies
1.2 1.3
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. ..... 9
Relapse rate and persistent symptoms i n selected studies 11 Disability and work loss due to back pain i n general population
. . . . . . .
.. . ... ...... . .... . ..... . .
.
. . . . . .... . . ..... . .......... . 14
.
14
Grading of chronic back pain
1.5
The dynamic state of chronic back pain
1.6
Proportion of back pain population who seek health care
2.1
Three major classes of risk factors for back pain
2.2
Aggravati ng and relieving mechanical factors in Lhose with back pain
.
..... ... .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
. . .
. . . . 15 .
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
................ ..... ..... . .... . ....
16 19 32
. ..... 40
2.3
Factors associated with chronic back pain and disability ... 43
31
Pain production on tissue stimulation in 193 patients i n
3.2
Basic pain types
3.3
The segmental innervation of the lower limb musculature .. 5 0
34
Pain-generating mechanisms . . .... . ....
.
order o f significance
.
. . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. .
. . . .
.....
.
. . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . .
.
48
. . ..... . . ...... .... . . 49 . . . ....... ..... . . .. 66
.
4.1
Grading of radial fissures in annulus fibrosus . . . . .
4.2
Disc herniations: terms and pathology used in this text . . 79
4.3
Herniation routes/fissures and sites of final herniation
44
Directional differentiation of disc extrusions on MRI .
51 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
79 81
.
........... 91
.
Distribution of Single nerve root involvement in disc .
.
.. .
.
. . ..... . .....
.
Typical signs and symptoms associated with L4 . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . .
.
. . . . .
.
... 92 -
51 92
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Differences between sciatica due to a protrusion or an extrusion/sequestration .......... ............. .
5.5
Recovery from neurological deficit
...... . ..... . 96 .. 100 .
6.1
Effect of different postures on the spinal curve
6.2
Factors that affect the spinal curve in sitting
6.3
Proposed advantages and disadvantages of kyphotiC and lordotic sitting postures
7.1
75
Criteria for identifying symptomatic disc herniation with
nerve roots 54
. . .
. . . . .
.
herniations 5 .3
.
.
nerve root involvement 5.2
. .
QTF classification of back pain
. .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
108 109 116
. 126
xxii i 7.2
Initial management pathway - key categories, estimated prevalence in back pain population . . . . .. . . . . . .... .. . . 138 .
.
.
.
. .
. .
9.1
Pre-operative pain distribution and operative findings
9.2
Prevalence of lateral shift
9.3
Sidedness of lateral shifts
.
. .
155
..
.. .. 160 .
... . ... .... . . .
. 161
10.1 Prognostic significance o [ centralisation . . .. . ... . . ... . . .
. 175
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
10.2
Occurrence of centralisation i n acute, sub-acute and chronic back pain
10.3
.
. . .. . ... . ... . ... .
... . .... . . ... . ...
. .
. . . . 1 75
Occurrence of centralisation according to site o[ referred pain
.
.. .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
.
.. . . .... . . . . .
.
10.4 Characteristics o f centralisation
. .
. . . . .
.... . ... . . . . .. . . . .. . . . 177
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
178
1 1 .1 Comparison of method scores for the same trials . . . ... 182 .
11 . 2
. .
.
Main outcomes from published randomised controlled trials using extension exercises or purporting to use McKenzie regime
1 1 .3
Other literature - abstracts, uncontrolled trials, etc. . ... 1 9 7 .
11 .4 Studies into directional preference 11.5
190
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
200
Studies evaluating the reliability of di fferen t aspects of the McKenzie system
............... . 206
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 .6 Reliability o f palpation examination procedures in the lumbar spine compared to reliability o[ pain behaviours 208 1 1.7 Studies investigating centralisation . .. . . . . .
12. 1
.
..... . . 214
.
Significant history in identification of cancer
. 220 .
12.2 Significant history in identification of spinal infection ... 222 1 2 . 3 Significant history i n identification o f compression fracture
.
.
. . . .. . ... ...
. . .. 2 2 2
. . . .. ... .. . . . .
12 . 4 Significant history a n d examination findings i n . . . ... 225
identification of cauda equina syndrome 12.5
Significant history and examination findings i n identification o f upper motor neurone lesions
. ... 22 7
. .
12.6 Modified N ew York criteria [or diagnosis o[ ankylosing spondylitiS
.... ..... . .... . ... . . ....
. . . . . ... 230
1 2.7 The clinical history as a screening test [or ankylosing spondylitiS
. . . . . .. . . .. . . .
.
.
. .
. .
. . . . .
. . 2 31 . .
.
13.1 Features o[ history and examination in spinal stenosis ... 236 13.2
Distinguishing spinal stenosis from derangement with leg pain
13.3
. .
.
. . .
..... . . . . ....
...... .... . .... . ... . .... ... .
. . . . .. 237
Significant history and examination findings i n identification o[ spinal stenosis . . ... . . . . .... .. .
. . . . . . . . .
. . .. 239
I xxiii .
13.4 Pain sites in hip osteoarthritis
. . . .
.. .
. . . .
.
.
. . . .
.
. . . . . .
. 240 .
13.5 Significant history and examination findings i n hip joint problems
. .... . . ... 241
. ... . . ... . . .
. . . .
13.6 Reliability of examination procedures of the sacro-iliac j oint (S1])
.. . . .
. . . . .
.
........ ...... . .
.
..... 244
13 . 7 The staged differential diagnosis for S1] problems
. . . .
247
1 3.8 Sign i ficant examination findings in identification of S IJ problems
. .
.
. . . .
.
.... ..... . .. ... . ........ ..... ........... . . .. 247
. .
1 3.9 Distinguishing features of low back pain and posterior pelvic pain
. ... . . .... 2 5 1
. . . . .
1 3. 1 0 General gUidelines on management o f women with back pain during pregnancy .
.. . 2 5 4
. . .
1 3. 1 1 Possible characteristics of patients w i t h chronic intractable pain
. .
.
. . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . .
.
.
. . .
.
1 3. 1 2 Key factors in identification of chronic pain patients 1 3. 1 3 Inappropriate signs
. . . . .
.
.
. . .
2 77 2 79
.. 2 79
. .
13 . 1 4 Inappropriate symptoms
. . . . . .
280
..... ..... ...... ... .. . ............
14. 1
Symptom patterns relevant to management decisions
14 .2
Definitions of acut e , sub-acute and chronic .. . . . . .
1 4 . 3 Criteria for defining status of condition
. . . . .
.
379 .
. . .
38 1
.. 382
. .
1 4.4 Features of history ('red flags') that may indicate serious spinal pathology
. . . . . . .
. . . .
. .. . . .
. .
.
..
. . . .
..
. ... . .. 39 1
. . .
.. 400
15. 1
Criteria for a relevant lateral shi ft
1 5.2
Criteria for conducting a neurological examination
. .
1 5.3 Typical signs and symptoms associated with L4 nerve roots
-
. . . .
. .
Sl
. ... . . . ...... . ....... .. . . ........ .... 403
.
1 5 .4 Criteria for a relevant lateral component
. . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
16. 1
Dimensions of symptomatic presentation to monitor
16.2
Criteria b y which paraesthesia m ay b e improving .
progress
. 402
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . .
418
428
... 430 . .
1 6 . 3 Traffic Light Guide to symptom response before, during .... . ... . . .....
and after repeated movement testing
.. 433
1 6 . 4 Dimensions of mechanical presentation by which t o assess change 16.5
. . . . . .
.
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . .
... . . . .
. . . . . .
.
...... 436
.
Some commonly used back disability questionnaires
1 6.6 Mechani cal responses to loading strategy ... .. . ... .
.
.
. . . . .
440
. .... 44 1
1 6 . 7 Characteristic symptomatic and mechanical presentations of the mechanical syndromes 1 7. 1
Force progression .. . ... . . ... . . ...... . . ...
. . . . .
.
44 1
.. 448
xxivl 17.2
Force alternatives . . . . . . ... .
17.3 Treatment principles
. . . . .
.
. . .
. . . . . . .. .. . ... .
. . . .
.
.
. .
. . .
. .
..
. .
. . . .
.
.
. . .
.
.
... . . . .
. . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .. . 448 . .
.
.
. . .. . .
. .
.
. . .
. . . . 450 .
.. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .......... . 450
1 7 . 4 Procedures
1 8 . 1 Dimensions that patients consider important in an episode of physiotherapy ..
. .
..
. . ... . . . . ...... 511
.......... . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . .. 514
1 9 . 1 Different methods of clarifying symptom response 19 . 2
.... . . . . ... . ... . . ... . . . . . . ... 517
Main elements of review process
541
21.1 Key points to patients in prophylaxis
2 2 . 1 Characteristics of derangement syndrome .... ... . . . . . . . . . . 545 . .
.
23.1 Derangement syndrome - criteria ... .. .. . . . .. .. .
23.2
. .
. . .
. .
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
560
Dimensions in analysis of derangements . . ... . . . ... . . ........ . . 561
23.3 Main treatment pri.nciples for derangement syndrome by directional preference .
. .. 562
24.1 Stages o f management o f derangement 24.2
....... ....... . . ... 566
Recovery of function - ensuring stability of derangement . . 5 72
24.3 Treatment of derangement syndrome by directional preference
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
575
2 4 . 4 Clues as to the need for extension principle - not all will .... 5 76
be present 24.5 Force progressi.ons and force alternatives in extension principle
.
.
. . .. 5 78
24.6 Indicators for consideration of lateral component ..... . . . .. 5 79 24.7 Lateral shift - definitions
. . . . .
.
. . .
..
. . .. . . . . ...... 580
. . . . . . . .
2 4 . 8 Clues as to the need for lateral principle - not all will be present at once
... . . . ... . . ... . .... .
. . . . . . . . . . . ... .
.. 580
24.9 Procedures used when a relevant lateral component is p resent . . . . . . . . . . ...... ... . . .
. . . ... ... . . . . . . . ... .. . .
.
.
.
.
581
.
. 583
24.10 Clues as to the need for flexion principle 2 4.1 1 Force progressions and force alternatives in flexion principle
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . ... .. . . .
.... . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . 583
24.12 Clues to irreducible derangements - not all need be . 584
present . . . . 26.1 Response to extension forces in unilateral asymmetrical and implications 26 . 2
...... . . .. . . ... . . .
. . .
Criteria for a relevant lateral shift
. .
....
. .
. . . 603 . . ... ... . . 615 .... . . .. . .. 626
2 7.1
Management of sciatica . . .... . ....
2 7.2
Distinguishing between sciatica due to a protrusion or an
.
extrusion/sequestration - features are variable
. . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . .
633
I xxv 27.3 Differentiating between a reducible derangement, an irreducible derangement/nerve root entrapment (NRE), and adherent nerve root (ANR) in patients with persistent leg pain .......... .... . ... . .. . .......... .......
..... . . . ....
. 644
28.1 Articular dysfunction syndrome - critera (all will apply) 28.2
.
. 654
Instructions to patients with dysfunction syndrome . .. 65 7 . .
29.1 Adherent nerve root - clinical presentation (all will apply) . 6 73 29.2 Criteria defnition for adherent nerve root (all will apply)
. 675
29.3 Procedures for treating adherent nerve root .....
....... 677
30.1 Postural syndrome - criteria (all will apply) ... . .
. . . .. 687
30.2 Management of posture syndrome
..... . . 689
XXVI
I
I N T RO D U CT I O N
Introduction
Many years have passed since the publication of the first edition o f my monograph, The Lum bar Spi ne: Mechani cal Di agnosi s and Therapy. Since 1 98 1 , when the book was first released, the conceptual
mode ls for t h e ide n t i fication of subgroups in the non-specific specLrum of back pain and the meLhods of treatment 1 recommended have imernationally received wide acceptance. The eXLent of the accepLance for what 1 c hose to call Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) was never anticipated. 1 did nOL, as a result of dissatisfacLion with existing methods, deliberately construct a new sysLe m of diagnosis and treatment to manage common mechanical back problems. Rather, from everyday observation and contacL with la rge numbers o f patients, 1 learned from t h e m , unconsciously a L first I suspect, thaL different patients with apparently similar symptoms reacLed quite diffe rently when subj ected to the same mechanical loadings. On grouping together all those whose symptomatic and mechanical responses to l oading were identical, three consiSLenL patterns emerged and became in turn the syndromes whose identificaLion and management are desClibed within these pages. Because of the sLable population in the city of Wellington in New Zealand, many patients wiLh recurrent and chronic problems returned for help over Lime. Thus I had the opportunity to observe in many individuals the passing spectrum of mechanical and symptomatic changes t hat progressed during two or even three decades of life From Lhis experience
1
learned h o w to make t h e c h an ges in
managemenL Lhat were dictated by the gradual structural changes resulting from t he natural ageing process. The eventual refinement of my observations and techniques o f loading were t hus merely a function of evolution . 1
have recounted the sLory of "Mr Smith", described later in this
volume, on many courses and at many conferences around the world. 1
do so because it describes an actual event that has had an enormous
impacL on my life and has, and continues to have , an impact on the way health profeSSionals worldwide think about and manage the spine and musculoskeletal problems in general.
11
2 1 1 N T RO D U CT I O N
T H E L U M BA R S P I N E : M EC H A N I C A L D I AG N O S I S & T H E RA I'Y
Occasionally
1
am asked, "Was there really a Mr Smith, or did you
invent him to provide an amusing story to go with the e ffects of extension?" I can only reply that, yes, it is a true story, and no, 1 did not make it up, but his real name is long forgotten. Prior to the encounter with Mr Smith , 1, along with a few other p hysiotherapists at that time, was exploring and mastering the multitude of manipulative techniques and t he philosophies that lay behind them. Cyriax, Mennell, Stoddard and the chiropractors were the flavour of that period. Maitland and Kaltenborn were yet LO appear. I n my mind, the only rational explanation to account for the centralisation o f M r Smith's symptoms was to be found in the first volume ( 1 954), written by one James Cyriax, MD. Cyriax attributed sudden and slow onseL back pain respecL ively to tearing of the annulus and bulgi ng or displacement o f the nucleus. If the bulge was large enough , compression o f the root would follow. Thus it suggested to me that Mr Smiths centralisation occurred because the pressure on his sciatic nerve was removed. Extension, I th oughL, was there fore a good thing to apply in these cases. lL might even be more e ffective than the manipulations we practised, which sometimes did - and many times did not - produce a benefit for the patienl. Fol lOWing t he encounter with Mr Smith , the hypothesis to explain the varying responses to loading crystallised and formed the basis of the conceptual models upon which the treatments were developed. Without the conceptual model o f displacement and its sequelae, I doubt that
1
could have developed the explanations and eventually
p rovided the solutions for many of the mechanical disorders presenting in daily practice. Belief in the conceptual model provided an explanation and better understanding of centralisation and peripheralisation . It explained the changes in pain location and intensity that follow prolonged or repetitive sagittal loading and led to the discovery thaL o ffset loading Chips off centre) was required when symptoms were unilateral or asymmetrical. The model suggested that it could be possible, by applying lateral forces, to entice low back and cervical pains LO change sides. That phenomenon is now clinically repeatable in certain selected patients.
I N TRODUCT I O N
Identification of the most e ffective direction for applying therapeutic exercise - the use of prolonged positioning and repeated rather than Single movements in assessment; the progressions of force ; differentiation between the pain of displacement, from the pain of contracture, and pain arising from normal tissue; t he three syndromes; differentiation of limb pain caused by root adherence, entrapment or disc protrusion all arose directly or indirectly from the conceptual model. The d i sc model, the theories and clinical outcomes relative to mechanical diagnosis and therapy are under investigation worldwide. The models are as yet unproven Scientifically; even so they provide a sound basis for the management of non-speCific disorders of the lower back. Much to my intense s a t i s fa c t i o n , t h e e x p e r i m e n t s , t h e conclusions a n d the results I recorded have successfully been replicated by others. To this day, belief in the conceptual model, acting on its suggestions and obeying its warnings, gUide me in the management of the patient. Many thi ngs indirectly arose from the model. Mr Smith was the catalyst. We no longer have to manipulate all patients in order to deliver the procedure to the very few requiring it. We no longer have to apply manipulation to our patients to determine retrospectively if it was indicated. I would never be without the model and Mr Smith is never far from my thoughts. Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy is now one of the most commonly used treatment approaches utilised by phYSiotherapists in the United Kingdom , New Zealand and the United S tates. I t is an approach also utilised and recommended by chiropractors, physicians and surgeons. The increasing interest is reflected in the substantial body of research that has been conducted into aspects of "The McKenzie Method " , as it has come to be known. The very nature of MDT lends itself to measurement. There have been numerous studies into centralisation , symptom response and reliability, as well as studies into the e fficacy of MDT. More studies are needed, but much research already strongly endorses aspects of this system of assessment and management. Further recent endorsement of MDT has been given by its inclusion in national back pain gu ide lines from Denmark and systematic musculoskeletal guidelines from the United States.
I N TRODUCT I O N
13
4 1 1 N T R O D U CT I O N
T H E L U M BAR S P I N E : M E C H A N I C A L D I AG N O S I S & TH E RA PY
Cent ralisation has been shown to have clear prognostic as well as d iagnostic significance .
lL
is one of the few clinical factors that have
been found to have more prognostic implications than psychosocial factors. Study after study has asserted the poor reliability of assessmen t t h a t is based on palpation or observation , while symptom response consistently shows good reliabili ty. Education in MDT has now been structured to enable the formalised teaching of clinicians and proVide a base upon which rigorous scient ific inquiry may proceed. Educational programmes are provided under the auspices of the McKenzie Institute International and its branches and are conducted in all continents and attended annually by thousands o f clinicians. Some appreciation of the extent of the adoption of MDT can be seen from the request by the Director of the Chinese Ministry o f Healt h , Department of Rehabili tation , to provide t h e Institute's education programme for Ch inese physicians and surgeons involved i n the management of back disorders throughout the world's most populous country. It is now common knowledge that management o f musculoskeletal problems must involve patient understanding, including a knowledge of the problem and proffered solution. Pat ients must be actively involved in treatmen t . This was a message first stated over twenty years ago i n t he first edition o f t h is title . Sadly, it seems, with the continued usage of ultrasound and other passive treatment modal ities by clinicians, despite clear evi dence for l ack of efficacy; this is a message that h ealth professionals h ave still not clearly heard. "How many randomised controlled trials does it take to convince clinicians about the lack o f e fficacy for ultrasound and other passive treatments)" (Nachemson , 200 1 ) . The clinical utility and worth o f the system i s attested t o by the thousands o f 'studies of one' conducted by clinicians on their pat ients throughout the world every year.
lL
is used and continues to be used
because it is e ffective. Ultimately, do we wish to make the patien t feel 'better', albeit brie Oy, or do we wish to o ffer the patient a means of se l f-treatment and understanding so that there is a strong possibility they will benefit from our services in t h e long-term) A re we c re a t i n g patie n t dependence on therapy, or provi ding a ch ance o f in dependence
I N T RO D U C T I O N
through s e l f-management? A key role for clinicians m u s t be as educators , rather than 'healers'. The second edition of this title is presented to the reader with the knowledge and hindsight of experience gained since the production of the first . In the first edition of 1 98 1 , there were few, if any, references to quote in support of the methods and theories I propounded. Prior descriptions of the use of repetitive end-range motion and its e ffects on pain location and intensity; the phenomenon of clinically induced centralisation and p e ri p h e r a l i s a t i o n ; the p rogn ostic value o f cent ralisat i on and non-centralisat ion ; t h e theore t ic a l m o d e l s ; identi fication of subgroup syndromes ; the progressions of therapeutic forces; and m ost i mport a n t l y sel f-treatment and man age m e nt strategies did not exist in the l iterature of the day. Fortunately that is not the case today. 1
believe that with the involvement of Stephen May in the writing o f
this edition, t h e imperfections t h a t aboun d in my first excursion into the literary world have been e liminated. Stephen's understanding of "McKenzie" , combined wi th his literary talents and global familiarity with the scientific literature , have brought to this edition a quality that far exceeds my own capab i lities. This will become apparent to the reader on advancing through the chapters within. We have proVided for you in this second edition, a monograph that describes in explicit detai l what the "McKenzie Method" is, how to apply it and the evidence that substantiates and j ustifies its use for the management of non-specific low back pain . I believe t hese chapters will allow better understanding and more appropriate investigation of MDT Above all, I trust it will serve its prime purpose in helping our patients
R obin McKenzie Raum a t i Beach New Zealand
I N T R O D U CT I O N
Is
6 1 I NTRODUCTION
THE LUMBAR S PINE: MECHAN ICAL DIAGNOSIS & TH ERAPY
1 : The Problem of Back Pain
Introduction It is important to understand the eXLent Lo which any health problem impacts upon t he population . This provides an understanding of that problem , as well as suggestions as to how it should be addressed by health care providers. Clearly it is inappropriate for health professionals to deal with a benign , self-limiting and endemic problem such as the common cold in the same way t h at they address possibly li fe threatening disorders such as heart attacks. The study and descri ption of the spread of a disease in a population is known as epi dem iology. Modern clinical epidemiology is concerned with the distributio n , natural history and clinical course o f a disease , risk factors associated with it , the health needs it produces and the determinaLion of the most ef fective methods of treatmenL and management (Streiner and Norman 1 996) Epi demiology thus o ffers various insighLs L haL are critical Lo an understanding of any health problem (Andersson 199 1 ; N ache mson
et
a1. 2000) I t provides information abouL the extent o f
a problem and t h e resultant demand on services. A n understanding of the natural history i n forms paLient counselling about p rognosis and helps determine the e ffects of treatment. Associations between sympLoms and individual and external factors allow the identification and mod i fication of risk factors. Ou tcomes from studies about interven tions should provide the evi dence for the most e ffective management strategies. The sect ions in this chapter are as follows: prevalence natu; al history disability COSL health care •
treatment effectiveness.
CHA PT E R O N E
17
81 CHA PT E R O N E
T H E LUM BA R S P I N E: M EC H A N ICAL DIAGNOSIS & TH E RAPY
Risk and prognostic factors are discussed in the next chapLer. This i n formation p rovides a bac kground understanding that should influence the management that health professionals provide.
Prevalence Trying to measure the frequency o f back pain, its clinical course or t he rate o f care-seeking related to back pain is not sLraightforward. There is considerable variability in the way data has been gathered i n d i ffe rent cou n t r i e s , at d i ffe re n t t i m e s , e m p loying d i ffe re nt defini tions, asking slightly di fferem questions and usi ng di fferem meLhods to gather this i n format ion . There is o ften a lack of objective measuremenL, the problem is frequently interm i ttent and recall can be plagued by bias. Thus there is a problem with the validiLy and reliabili ty of the data, and the figures o ffered should be seen as estimations rather than exact facts (Andersson 1 99 1 ; Nachemson
et
al. 2000). Nonetheless, certain figures appear consistenLly enough
to give a reasonably reliable overall picture of the extent of the problem and iLS natural history. Despite all methodological d i fficu lties, it can be staLed Lhat back pain is about the most prevalent pain complaint, possibly along with headaches (Raspe 1 99 3 ) . I n adults, between one-half and three-quarters of the population wi ll experience back pain at some point in their life. About 40% will experience an episode of back pain in any one year, and
about 15
-
20% are experienCing back pain at any given time . Similar
figures are given in reviews and primary research from different cou ntries around the world (Cro ft
et
al. 1 997 ; Klaber Moffett
et
al.
1 99 5 ; Evans and Richards 1 99 6 ; Waddell 1 9 94; Shekelk 1 997; Papageorgiou and Rigby 1 99 1 ; Papageorgiou 1 998; Brown
et
al. 1 9 9 5; Linton
et
al.
al. 1998; Leboeuf-Yde
et
al. 1 996; McKinnon
et
al.
et
al. 1 989; ToropLsova
et
al.
et
1 997; Szpalski
et
al. 1 99 5 ; Heliovaara
1 99 5; Cassidy
et
al. 1 998) . Apparently only 10 - 20% of the adult
population seems to have never had back problems (Raspe 1 993). Table 1 . 1 contains a sample o f in ternaLional studies that have been con ducted i n great n umbers of t h e gen e ral popu latio n . Large representative surveys are the best evidence for a problem in Lhe greater population (Nachemson
et
al. 2000). Commonly these surveys
describe the proportion of people who report back pain aL t h e time or thaL month (point prevalence), i n that year (year prevalence) or back pain ever (lifetime p revalence) .
TilE P ROBL E M
OF
CHA PTE R O N E
BACK PA I N
Prevalence of back pain in selected large
Table 1.1
population-based studies
Countly
e.revalence
Lifetime Year e.revalence e.revalence
UK
19%
39%
UK
39%
Point
Referel1ce Hillman eL
al. 1996
Papageorgiou eL Brown cL
al. 1995
al. 1984
Heliovaara eL
al. 1989
Toroplsova eL (II. 1995 Leboeu f-Yde et
al. 1996
LinlOn eL (II. 1998 McKinnon eL Skovron eL
al. ] 997
al. 1994
Canada (police rorce) 20%
Russia
11%
48%
Nordic count ries (review)
50%
66%
Sweden
66%
UK
16%
Belgium
33%
Dodd 1997
UK
Average rates of selected studies
75% 31%
UK
al. 2000
42%
Finland
Walsh eL al. 1992
Waxman eL
59%
48%
59% 36%
15%
UK
22%
62%
58%
40% 41%
59%
44%
61%
These gross figures disguise d i fferences in the characteristics o f different episodes o f back pain relative to duration , severity and effect on a person's lifestyle . Clearly back pain is an endemic problem, widespread throughout the communi ty. It is a problem that will a ffect the majority o f adults at some point in their lives. Back pain is normal .
Natural history The traditional concept of back pain was the acutelchronic dichotomy, in which it was thought that most patients have brief finite episodes and only a few progress to a chronic problem. It is frequently stated that for most people the prognosis is good (Klaber Moffett et a1. 1 995; Evans and Richards 1 99 6; Waddell 1 994): "80 - 90% o j attacks oj low back pai n recover i n about 6 weeks" regardless of the treatment
applied, or lack of i t (Waddell 1987). However, a picture of the natural history of back pain that suggests the majority will have a brief sel f limiting episode denies recent epidemiological evidence and paints an over-optimistic summalY of many individuals' experience of this problem.
[9
10
I CHA PT E R O N E
THE L U M BA R S P I N E: M EC H AN I CAL DIAGNOS I S & TH E RA PY
It is certainly true that a great number of acute episodes of back pain resolve quickly and spontaneously (Coste 1 99 5a) . Coste
et al.
et al.
1 994; Carey
et aL
( 1 994) followed 1 03 acute patients in primary
care for three months and found that 90% had recovered in two weeks and that only two developed chronic back pain . However, this study sample contained patients with a very brief history of back pain (less than 72 hours) , no referral of pain below the gluteal fold and excluded those who had experienced a previous episode in the last three months - all characteristics with a good prognosis. Dill a n e et al. ( 1 9 66) reported that the duration of the episode in over 90% of th ose who visited their GP with acute back pain was less than four weeks. However, the d uration was defined as the time between the first and last consultation with the doctor. An episode o f back pain cannot be defined in this way. Although patients may stop attending their medical practitioner, this does not necessarily mean that t heir back pain has resolved. More recent ly it was found that while most patients only visited their GP once or twice because of the problem, one year l ater 7 5% of t hem were still not symptom free (Croft
et al.
1 998) .
Other studies t hat have looked at t he natural h istory of new episodes o f back pain in primary care settings also paint a more pessimistic picture, although outcome depends partly on what is being measured (Carey
et al.
1 99 5a; Cherkin
et al.
1 99 6a) . Studies have found that
only 3 0 - 40% o f their sample are completely resolved at aboLll two to three months, with l i ttle further i mprovement at six or twelve months (Cherkin et al. 1 99 6a; Phi l ips and Grant 1 99 1; Klenerman eL al. 1 99 5 ) . Thomas et al. ( 1 9 99) i ntervi ewed patients who had
p resented to primary care with new episodes of back pain - 48% still reported disabli ng symptoms at three months , 42% at one year and 34% were classified as having persistent disabling back pain at both reporting times. Recurrences i n the fol l owing year a fter onset are extremely common, reported in about three-quarters o f samples (Klenerman van den Hoogen
et al.
et al.
1 995;
1 998) . In a large group of patients in primary
care studied (von Korff
et al.
1993) one year after seeking medical
treatment for back pain, the maj ori ty with both recent and non recent onset of back problems reported pain in the previous month (69% and 8 2% respectively) . In those whose problem had started recently, only 2 1 % were pain-free in the previous month; in those
THE P ROB LEM OF BAC K PAI N
C J-I A PTE R O N E
whose problem was o f a longer duration, only 1 2% were pain-free i n t h e previous month . Table 1 .2 gives a selection of studies that have described relapse rates and persistent symptoms. Relapse rates refer to those in the back pain population who report more than one episode in a year, and persistence refers to back pain that has l asted for several months or more. Exact definitions vary between different studies, but a h istory o f recurrences and non-resolving symptoms is clearly a very common experience. Table
1.2
Relapse rate and persistent symptoms in selected studies
Reference
Relapse rate
Persistent symptoms
Linton c1 at. 1998
57%
43%
at. 1998
55%
Brown et
Szpalski et
aL 1995
36%
Heliovaara eL at. 1989
45%
at. 1995
65%
Toroptsova eL
Hillman eL at. 1996
47%
Philips and Grant 1991 Klenerman et
at. 1995
40% 71%
Thomas cL al. 1999 Van den Hoogen et Miedema et
23%
48%
al. 1998
76%
al. 1998
35% 28%
Croft eL al. 1998
79%
Carey eL at. 1999
39%
Waxman eL al. 2000
Average rates from selected studies
42%
58%
42%
"The message from t h e figu res i s t h at, i n any one y eal; recu rrences, exacerbat ions and persistence dom i nate the experience of low back pain in the com m u n i ty " (Cro ft et al. 1 997, p . 1 4)
It is clear that for many individuals, recovery from an acute e p isode of backache is not the end of their back pain experience . The strongest known risk factor for developing back pain is a h istory of a previous episode (Croft
et
al. 1 997; Shekel le 1 997; Smedley
et
al. 1 997) The
chance of haVing a recurrence of back pain a fter a f irst e p isode is greater than 5 0% . Many recurrences are common and more than one-third of the back pain population have a l ong-term problem (Cro ft
et
al. 1 9 97; Evans a n d R i c h a rds 1 9 9 6; Wadd e l l 1 9 94;
111
121 C H A PTE R O N E
T H E LUM BA R S P I N E: M EC H A N ICAL D I AG NOSIS & T H E RA PY
Papageorgiou and Rigby 1 99 1 ; Linton et al. 1 998; Brown et al. 1 998; Szpalski e t al. 1 99 5 ; Heliovaara e t al. 1 98 9 ; Toroptsova e t al. 1 99 5 ) There is also the suggestion from o n e population study that those with persistent or episodic pain may gradually deteriorate, being Sign i ficantly more lik e l y t o report c h ronic l ow back pain and associated disability at a later date (Waxman et al. 2 000) . However, the risk of recurrence or persistence of back pain appears to lessen with the passage of time since the last episode (Biering-Sorensen 1 983a) . The i n ference from these figures is clear - an individual's experience of back pain may well encompass their life history. The high rate of rec u rrence s, e pisodes and pe rsist e nce of symptoms seriously challenges the myth o f an acute/chronic dichotomy. Back pain is "a rec urrent condition Jor w h i c h deJi ni tions oj acute and chron i c pain based o n a Si ngle episode are i nadequate, characterised by variation and c hange, rather than an acute, selJ- l i m it i ng episode. Chro n i c bach pain, defined as bac h pain p resent on at least half the days d uring an extended period i s Jar Jrom rare . . " (Von Korff and Saunders 1 99 6) .
It would appear from the evidence that the much-quoted speedy recovery of back pain does not conform to many people's expe rience and that the division of the back pain population into chronic and acute categories presents a false dichotomy (Figure 1 .1) . This is not to deny that many people have brief acute episodes that resolve in days, nor that there is a small group o f seriously disabled chronic suffe rers, but that for large numbers, " low bach pain should be v iewed as a c hroni c problem w i th an untidy pattern of grumbl i ng symptoms and periods oj relative freedom Jrom pain and di sabi l i ty i n t e rspersed w ith acu te episodes, exacerbations, and recu rrences " (Croft eL al. 1998).
Back pain should be viewed from the perspective of the sufferer's lifetime - and given such a perspec tive , the logic o f sel f-management is overwhelming.
T H E P ROBLEM OF B A C K PAI N
Figure 1.1
C H A PT E R O N E
The assumed and real natural history of back pain
A
..... "
f" ,
Small percentage become chronic
Time B Recurrence or exacerbation
AClile
Time
A: Assumed course or acute low back pain B: Real course or back pain Reproduced wilh permission from Crofl P, Papageorgiou A and McNally R (1997) Low Bach Paill. In: A Slevens andJ Raflery (cds) Health Care Needs Assessmenl. Second Series: Radcliffe
Medica l Press. Oxford.
In summa ry, many episodes of back pain are brief and sel f-l imiting; howeve r, a Signi ficant proport ion of individual s will experience persisLem symptoms, while a minority develop chronic pain . The natural improvement rate stabilises after the first few months, and afLer this Lime resolution is m uch less l ikely. Up to one-third o f new episodes result i n prolonged periods of symptoms. Half of those having an iniLial episode of back pain will experience relapses. Lack of cli nical foll ow-up creates the mistaken impression that there i s common resolution of problems, which is not confirmed by more stringenL research methods.
Disability NOL all back pain i s the same . There is variabil i ty between individuals in the persistence of symptoms, in severity and i n functional disability (von Korff et al. 1990) One review of the literature found that between 7% and 18% of populaLion samples that have been studied are affected
frequemly, daily or constantly by back pain (Raspe 1993). Persistent sympLoms have been reponed by about 40% and l ongstanding, disabl ing backache by abouL 10% of all those who suffer from the problem (Croft et al. 1997; Evans and Richards 1996; Fordyce 1995;
113
1 41 C HA P TE R O N E
T H E LUM BA R S P I N E: M EC H A N ICAL D I AG N OS I S & THE RAPY
Waddell 1994; Linton
et
aL 1998; Szpalski
et
al. 1995; Heliovaara et
al. 1989; Toroptsova et al. 1995; Carey et al. 2000). Levels of disability,
even among those with persi stent symptoms , vary wide ly. Musculoskeletal disorders are the most common cause of chronic incapacity, with back pain accounting for a significant proportion of this total (Bennett e t al. 1995; Badley et aL 1994) Back pain is Lhus one o f the most common causes of disabili ty, espeCially during Lhe productive middle years of life . It has been estimatecl (Waddell 1994) that 10% of the adult population , or 30% of those with back pain , report some limitation of their normal activity in the past month because of it. Work loss due to backache occurs for 2% of the aclult population each month , j ust less Lhan 10% each year and in 25 30% of the working population across their lifetimes (Waddell 1994)
Heliovaara
et
al. ( 1989) reported from a population sur vey thaL 40%
of those with back pain had been forced to reduce leisure activities permanently, 20% had marked limitation of daily aCLivities and 5% had severe limitations. In a one-year period, 22% of those with back pain who were employed went on sick leave because of it , representing a prevalence rate in the adult population of 6% (Hillman et al. 1996). According to one study, serious disability and work loss affects 5 - 10% of the population in any year, and i n a lifetime over one-quarter of the population take time off work due to back pain (Walsh Table
1.3
et
al. 1992).
Disability and work loss due to back pain in general population
Men One year
Men Liletime
Women One year
Women Lifetime
Disability
5%
16%
4.5%
13%
Work loss
11%
34%
7%
23%
Source: Walsh et Cli. 1992
D isability due to back pain has varied over time. I n the U K during the 1980s, the payment of sickness and invalidity benefit rose by 208%, compared to an average rise of 54% for all incapaciLies (Waddell 1994). There is no evidence of an increased prevalence of back pain
over recent decades (Nachemson ei al. 2000; Leboeuf-Yde et al. 1996); the increased i ncapacity is thought to relate to changed attitudes and expectations, changed medical ideas and management, and changed social provision (Waddell 1994) It might also be seen to reflect a time of high unemployment and social change within the UK Indeed,
C H A PT E R ON E
TH E P RO B L E M OF BACK PAIN
more recent evidence from the US reports that rather than being on the increase, the estimate of annual occupational back pain for which workers claimed compensation actually declined by 34% between 1987 and 1995 (Murphy and Volinn 1999).
It is important Lo be aware that patients with chronic back pain represent a dive rse grou p , not all of whom are fated to a poor prognosis. When ninety-four individuals with chronic back pain were questioned about work and social disability, less than 8% indicated an interruption of normal activities over a six-month period (McGorry et
al. 2000) ALLempts have been made to classify chronic pain states
relaLive to severity and associated disability, which indicated that over half of those with chronic pain report a low level o f restriction on Lheir lifesLyle and l ow levels of depression . Several large population-based studies of chronic pain and back pain (von Korff
et
al. 1990, 1992; Cassidy
chroni c back pain patients ( Klapow
et
et
al. 1998) and a study of
al. 1993) reveal reasonably
consistent levels of limitation of act ivity due to persistent pain problems. AboLlt half o f those with chronic pain report a low level of disability and a good level of coping. About a quarter report moderate levels o f disability, and another quarter report severe incapacity due to t he problem (see Table 1.4). In those attending primary care for back pain , about 60% had low disabi li ty and about 40% had high disability at presentation (von Korff et al. 1993). After one year, less than 20% were pain- free , 65% had m inimal disability and between 14% and 20% had high disability, so even i n those with persistent
symptoms the severity and disability is variabl e , with the maj ority reporting minimal reduction of function. Table
1.4
Grading of chronic back pain
von Korff
eL al.
1992 1213)
Klapow
1993 (N 96)
et al.
Cassidy
et al.
(N
Grade
(N
Low disability and low imensity
35%
49%
Low disability and high intensity
28%
25%
12%
High disability
37%
26%
11%
=
=
=
1998 1110)
48%
(Moderate 20%; Severe 17%)
"There was considerable heterogeneity in manifestations of pain dysfunc t i on among p e rsons with seem i n gly com p a rable pain experience . A considerable proportion o f persons with severe and
115
161 CHA PT E R O N E
TH E L U M BA R S P I N E: M EC H A N ICAL D I AG N OSI S & TH E RA PY
persisten t pain did not evidence sign i ficant pain-relaLed disability Some persons with severe and persistent pain did not evidence psychological impairment, although many did" (Von Korff eL al. 1990). The pain status of individuals is not static, but dynamic (Table 1 5) Symptoms and associated disability fluctuate over time , and many patients leave the pool of persisten t pain su ffe rers if followed over a few years . The overall pool of those with chronic pain appears to stay about the same, but a proportion leave that group and either become pain-free or are less severely affected, while a similar number join it over a period of a year or more (Cedraschi eL al. 1999; Croft 1997; Troup
et al.
1987; von Kor ff et al. 1990; McGarry
Table 1.5
The dynamic state of chronic back pain CLBP or chronic pain who become pain-free
Crort et
al. 1997
Ced raschi et al. 1999 Troup et al. 1987 Crook et al. 1989
8%
et al.
eL al.
2000).
CLBP who improve
CLBP who remain lSQ
33%
67%
53%
47%
9%
83%
13% (pain clinic) 36% (primary carc)
CLBP
=
ISQ
in status quo
=
chronic low back pain
Back pain is a symptom t hat descri bes a heterogeneous and dynamic state . In dividuals vary in their experience of backache relative to t i m e , sever i t y and disab i l i ty Many individuals h ave persistent problems. Most c hronic back pain i s o f low intensity and low disability; high levels of severity and disability affect only the m inority Some of those with chronic backache do become pain -free; however, because of h igh prevalence rates, back pain produces extensive disability and work loss and t hus impacts considerably on individuals and on society
Cost Even though not everyone with back pai n seeks health care, the prevalence o f the problem is so great t haL h igh numbers of patients are e ntering the health services. A major concern is the COSL associated with back pai n , although this is d i fficult to calculate. It is made up o f t h e d i rect cost of health care borne by soc iety or b y t h e patient and
T H E P ROBLEM OF BAC K PAI N
C H AP T E R ON E
the indirect costs associated with absence from work . In the UK costs to the NHS alone in 1 992/3 have been estimated at between £ 2 6 5 and £383 million, whic h constitu tes 0 . 6 5 - 0 . 9 3% o f total N H S spending (Klaber Moffett
e t al.
1 99 5 ) . A more recent estimate of t h e
direct health care costs of back pain i n t h e U K for 1 998 put the cost at £1 ,632 million (Maniadakis and Gray 2000). In the US, medical care costs have been esti mated at between $8 and $ 1 8 billion CShekelle et al.
1995)
T h e medical costs o f back pai n , however, are only a part of t h e whole cost of the problem that society pays. Indirect costs, such as disability or compensation payments, production losses at workplaces and informal care , dwarf the amount that is spent directly o n patient care. T he total societal cost of back pain in the U S has been estimated at $75 - $ 1 00 b il lion in 1 990 (Frymoyer and Cats-Bari.l 1 99l) . Cost data from i nsurance compani.es from two separate studies shows that medical care represents about 34% of the total costs, while i . n d costs make up about 66% (Webster and Snook 1 990; Williams et al. 1 9 98a) Total empl oyme n t - related costs i n t h e U K have b e e n estimated a t between £ 5 and £ 1 0 billion (Maniadakis and G ray 2 000), which means that direct costs only account for between 1 3% and 24% of the total costs (Figure 1 . 2 ) . In the Netherlands, the d i rect health care costs h ave been esti mated as only 7% of the total cost , with the total cost representing 1 .7% of the gross national product (van Tulder Figure
eL al.
1 99 5 ) .
l.2 The direct and indirect costs o f back pain
12,000 ,-----10,000
�
t------
8,000
'"
c
�
E
6,000 4,000 2,000 o
t---��----�Medical Costs
Manual Therapy
Indirect COSI5, lower estimate
Indirect costs, upper estimate
Costs
Source: Maniadakis and Gray 2000
Medical costs include m edicines and x-rays; manual therapy includes physiotherapy, osteopathy and chiropractic ; indirect costs include production losses and informal care. Some o f these costs can only be estimated . The direct and indirect costs of back pain are so great that
11 7
181 C H A PT E R O N E
T H E L U M BA R S P I N E : M EC H A N I CA L D I AG N O S I S & THE RA I 'Y
the economic burden is larger than for any other disease for which economic analysis was available in the UK in 1998 ( Maniadakis and Gray 2000). It is more costly t han coronary heart disease and the combined costs of rheumatoid arthritis, respiratory i n fecti ons, Alzheimer's disease, stroke, diabetes, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, thrombosis and embolism, depression, diabetes, ischaemia and epilepsy A minority of patients consume the maj ority of health care and indirect costs for low back pain. Combining data from multiple studies suggests that about 15% of the back pain population account for about 70% of costs (Spitzer Williams
et
et
al. 1998a; Linton
al. 1987; Webster and Snook 1990;
et
al. 1998).
Thus, not only is the cost of back pain huge, but the majority of this money is not spent d irectly on patient care, but on indirect societal 'costs'. Furthermore, it is the chronic few who consume the largest proportion of this expense .
Health care Not everybody with back pain seeks professional help. Most surveys reveal that about a quarter to a half of all people with back pain will consult their medical practitioner (Croft
et
al. 1997; Papageorgiou
and R igby 1991; McKinnon et al. 1997; Carey et al. 1996). A survey in Belgium found that 63% of those with back pain had seen a health professional for the most recent episode (Szpalski et al. 1995). Where chiropractic care is available, 13% of back pain sufferers seek their help (Linton
et
al. 1998; Carey
et
al. 1996). Seeking care appears to
vary widely ; one survey i n the U K found those seeking consultation with local physicians to range from 24 - 59% of those with back pain in d ifferent areas (Walsh
et
al. 1992). Care-seeking among those
with chronic back pain may be slightly higher (Carey
et
al. 1995b,
2000). Many people with low back pain cope independently in the
community and do not seek help, w hether medical or alternative.
THE P RO B L E M
Table
1.6
OF
BAC K PA I N
C H A PTE R O N E
Proportion of back pain population who seek health care
% who
% who
% who consult consult physiochirop'ractor therap'ist % who
Relerence
consult Country GP
consult osteopath
Dodd 1997
UK
38%
6%
3%
9%
Walsh eL al. 1992
UK
40%
al. 1996 UK
37%
4.5%
1%
10% 5%
Hillman eL Limon eL Carey eL
al. 1998
al. 1996
McKinnon eL 1997
al.
SanLos-Eggimann al. 2000
eL
Sweden
8%
13% 13%
US
24%
UK
24%
Switzerland
25%
In the UK, Waddell ( 1994) estimated a population prevalence o f 16.5 million people with back pain i n 1993. Of these h e estimated
that 18 - 42% consul t their Gp, 10% attend a hospital outpatient department, 6% are seen by NHS physiotherapists, 4% by osteopaths, less Lhan 2% each by private physiotherapists and chiropractors, 0.2% become inpatie nts and 0. 14% go to surgery Even though many people with back pain do not attend a health professional, because of the large prevalence rate i n the community the numbers actually seeking health care a re conside rable and constitute a significant burden in primary care . For instance , i n the US it is estimated that i t is the reason for 15 million visits to physicians annually, the fifth-largest reason for attendance , representing nearly 3% of all visits (Hart
et
al. 1995). In a rural primary care setting i n
Finland and practices in t h e UK, low back p a i n patients make u p about 5 % of a l l G P consultations (Rekola
et
al. 1993; Hackett
et
al.
1993; Waddell 1994). In the UK it has been estimated that one-third
of Lhose attending primary care with back pain will present with a new episode, one-third will present with a recurrence and one-third will present with a persistent disabling problem (Croft
et
al. 1997).
There are no clear clinical features that distinguish those patients who seek health care from those who do not. Hillman
et
al. (1996)
found LhaL Lhose who consult tended to report higher levels of pai n , greater disability and longer episodes, but also that some individuals with the same characteristics did not seek health care . Carey
et al.
(1999) found that recurrences of back pai n , the presence of sciatica
11 9
20
I CHA PTER O N E
T H E LUM BA R S P I N E: M EC H A N I CAL D I AG N OS I S & TH E RA PY
and greater disability were associated with care-seeking. Longer duration o f an episode o f back pain is more likely to cause people to consult (Santos-Eggimann
et al.
2000), and failure to improve is
associated with seeking care from multiple providers of heal t h care (Sundararaj an
et al.
1998)
Those who attend tertiary care tend to be at the more severe end of the spectrum of symptoms. However, one-fi fth o f non-consulters had constant pain and needed bed-rest, one-third had had pain for over t h ree months in the previous year and nearly half had leg pain and restricted activity (Cro ft
et al.
1997).
In the US, Carey eL al. ( 1996) found that those who sought care were more likely to have pain for longer than two weeks that radiated into t he leg an d had come on at work . However, considerable numbers of t hose not seeking care also had these characteristics. Szpalski
et
al. ( 1995) fou n d that back p a i n fre quen cy, h e a lth beliefs and
sociocultural factors i n fluenced health care-seeking. Other studies have also found that psychosocial factors have some impact on care seeking for back pain (Wright
et al.
1995; Vingard
eL al.
2 000) . The
type of health provider that pat ients first see may have an effect on subsequent consultation rates, with t hose who see a chiropractor being twice as l ikely to seek further help compared to those who saw a medical doctor (Carey
et al.
1999).
The message i n the epidemiological l iterature - that many people with back pain cope independently from professional help - is rei n forced by evidence from qualitative research usi ng interviews of people with back pai n . Skelton
et al.
(1996) in the UK found a large
number of his sample to be actively working on their problem by adopting various preventive strategies. These included use of certain body postures when bending, sitting and lifting; taking light exercise; resting; doing back and abdominal exercises; and, for some, constant awareness of a back p roblem in day-to-clay activities. In contrast , a smaller group of patients reponed taking a minimal ist approach to self-management , despite having some knowledge about p reventive measures. In between t hese two extremes were a few who reported that they were in t he p rocess of recognising a need to do something about t heir problem ancl were beginning to perceive the need to adopt sel f-management strategies.
THE P ROBLE M OF BACK PA I N
Bor kan
et
C H A PT E R O N E
af. ( 1 9 9 5 ) a l so fo u n d p a t i e n t s a d op t i ng a range o f
intellectual and behavioural strategies that were designed to mini mise pain or maximise funct ion. Informati on about back care is a common expectation of those who do seek professional help (Fitzpatrick et al. 1 987). Less than h a l f of those in the community with back pain actually seek health care . It is thus clear that se l f- management of b ack problems is both attainable and practised by many Some o f those who do not seek health care have constant, persistent and referred pain with reduced function. The maj ority of people with back pain manage independently of health professionals . O f those who do seek hel p , many are looking for things that they can do to help themselves to manage their problem better. There are others who are neglectfu l of adopt ing the necessary strategies, but who may b e convinced of the necessity of doing so if they are suffiCiently informed. Nonetheless, because o f t h e h i gh pre va l e nce rat e , back p a i n c o n s t i t u t e s a considerable burden to primary care .
Treatment The range of treatments offered to patients with back pain varies considerably. There is no consensus on the best type of treatment for back pain, and so the treatment given is ch osen on the inclination o f the practitioner. It depends more on whom t h e patient sees than their cli nical presentation ( Deyo 1 993) A back pain patient in the United States is five times more l i kely to be a surgical candidate than if they were a patient i n England or Scotland (Figure 1 . 3 from Cherkin
et al.
1994a) . Back surgery rates
increased almost linearly with the local supply of orthopaedic and neurosurgeons.
1 21
22
1 C H A PT E R O N E
T H E LU M BA R S PI N E: M EC H A N ICA L DIAG N OSIS & TH E RAPY
Figure l.3
Ratios of back surgery rates to back surgery rate in the US
(1988 - 1989)
1.2 ,-----
.g
0.8
"
ot!
0.6 0.4 0.2 o
l------
Country
Source: Cherkin el al.
1994.
I n the US, non-surgical h os p italisation a n d surge ry rates vary considerably, both over time and place. For i nstance , patients are twice as likely to be hospitalised in the south than in the west , and between 1 9 79 and 1 990 there was a 1 00% i ncrease in the rate of fusion operations (Taylor e t al. 1 994) . I n the N e th e rlan ds, a descriptive study o f gene ral practitioners' approaches to chronic back pain patients has shown that there is little consistency between clinicians (van Tulder et al. 1997a) . Cherkin et
al. (l994b) foun d there was little consensus among physici ans
about w hich d iagnostic tests should be used for back pain patients with certain clinical presentations and concluded that, for the patient, 'who you see is what you get'. Equally, in physical therapy t here is no standardised management of back pain . S urveys of reponed management st yles h ave been conducted i n the US (Battie
et
al. 1994; Jette
et
al. 1994 ; Jette and
Delitto 1 99 7 ; Mielenz et al. 1 997) , in the Netherlands (van Baar et al. 1 998) and i n the U K (Foster
et
al. 1 999) . These surveys show that a
wide range o f t h e rmal and e lectrotherapy modalities, massage , mobilisation and manipulation, exercises and mixed treatment regimes are u se d . Exercises are commonly used, but t hese are frequently combined with the use of passive treatment modalities, such as ultrasoun d , heat or electrical stimulation and , less frequently, with the use o f manual therapy. Passive treatment modalities tend to be used by some clinicians, whatever the duration of symptoms.
TH E P ROB L E M OF B A C K P A I N
C HA PT E R O N E
I n a survey in the U S , The McKenzie Method was deemed the most usefu l app roach for managing back p a i n , alth ough in p ractice clinicians were likely to use a variety of treatment approaches (Battie et
al. 1 994) . In the U K and I relan d , the Maitland and McKenzie
approaches w e re reportedly used most o ften t o m an age back probl e m s , a lt h ough e l e ctrot herapy modalities ( i nt e r ferenti a l , u l t rasound, TENS and short-wave diathermy) and passive stretching and abdomi nal exercises are also commonly used (Foster et al. 1 999) . Internationally, physiotherapy practice is eclectic and apparently little influenced by t he movement towards evidence-based practice . Back care regimes are clearly eclectic and non-standardised . When so much variety of treatment is on offer, what patients get is more likely to reflect the clinicians' biases rather than to be based o n their clinical presentation or the best evidence. Under these circumstances there must be occasions w hen the management offered is sub-optimal and is not i n the best long-term inte rest of t he patient .
Effectiveness Unfortunately, seek i ng health care does n ot , for many, solve their back problem (Von Korff
et
al. 1 99 3 ; Linton
et
al. 1 998; van den
Hoogen e t al. 1 99 7 ; Croft e t al. 1 998). Despite the vast numbers who are treated for t h is condition by different health professionals, the underlying epidemiology of back pai n , with i ts h igh prevalence an d recurrence rates, remains unchanged (Waddell 1 994 ) . Indeed , there is even the accusation that traditional methods of care , involving rest and passive treatment modalities rather than activity, have been partly implicated in the alarming rise of those disabled by back pain (Waddell 1 987) Some studies have challenged the notion that outcomes are necessarily better in those who are treated with physiotherapy or chiropractic ( Indahl et al. 1 99 5; van den Hoogen et
et
al. 1 99 7) For i nstance , I ndahl
a / . 's study ( 1 9 9 5 , ) followed nea rly 1 ,000 patients who w e re
randomised either to normal care or to a group who were given a thorough exp lanation of the importance of activity and the negative effects of being 'too careful'. At 200 days , 60% of the normal care group were sti l l on sick leave, compared to 30% of those instructed to keep active . Of those in the normal care group , 62% received physical therapy and 42% chiropractic, of which 79% and 70%
123
241 C H APT E R O N E
T H E L U M BA R S P I N E : M EC H A N ICAL D I AG N O S I S & TH E RAPY
respectively reported that treatment made the situat ion worse or had little or no e ffect. Various reviews and systematic reviews have been undertaken into interventi ons used i n the treatment of back pain . These universally only include prospective randomised controlled trials, which, with their supposed adherence to strict methodological criteria, are seen as the 'gold standard' by which to j udge interventions. This adherence to specific study designs is rarely achieved , but the focus on study design tends to d istract from the intervention itself Restricted recruitment and follow-up may l imit generahsability; interventions may not re flect clinical practice , because mostly they are given in a standardised way with no attempt at assessm ent of i n dividual sui tabi lity for t hat treatment regime ; the outcome measures may not be appropriate for the condition . Nonetheless, the underlying message i s impossible to evade - no inte rvention to date o ffers a straigh t forward, curative resol ution of back problems (Spitzer et al. 1 98 7 ; AHCPR 1 994; Evans and Richards 1 99 6 ; Croft et al. 1 99 7 ; van Tulder et aL 1 997b) These are all major reviews conducted in the last decade or so that question the e fficacy of a wide range of commonly used interventions. "Researc h to date h as been i ns uffic i e n t ly rigorous to give c l e a r i nd i cations of the v a l u e of treatment for non-specific L B P patients. N o treatment h a s been shown beyond doubt t o b e effective . . . . . There i.s . . . n o clear i ndication of the value of treatments compared to n o treatment, o r of the relative benefit of d iffe ren t treatm ents " (Evans and Richards
1 99 6 , pp. 2-3 ) . Speci fic systematic reviews have been conducted on individual i n t e rv e n t i o n s . T h e u s e o f u l t r a s o u n d in t h e t re a t m e n t o f musculoskeletal problems i n general has been seriously challenged by all comprehensive systematic reviews to date , which report t hat active u ltrasound is n o more e ffective than placebo (van der Wi ndt et aL 1 99 9 ; Gam and Johannsen 1 99 5 ; Robertson and Bake r 200 1 ) . There i s n o clear evidence for the e ffectiveness o f l aser therapy (de Bie et a 1 1 998). A systematic review found the evidence concerning traction to be inconcl usive (van der Heij den et aL 1 99 5a), so a random ised sham controlled trial was constructed avoiding earlier study flaws. Despite
T H E P RO B L E M OF BACK PAI N
favourab le results in a p i l ot study (van der Heij den et al. 1 99 5b), larger numbers and short and long-term follow-up revealed lack o f e fficacy for lumbar traction (Beurskens e t al. 1 99 5 , 1 99 7) Results of another systematic review show there was no evidence t hat acupuncture is more e ffective than n o t reatment and some evidence LO show i t is no more e ffective than placebo or sham acupunct ure for chronic back pain (van Tulder et al. 1 999) A recent systemaLic review o f the use o f TENS for c hronic back pain found no di fference i n outcomes between active and sham treatments (Mi lne et al. 200 1 ) . There would appear to be li ttle role in the manage ment o f back pain for such passive therapies. "No con t ro l led s tudies have proved the eJJi cacy oj p hysical agents in the t reatm.ent oj pa tients w h o have acute, s ubacute, o r c h ro n i c low back pa i n . The eJJect oj u s i ng a passive moda l i ty i s equal to o r worse than a placebo eJJec t " (Nordi n and Campello 1 99 9 , p. 80).
The lack of e fficacy o f passive therapies is rei n forced by systemaLic reviews of bed-rest compared to keepi ng active . There is a consistent finding thaL bed-rest has no value, but may actually delay recovery in acute back pain. Advice LO stay active and resume normal activities as soon as possible resulLs in faster return to work, less chronic disability and fewer recurrent problems. I F patients are forced to rest in the acute sLage, this should be l imited Lo two or three days ( Koes and van den Hoogen 1 994; Waddell et al. 1 99 7 ; Hagen et al. 2 000) Even fo r sc iaLica the same rules apply (Vroomen et al. 1 999) . There is some evidence Lhat non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAl Ds) m ight provide short-term symptomati c rel i e f in cases o f acuLe back p a i n , but t hese are n o t clearly better t h a n ordinary analgesics, and no NSAlD is better than another. There is no evi dence Lo suggest t haL NSAlDs are hel p ful in chronic back pain or in sciatica (Koes et al. 1 99 7 ; van Tu lder et al. 2 000b) . Several sysLematic reviews found l i t tle evidence for the efficacy o f group educaLion or 'back schools' (Di Fabio 1 99 5 ; Cohen e t al. 1 994; Linton and Kamwendo 1 987), but there was some evidence for benefit to chron ic bac k pain patients, especially in an occupational set t i ng (van Tulder
et al.
1 999b) .
C H A PT E R O N E
1 25
261 C i l A PTE R O N E
T i l E LUM B A R SPINE: M EC H AN ICAL D I AG N OS I S & TH E RA PY
Several more recent randomised controlled trials would suggest that there is a role for education in the management of back pain (Indahl et
al. 1 998; Burton
et al.
1 999; von Korff e [ al. 1 998; Moore
et
al. 2000;
Roland and Dixon 1 989). These studies used a variety of methods to provide appropliate information about normal activity, self-management and removal of fear of movement , and a ffected the altitudes and beliefs of several patients, as well as function and behaviour. in line with the e mergence of the concept of patien ts' altit udes and beliefs i n fluenCing illness behaviour, there have been attempts to reduce chronic disability through the modification o f envi ronmental contingencies and patients' cogn itive processes using behavioural therapy. Systematic reviews suggest that beh avioural t herapy can be e ffective when compared to no treatment, but is less clearly so when compared to other active interventions (Morley et a1. 1 999; van Tulder et
al. 2 000c). Compared to a 'treatment as usual' group, one cognitive
behavioural interven tion produced a range of improved outcomes of clinical importance, including redUCing the risk of long-term sick leave by threefold (Linton and Ryberg 2 00 1 ) There have been multiple reviews o f manipulation for back pai n ; there are more reviews t ha n trials (Assendelft
et
al. 1 99 5 ) Some
reviews suggest that man i p ulation is e ffective (Anderson
et
al. 1 992 ;
Shekelle et a1. 1 99 2 ; Bronfort 1 999) , but others suggest that its e fficacy is u nproven because of contradictory results (Koes et al. 1 99 1 , 1 996) . Even when the conclusion favours manipulation , there are lim itations to i ts val u e . Most reviews n ote that the benefit of man ipulation is short-term only, and also largely confi ned to a sub-acute group with back pain only. The value o f mani pulation i n other sub-groups of the back pain population i s unclear. If the i ndividual trials are examined in detail , it is also apparent t hat the t reatment e ffect, when present, is mostly rather trivial, with clinically unimportant di fferences between the treatment groups. Furthermore, many of the trials reviewed as being about manipulation in fact include non-thrust mobilisat ion as part o f the treatmen t - o ften it i s unclear exactly which of t hese inte rventions is being j u dged . Some systemati C reviews suggest t hat t h e evidence for specifi c exercises does n o t indicate they are effective (Koes
et
al. 1 99 1 ; van
Tulder et al. 2000a) . These reviews include a heterogeneous collection of d i fferent types of exercises from which they seek a general ised interpre tation of all exercise . Most trials fai l to prescribe exercise in a
T i l E P RO B L E M O F BACK PAI N
C H A PT E R O N E
rational manner to suitable patients, but rather exercises are given i n a standardised way The reviewers show great concern [or methodological correctness , but display less un derstanding of the i nterve n tions they are seeking to judge - trials that use extension exercises are considered to be usi ng t he McKenzie approach . H i l de and Bo ( 1 998) failed to reach a concl usion regarding the role o f exercise i n chroni c back pai n . Other reviews have b e e n m o r e positive, especially concerning exercises used during the sub-acute and chronic p hases (Faas 1 99 6 ; Haigh and Clarke 1 99 9 ; Maher
et
al. 1 99 9 ; Nordin a n d Campello
1 999) Maher e t al. ( 1 999) concluded t hat acute back patients should be advised to avoi d bed-rest and return to normal activity in a progressive way and that this basic approach could be supplemented with man ipulative or M cKenzie therapy. For chronic back patients there is strong evidence to e ncourage intensive exercises. This brief overview of the literature makes for sobering reading conce rning normal phYSi othe rapy practice . For a wide range of passive therapies stil l being dispensed by clinicians on a regular basis , there i s scant supporting evidence. Even for t he i nterventions that receive some support from the l i terature , n amely manipu lation , exercise, behavioural therapy and i n formation provision , there is someti mes contradictory or l imited evidence. Informed both by this evidence and by the rol e that psychosocial factors have in affecting chronic disabi l i ty, the outlines of an optimal management approach begin to emerge: avo i dance of bed-rest and encouragement to return to normal activity information aimed at making patients less fearful seeking to influence some of their attitudes and beliefs about pain advising patients how they can manage what may be an ongoing or recurrent problem i n forming patients that their active participation is vital i n restoring full function enco uraging self-management , exercise and activity •
provi ding patients with the means to affect symptoms and thus gai n some control over their problem.
127
281 CHAPT E R O N E
T H E L U M BA R S P I N E: M EC H AN I CAL D I AG N O S I S & TH E RAPY
These woul d appear to be the main themes that should be informing clinical management o f back pain .
Conclusions Our understanding of the problem of low back pain must be gUided by certain irrefutable truths: •
Back pain is so common it may be said to be normal. In the way of other e ndemic problems, such the common cold or dental hygiene probl ems, resistance to the medicalisation of a normal experience should be allied to a sel f-management approach i n which personal responsibil ity i s engendered.
•
T h e c o u rse o f b a ck p a i n i s fre q u e n tl y ful l o f e p is o d e s , p e rsistence , flare-up s , reoccurrences a n d chro n i c ity. I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o re m e m b e r t h i s i n t h e c l i n i c a l e n c o u n t e r. Management must aim at long-term bene fits, not short- term symptomatic relief
•
Many peopl e w i t h back pain manage independently and do not seek heal t h care . They do this using exercises and postural or ergonomic strategies. Some patients find the adoption of t his personal responsibility difficult and may need encouragemenl. Successful self-management involves the adopt ion of certain i ntellectual and behavioural strategies that minimise pain and maximise function .
•
The cost of back pain to the health i ndustry and society as a whole is vast . Indirect 'societal' costs absorb the majority of this spending. The direct medical costs are dominated by spending on the chronic back pain population. Therefore , management should be d irected to trying to reduce t he disability and need for care-seeking in this group by encouraging a sel f-reliant and coping attitude . Back pain is not always a curable disorder and for many is a l i fel ong problem. N o intervention has been shown to alter the u n d e r ly i n g p r e v al en c e , i n c i d e n c e or re c u rre n c e r a t e s . Consequently, management must - and shoul d always - be offering models of self-management and personal responsibility to the patient.
T H E P RO B L E M OF BAC K PAI N
•
Passive modalities appear to have no role in the management of back pain . There i s some evidence that favours exercise , manipulation, information provision and behavioural therapy.
G i ven these aspect s oJ bach pai n, perhaps it should be v iewed in l ig h t oj o t h e r c h ro n i c diseases i n w h i ch m a n agement rather than curative therapy is on oJJa A therapeuti c encounter needs to equip t h e s uJJerer w i t h long-term selJ- m a nage m e n t s t ra tegi es as w e l l as s h o rt - term meas u res oj sy mptomatic improvement. I t m ay also be suggested that to do oth erw i s e and t reat patients w i t h s h o rt -term passive moda l i t i es or manipulation, but not equip t hem w i t h i nJormation and s t rategies Jo r self- m anagement, is i l l-concei ved and i s not in the patien ts ' best i nterests. IJ a con d i t i o n is very common, pers istent, oJte n episodic a n d res istant to easy remedy, i t is t i m e pati ents w e re fu lly empowe red t o d e a l w i t h these problems i n a n opti m a l a n d rea l i s t i c fas h i o n . As c l i n icians, we should be oJferi ng this empowe rment to o u r pat i e n ts.
C H A PT E R O N E
1 29
30
I C HAPT E R O N E
T H E LUMBAR S P I N E: MECHAN ICAL D I AG N O S I S & TH E RAPY
2: Risk and Prognostic Factors in Low Back Pain
Introduction
Aetiological factors are variables relating to lifestyle, occupation, genetics, individual characteristics and so on that are associated with a higher risk o[ developing a specific health problem. These factors are identified [or study and their occurrence is noted in those who have the outcome of interest (in this case back pain) compared to those who do not. A risk factor is a characteristic that is associated with a higher rate o[ back pain onset. After the onset of symptoms, certain factors may affect the future course of the problem. Again comparisons are made, this time between those who recover quickly and those who have a protracted problem. A prognostic factor may be used to predict outcome once an episode has started (Bombardier et
al. 1994). A poor prognostic factor is suggestive of someone who
will have a protracted period of back pain. Sections in this chapter are as follows: risk [aclors individual risk factors biomechanical risk [actors psychosocial risk factors •
all risk factors onset individual and clinical prognostic factors biomechanical prognostic factors psychosocial prognostic [actors all prognostic [actors.
Risk factors Epidemiological studies have generally considered risk factors [or the onset o[ back pain to relate to three dimensions: individual and lifestyle factors, physical or biomechanical factors and psychosocial
CHAPTER Two
131
321 CHAPTER Two
THE LUMBAR SPINE: MECHANICAL DIAGNOSIS & THERAPY
factors. Examples of each are given in Table 2. 1 (Bombardier
et
al.
1994; Frank et al. 1996; Ferguson and Marras 1997). Table 2.1
Three major classes of risk factors for back pain
Class of rish factor Individual and lifestyle factors
Examples History of back pain, age, sex, weight, muscle strength, Oexibility, smoking status, marital status
Physical or biomechanical factors
Lifting, heavy work, posture, vibration, driving, bending, silting, twisting
Psychosocial factors
Depression, anxiety, beliefs and attitudes, stress, job satisfaction, relationships at work, control at work
Individual factors have in the past received most scientific attention, but in general their predictive value was low. Ergonomic epidemiology emphasised physical factors, but research has provi.ded only limited evidence of their importance; the focus more recently is upon psychosocial dimensions (Winkel and Mathiassen 1994). This chapter considers the variables that may be risk factors in the onset of back pain, as well as variables that may be prognostic factors in the outcome of an episode of back pain once it has started.
Individual risk factors
The strongest rish factor for future bach pain is histolY oj past bach pain. This factor is found consistently across numerous studies, indicating its vi.tal predictive role in future episodes (Frank et al. 1996; Ferguson and Marras 1997). Frank et al. (1996) estimated that an indivi.dual with a previous history is three to four times more l ikely to develop back pain than someone without that history. The epidemiology reviewed in Chapter 1 suggests that more than half of those who have an episode of back pain will have a recurrence. The association of increasing age and female gender to back pain are less well established. For the majority of other individual factors, such as obesity, smoking or fitness, the evidence is contradictory or scant (Frank et al. 1996; Ferguson and Marras 1997; Burdorf and Somck 1997). In a review of indivi.dual risk factors for back pain, the following variables were considered: age, gender, height, weight, strength, fleXibility, exercise fitness, leg length discrepancy, posture, Scheuermann's disease, congenital anomalies, spondyl olisthesis and
RISK AND PROGNOSTIC FACTORS IN Low BACK PAIN
CHAPTER Two
low education (Nachemson and Vingard 2000). There was a striking variability and inconsistency of results when all studies were considered - overall more studies indicated negative or no association between that factor and back pain rather than a positive association. They conclude that none of the variables considered in this review are strong predictors of future back pain Biomechanical risk factors Assessing the role of physical factors in the aetiology of back pain is not straightforward, and as a consequence there have been connicting repons over its importance. Various problems exist in the studies that have been done (Bombardier
et al.
1994; Dolan 1998; Frank
eL
al. 1996; Burdorf 1992). Much of the literature in this area is cross sectional in nature; that is, risk factors and prognostic factors are measured at the same time as noting the presence or absence of back pain. This means that it is often difficult to determine if a factor comributed towards onset or towards prognosis. It also means that although a factor may be associated with back pain, we cannot be sure that it caused it. Prospective studies are better at identifying causation. Furthermore, the measurement of exposure to a possible risk factor, such as frequent lifting, may be imprecise if based on self-report or job title rather than direct, objective measurement. There is also the 'healthy worker' effect, when those who have survived in an occupation without developing back pain will always be over represented compared to those who had to leave the job because of back pain (Hartvigsen
et
a1. 2001). This will tend to downplay the
importance of mechanical [actors. In general there has been a failure to measure the different dimensions of exposure to a physical factor - degree of exposure, frequency and duration; thus invalid exposure assessment may fail to expose a relationship between mechanical factors and symptoms (Winkel and Mathiassen 1994) These methodological problems with the literature on biomechanical risk [actors for back pain have probably led to an under-reporting of theiI' role, such that the association between these factors and back pain may well be stronger than was previously imagined (Dolan 1998). Hoogendoorn
et
al. (2000a) conducted a high-quality study using a
133
341 CHAPTER Two
THE LUMBAR SPINE: MECHANICAL DIAGNOSIS & THERAPY
prospective design in which exposure levels were actually measured rather than estimated, and psychological variables and other physical risk factors were accounted for in the analysis. Their results showed a positive association between trunk flexion and rotation at work and back pain, with a greater risk of pain at greater levels of exposure. Taken individually, the reports provide only weak evidence of causation, but the consistency of reporting of certain factors and the strength of association between these factors and back pain is supportive of a definite relationship between biomechanical exposures and the onset of back problems (Frank
et
al. 1996; Burdorf and Sorocl< 1997).
Individual studies have shown certain mechanical factors to be associated with back pain or disc prolapse: •
repeated bending and lifting at work (Damkot
al. 1984; Videman et al. 1984; Kelsey et al. 1984a; Frymoyer eL al. 1983; Marras et al. 1993; Waters et al. 1999; Zwerling et al. 1993)
repeated bending at home (Mundt
et
eL
al. 1993)
prolonged bending (Punnell et al. 1991; Hoogendoom eL al. 2000a) •
unexpected spinal loading (Mag01'a 1973)
•
driving (Kelsey 1975; Kelsey et al. 1984b; Frymoyer
et
al. 1983;
Damkot et al. 1984; Krause et al. 1997; Masset and Malchaire 1994) sedentary jobs (Kelsey 1975) a high incidence of back pain has been found in those who spend a lot of their working day either sitting or standing, but was much less common in those who were able to vary their working positions regularly during the day (Magora 1972). Pheasant (1998) summarised the work done by Magora, which identified two distinct groups of people most at risk of back pain. In those whose jobs were phYSically very demanding and those whose jobs were essentially sedentary, about 20% of individuals experienced back pain. Those whose jobs entailed varied postures, some sitting and some standing, and were moderately phYSically active were at a much lower risk, with only about 2% of this group experiencing back pain. Several large-scale reviews of the relevant literature have been conducted (Frank
et
al. 1996; Bombardier et al. 1994; Burdorf and
RISK AND PROGNOSTIC FACTORS IN Low BACK PAIN
CHAPTER Two
Sorock 1997; Ferguson and Marras 1997; Hoogendoorn et al. 1999; Vingard and Nachemson 2000). Ferguson and Marras (1997) included fifty-seven studies investigating risk factors; Burdorf and Sorock ( 1997) included thirty-five publications. Occupational physical stresses that have been found to be consistently and in general strongly associated with the occurrence of back pain across multiple systematic reviews are as follows: heavy or frequent lifting whole body vibration (as when driving) prolonged or frequent bending or twisting postural stresses (high spinal load or awkward postures). Frank et al. (1996) estimated the relative risk of back pain associated with heavy lifting and whole body vibration to be three to four times normal, and that of spinal loading, postural stresses and dynamic trunk motion to be more than five times normal.
Psychosocial risk factors The role of psychological and social dimensions as prognostic factors for chronic back pain and disability is now well known and is considered later in the chapter. Epidemiological studies addressing psychosocial risk factors as a cause of back pain are far fewer than those investigating physical factors. Low job satisfaction, relationships at work, including social support, high job demand, monotony or lack of control at work, stress and anxiety are factors that have an association with back pain in several studies, although the evidence [or these factors is often weak or contradictory (Burdorf and Sorock 1997; Ferguson and Marras 1997). There are equal numbers of studies that are negative and show no relation between these psychosocial variables and back pain (Vingard and Nachemson 2000). The role of low job satisfaction as a risk factor for back pain may be partly a product of less rigorous study deSigns that have failed to account for other psychosocial factors and physical work load (Hoogendoorn
et al.
2000b). One study found that while work
dissatisfaction was associated with a history of back pain, it was not related to the onset of back pain (Skovron et al. 1994). Two prospective studies indicate that low levels of perception of general health are predi.ctors o[ new episodes of back pain (Croft
et al.
1996, 1999).
135
361 CHAPTER Two
THE LUMBAR SI'INE: MECHANICAL DIAGNOSIS & THERAPY
Severe back pain has been found to be less prevalem among those with a higher socio-economic status, after physical work factors have been accounted for (Latza
et al.
2000)
A review of psychosocial factors at work concluded that due to methodological difficulties in measuring variables, there is no conclusive evidence for psychosocial variables as risk [actors [or back pain, but that monotonous work, high perceived work load and time pressure are related to musculoskeletal symptoms in general (Bongers et al.
1993).
Frank
et al.
(1996) estimate that psychosocial factors have a weak
relative risk for the occurrence of back pain, one to two times more likely than normal. Linton (2000b) made a thorough review of psychological risk factors for neck and back pain. He concluded that there was strong evidence that these factors may be associated with the reporting of back pain, and that altitudes, cognitions, fear-avoidance and depression are strongly related to pain and disability; however, there is no evidence to support the idea of a 'pain-prone' personality.
All risk factors The evidence would suggest that individual, physical and psychosocial factors all could have an influence upon back pain onset. Studies that have included different factors have found that back pain is best predicted by a combination of individual, physical and psychosocial variables (Burton
et al.
1989; Thorbjornsson
et al.
2000). One
prospective study found that physical and psychosOCial factors could independently predict back pain (Krause et al. 1998), while another found that distress, previous trivial back pain and reduced I umbar lordosis were all consistent predictors of any back pain (Adams
et al.
1999).
Most studies, however, have investigated a limited set of risk factors and have not assessed the relative importance of different variables. If risk estimates are not adjusted [or other relevant risk factors, the overall effect may be to under- or over-estimate the role of particular variables (Burdorf and Sorock 1997) Research has only recently begun to address the relative comribution to back pain onset of individual, biomechanical and psychosOCial factors together.
RISK AND PROGNOSTIC FACTORS IN Low BACK PAIN
CHAPTE R Two
In terms of the relative importance of these different factors, several studies have shown that a history of trivial or previous back pain is a much stronger predictor of serious or future back pain than job satisfaction or psychological distress (van Poppel
et al.
1998;
Papageorgiou et al. 1996; Mannion et al. 1996; Smedley et al. 1997). After adjusting for earlier history, one study found that risk of back pain in nurses was still higher in those reporting heavier physical workload (Smedley
et al.
1997). In a review of risk factors for
occupational back pain, it was concluded that biomechanical factors are more significant factors of causation than psychosocial ones (Frank ct al.
1996). In another review it was concluded that whereas the
strength of psychosocial factors as risk indicators was strongly affected by sensitivity analysis, the role of physical load factors as risk indicators is more consistent and insensitive to slight changes in analysis (Hoogendoorn
eL al.
2000b).
If risk factors were clinically important, they would explain a large proportion of the predictive variables associated with back pain; however, even at best this is not so. The proportion of new episodes attributable to psychological factors at the most has been found to be 16% (Croft eL al. 1996); another study found this to be only 3% (Mannion et al. 1996). While job dissatisfaction has been highlighted as a risk factor for back pain, in the original study that identified this, most of those who reported never enjoying their job did not in fact report back pain (Bigos
eL al.
1991). When all risk factors have
been considered together, only between 5% and 12% of back pain has been explained (Mannion et a1. 1996; Adams
et al.
1999).
It is apparent that there are no simple causal explanations for back pain and that individual, physical and psychosocial factors may, to varying degrees, all have a role in aetiology. However, at most these factors, individ . ually of back pain. A past history of back pain is the factor most consistently associated with future back pain.
Onset Although mechanical factors are associated with back pain and can therefore be seen as predisposing factors, onset is not always related to a specific event. Patients often report the precipitating factor involved flexion activities, such as lifting and bending. Generally,
137
381 CHAPTER Two
THE LUMBAR SPINE: MECHANICAL DIAGNOSIS & THERAPY
however, more patients report back pain that commenced for no apparent reason (Kramer 1990; Videman et al. 1989; Kelsey 1975; Laslett and Michaelsen 1991; McKenzie 1979). Both Kramer (1990) and Waddell (1998) found that about 60% of patients in their clinics developed pain insidiously Hall et al. (1998) examined the spontaneous onset of back pain in a study group of over 4,500
-
and 67% could not identify a specific
event that triggered their symptoms. By contrast, in a group that was required to report a specific causal event for compensation purposes only, 10% failed to attribute their pain to an incident. The authors considered spontaneous onset to be part of the natural history of back pain. The rate of spontaneous onset was greater in the sedentary employment group (69%) than the heavy occupation group (57%). McKenzie's clinic records also demonstrated the e ffect o f compensation requirements o n causal attribution. In 1973, in 60% of patients the onset of back pain was reported as 'no apparent reason'. After the introduction of a national compensation scheme in New Zealand, onset was related to an accident by 60% of patients (unpublished data). W henever the patient is unable to recollect a cause for the onset of their symptoms, which clearly is common, the role of normal, everyday activities in precipitating the onset of symptoms should be considered. The degree to which contemporary lifestyles are dominated by activities that involve flexion should thus be borne in mind; this may be sustained as in sitting or often-repeated motions such as bending. From the moment we wake and put on our socks, clean our teeth, go to the toilet, dry ourselves after a shower, sit down to eat breakfast, drive to work, sit at the desk, SLOOp over a bench or sit to eat lunch until the time in the evening when we 'relax' - either sitting on the sofa to watch television or play computer games, read or sew - we are in flexed postures of varying degrees. It would appear that these normal activities not only predispose people to back pain, but also can precipitate symptoms with no additional strain and can perpetuate problems once they arise (McKenzie 1981).
"Sitting is the most common posture in today� workplace, particularly in industJy and business. Three-quarters oj all workers in industrial countries have sedentary jobs" (Pope et al. 2000, p. 70) About 45% of employed Americans work in offices. Many display poor posture
RISK AND PROGNOSTIC FACTORS IN Low BACK PAIN
and report increased pain when sitting, which is more severe the less they are able lO change positions. Occupational back pain has long been associaled with sedentary work, especially the seated vibration environmem when driving (Pope et al. 2000). However, the vibration studies fail to discriminate between the effects of vibration and the effecls of the suslained sealed poslure. Individual and clinical prognostic factors History of previous back pain is both a risk factor for future back pain and a prognostic factor for prolonged symptoms. Reponed leg pain al onsel is associated with poor outcomes and a greater likelihood of developing chronic symptoms (Goertz 1990; Lanier and Stockton 1988; Chavannes et al. 1986; Cherkin et a1. 1996a; Carey et al. 2000; Thomas
et at.
1999) Centralisalion of leg pain, which is discussed
elsewhere, has been shown to be a predictor of good OUlcomes (Donelson et al. 1990; Sun0.90
0.46
Duration of pain> one month
0.50
0.81
History > 50 years
Source: Deyo
et
2.6
cd. 1992
The importance of a previous hisLory of cancer as a risk factor for back pain that is caused by metastases is amply illustrated by a series of known cancer patients investigated for spinal pain. In Lhese patients, 54% and 68% were discovered to have epidural, vertebral or nerve root metastases (Ruff and Lanska 1989; Rodichok
et af.
1986)
Infections * RED FLAG Spinal infections are extremely rare causes of back pain (Macnab and McCulloch 1990) An estimation of incidence is one per 250,000 of population ( Digby and Kersley 1979) A survey in Denmark found an incidence of five cases of acute vertebral osteomyelitis per million of population per year - a rate of 0.0005% (Krogsgaard
et a1.
1998)
The lumbar spine was affected in 59% and the thoracic spine in 33%. The highest incidence of the disease was in the 60 - 69-year old age group , with over two -thirds or cases occurring in those between 50 and 80. However, osteomyelitis can occur in adulLs or children. An impaired immune system is common, and risk factors include insulin -dependent diabetes mellitus, treaL ment wiLh
SERIOUS SPINAL PATHOLOGY
corticosteroids, chemotherapy, and renal or hepatic failure (Carragee 1997; Krogsgaard et al. 1998). Back pain may be the main symptom in most patients (Carragee 1997)
Pat ie11ls have severe, progressive back pain of a non
mechanical nature, leading to spinal rigidity; tension signs are common (Macnab and McCulloch 1990). Patients are often unwell, w ith r"lised temperature, and suffer from general malaise, night pain, night sweats and raised erythrocyte sedimentation rate (Wainwright 2000). However, fever is not always present, varying between 27% and 83%, depending on the type of infection (Deyo et al. 1992). Spinal infections are usually blood-borne from other sites. An unequivocal primary source of infection is found in about 40% of patients with osteomyelitis. The most common source is from the gen itourinary tract, and secondly skin and respiratory infections; other relevant infect ions include spinal tuberculosis, brucellosis, epidural space infections and, reportedly, injections sites fro m illegal intravenous drug use (Deyo et al. 1992; Carragee 1997; Krogsgaard et al.
1998; Waldvogel and Vasey 1980).
A report on thirty patients with non-tuberculous pyogenic spinal infection found urinary tract infection to be the most common source of infection (30%), although in a few patients disease appeared to have been preCip itated by spinal trauma ( Digby and Kersley 1979) There was a preponderance of two age groups, adolescents and the elderly. Localised back pain was the predominant symptom; this was not always severe, but tended to be constant and unrelated to posture or movement. A febrile episode frequently preceded the onset of back pain, and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate was raised in all cases. A case report documents a history of acute onset back pain with symptoms referred to the lateral border of the foot with lateral shift and kyphotiC deformity, gross limitations of all movements, and limited straight leg raise who was found to have discitis (Greene 2001). He was unable to tolerate shift correction due to pain. Other feat ures provoked susp icion of 'red flags'. The patient reported severe unremitting pain, for which no position of ease could be found, and the pain was getting worse. He was unable to sleep because of the pain and reported symptoms of nausea. He looked unwell and had a raised temperature. In another case report a previously healthy 51year-old woman presented with acute back pain, restricted range of
CHAPTER TWELVE
1221
1
222 CHAPTER TWELVE
THE LUMBAR SPINE: MECHANICAL DIAGNOSIS & THERAPY
movement and loss of motor function in both lower extremities (Poyanli et al. 2001) She had a high fever and raised ESR, and in this instance a pneumococcal osteomyelitis led to impaired consciousness in a matter of days. Table 1 2.2 Significant history in identification of spinal infection recent or present febrile episode systemically unwell severe constant unremitting pain, worsening no loading strategy reduces symptoms.
Fractures * RED FLAG Fractures tend to occur in two groups of paLients - Lhose involved in major trauma of any age, more commonly men, and females over 70 years old involved in minor trauma (Scavone et al. 1981b). One retrospective review of over 700 radiographs identified acute fractures in less than 3% of patients (Scavone et al. 1981a). In over 400 patients with acute back pain in primary care attending their Gp, 0.7% had a fracture: two osteoporotic fractures and one crush fracture (McGuirk et al. 2001)
A fracture of the transverse process typically leaves patients with a persistent grumbling backache and considerable loss of function in spite of relatively insignificant signs on x-ray. Compression or wedge fractures of the vertebral body may be caused by major traumatic events or by lesser trauma in those at risk of osteoporosis. Those at risk include older post-menopausal women, those who have had hysterectomies and those on long-term corticosteroid therapy. The most common site of such injuries is between TI0 and Ll (Macnab and McCulloch 1990). Table 1 2.3
Significant history in identification of compression fracture
History
Sensitivity
Specificity
Age >50
0.84
0.61
Age >7 0
0.22
0.96
Trauma
0.30
0.85
Corticosteroid use
0.06
0.995
Source: Deyo el al. 1992
CHAPTER TWELVE
SERIOUS SPINAL PATHOLOGY
Osteoporosis Osteoporosis is the most common metabolic disorder a ffecting the spine. The suggested World Health Organisation definition is bone mineral density more than 2.5 standard deviations below the mean of normal young people (Melton 1997). According to this definition, approximately 30% o f postmenopausal white women in the US have the condition, and 16% have osteoporosis of the lumbar spine. Prevalence is less in non-white populations. Bone density decline begins in both sexes around fony years of age, but accelerates after fifty, especially in women (Bennell et al. 2000). Low bone density leads
lO
increased risk of fracture with no trauma
or minimal trauma. The most common fracture sites are the lumbar spine, femur and radius. Venebral fractures a ffect about 25% of postmenopausal women; however, a substantial proportion of fractures are asymptomatic and never diagnosed, and so the true rate could be higher. Despite widespread belief that osteoporosis primarily affects women, recent data shows that in fact vertebral fractures are as common in men as women. Because women live longer, the li fetime risk of a vertebral fracture from 50 onwards is 16% in white women and only 5% in white men (Melton 1997; Andersson et al. 1997). Although it occurs predominantly in the elderly and in postmenopausal women, there are important secondary causes of osteoporosis not related to age. These include history of anorexia nervosa, smoking, corticosteroid use, inadequate intake or absorption o f calcium and vitamin D, amenorrhea, low levels of exercise, lack of oestrogen and coeliac disease (Smith 2000; Bennell et al. 2000) Low bone mass (osteopenia) is in itself asymptomatic and individuals may be unaware that they have the condition until a fracture occurs. Although pain can be absent, it can be severe, localised and di fficult to treat and take many weeks to settle; the fractures also cause a loss of height (Smith 2000). The condition, or suspicion oj it, is an absolute contraindication to manipulation and mobilisation techniques. However, exercise is not
only not contraindicated, but should be included as part of the management strategy for primary and secondary prevention. The effects of exercise on skeletal strength vary at different ages (Bennell
1223
1
224 CHAPTER TWELVE
:
THE LUMBAR SPINE MECHANICAL DIAGNOSIS & THERAPY
et
al. 2000). Gains in bone mass are much greater in childhood and
adolescence than in adulthood. The adult skeleton is very responsive to the adverse effects of stress deprivation and lack of exercise, which tends to exacerbate the natural decline in bone density that occurs with ageing. Trials of exercise have consistently shown that loss of bone mass is reduced, prevented or reversed in the lumbar spine and femur (Bennell et al. 2000; Wolff
eL
al. 1999)
Exercise that has a higher ground impact is most effective at bone strengLhening. Non-weight-bearing exercises such as cycling or swimming do not strengthen bones, whatever other benefits they may provide (Bennell et al. 2000) Exercise programmes have included stair-climbing, aerobics, skipping, jum ping, danCing and jogging More impact and loading is appropriate in primary prevemion, but a less vigorous programme should be used in frailer groups. Programmes should be progressed in terms of intensity and impact, and maintained indefinitely, as the positive effects are reversed when regular exercise is stopped. Physiotherapy management and exercise guidelines have been recently reviewed in considerable deLail (Bennell et
al. 2000; Mitchell
eL
al. 1999). Exercise Lherapy is complemenLary
to but not a substitute for medical management, which includes hormone replacement therapy, calcium, viLamin D, calcitonin, biphosphonates and fluoride (Lane
eL
al. 1996).
Posture is an important factor in osteoporosis. Flexion should be minimised as this can trigger damage Lo the vertebra; extension exercises and an extended posture should be encouraged. A group of fifty-nine women with postmenopausal osteoporosis were allocaLed to different exercise groups, performing extension, nexion, a combination of both or a no-exercise group. At follow-up at least sixteen months later the extent of further fractures in the different grou ps was compared. Further deterioration was Significantly less in the extension group (16%) than the nexion group (89%), Lhe combined group (53%) and the no-exercise group (67%) (Sinaki and Mikkelsen 1984)
Cauda equina syndrome * REO FLAG Cauda equina syndrome results from compression of sacral nerve roots, although lumbar nerve roots are usually also involved. The mOSL common causes are massive central or lateral disc herniations,
CHAPTER TWELVE
SERIOUS SPINAL PATHOLOGY
sometimes associated with spinal stenosis or spinal tumours - each responsible for about half the total (Kramer 1990). It only occurs in about 1 - 2% of all lumbar disc herniations that come to surgery, so its estimated prevalence rate among all back pain patients is about 0.0004% (Deyo et al. 1992). In an earlier series of 930 disc protrusions, cauda equina occurred in 0.6% (O'Connell 1955). It has been reported thal there will be one new case each year for every 50,000 patients seen in GP surgeries, an incidence of 0.002% (Bartley 2000). Principal rindings in the hislory and physical examination that should alert clinicians to the possibility of cauda equina syndrome are in Table 12.4. Table 12.4 Significant history and examination findings in identification of cauda equina syndrome bladder dysfunction, sLlch as allered urelhral sensation, urinary retention, paralYSiS, overnow incontinence and difficulty in inilialing micturalion loss of anal sphincter lone or faecal incontinence 'saddle anaesthesia' aboul the anus, perineum or genitals, or olher sensory loss (bUllocks, poslerior lhigh) impairmcnl of sexual funclion absence of Achilles tendon renex on bOlh sides fOOL drop, calf muscle or olher motor weakness unilaleral or bilaleral scialica reduced lumbar lordosis and lumbar mobility. Source: Kramer
1990;
1979; KOSlUik CI al. ] 986; Choudhul·y al. 1989; Gleave and Macfarlane 1990
Tal' and Chacha
Shapiro 2000; Fanciullacci el
and Taylor 1980;
The most consistent finding is urinary retenLion, with a sensitivity of 0.90; sciaLica, abnormal slraight leg raise, sensory (especially 'saddle anaesthesia') and motor deficiLs are all common, with sensitivities of over o.so. Anal sphincter lone is diminished in 60% to SO% of cases (Deyo
et al.
1992) However, not all these signs and symptoms are
presenL in all cases. A co mbination of features is most pathognomonic, with the constellation of bowel and bladder disturbance, bilateral sciatica and neurological signs and syn1ptoms, especially around the 'saddle area' being most characteristic. Roach eL al. (] 995) evaluated the use of a series of questions to identify serious back problems and found that most had poor sensitivity, but that several had a high specificity. Questions about sleep disturbance and control of urination were very specific; combining questions
1225
1
226 CHAPTER TWELVE
THE LUMBAR SPINE: MECHANICAL DIAGNOSIS & THERAPY
improved sensitivity However, urinary disturbance of frequency may be reported in cases of back and nerve root pain not due to cauda equina syndrome (Bartley 2000). Two types of onset of cauda e quina are described (Tay and Chacha 1 979; Kostuik et al. 1 986; Shapiro 2000). A sudden onset of cauda e quina compression without previous symptoms or a history of recurrent back pain and sciatica, the latest episode resulting in or progressing to a cauda equina lesion. Trauma is only reported in a minority The most common levels of disc herniations are generally reported to be L4 - LS and LS - S 1 (> 90%), with the average age about 40 years old. However, in a review of over 300 patients disc herniations were reported at all lumbar levels, with 38% at the two lowest levels and 27% at Ll - 2 (Ahn et al. 2000a). Cauda equina compression caused by tumours tends to progress in a slower fashion. Haldeman and Rubinstein (1992) tell a cautionary tale of cauda equina syndrome onset being associated with lumbar manipulation - with twenty-six cases of such being reported in the world literature between 1911 and 1989. The most disturbing aspect was the failure to recognise the classic features of the syndrome by treating c hiropractors and initial medical contacts, leading ultimately to delayed diagnosis. A delay in diagnosing cauda equina syndrome may have alarming implications.
Those who have surgery delayed more than forty-eight hours are significantly more likely to have persistent bladder and bowel incontinence, severe motor deficit, sexual dysfunction and persistent pain (Shapiro 2000). Ahn et al. (2000a) conducted a met-analysis of 322 patients from forty-two surgical series and confirmed this. Significant differences were found in resolution of urinary and rectal function, and sensory and motor deficits in patients treated within forty-eight hours compared to those treated after forty-eight hours from the onset of symptoms. The bottom line is, suspicion oj cauda equina syndrome demands urgent reJerral.
Cord signs
*
REO FLAG
In the upper lumbar region whether a large disc herniation or other space-occupying lesion causes cauda e quina syndrome or cord signs and symptoms is a product of variable anatomy. The spinal cord terminates in general at about the level of the Ll - L2 intervertebral disc, but individual differences range from termination at about T12
SERIOUS SPINAL PATHOLOGY
- Ll to L2 - L3 (Bogduk 1997). Below these levels the lumbar, sacral
and coccygial nerve roots run freely in the cauda e quina. If the cauda equina is compressed, a lower motor neurone lesion is produced as described above; if the spinal cord is involved, an upper motor neurone lesion is produced. With a lower motor neurone lesion signs and symptoms are essentially segmental, although several segments can be involved. This involves the combination of dermatomal pain patterns and areas of sensory ddicit, myotomal weakness and absent or reduced reflexes that have been listed under cauda equina syndrome and disc problems reviewed in the relevant chapter. Upper motor neurone lesions involve the central nervous system and thus signs and symptoms are extra segmental. Spinal cord compression can result from bony or discal protrusions into the spinal canal, especially in those with congenitally narrow spinal canals, or can result from spinal neoplasms (Berkow et al. 1987). There may be gradual or rapid progress from back pain to signs and symptoms of corticospinal tract involvement (Table 1 2 5). These patients should be rderred to the appropriate specialist. Table 12.5
Significant history and examination findings in identification of upper motor neurone lesions
non-dermatomal sensory loss (for instance, bilateral 'stocking' paraeslhesia) non-myolomal muscle weakness (for instance, several segments) hyper-reOexia positive Babinski sign or extensor plantar response ankle clonus posilive Lhermitle sign - neck Oexion produces a generalised 'electric shock' generalised hypertoniCity generalised Oaccidity bladder and/or bowel dysfunction. Source: Butler 1991; Berkow
el al.
1987
Ankylosing spondylitis Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is one of the inflammatory arthropathies that may affect the spine. These are systemic, multi-system diseases that include a primary musculoskeletal component. A S is
CHAPTER TWELVE
1227
1
228 CiIAPTER TWELVE
THE LUMBAR SPINE: MECHANICAL DIAGNOSIS & THERAPY
characterised by chronic inflammation and tissue damage affecting principally the spine and sacro-iliac joints, but also peripheral joints and entheses, and non-articular structures such as the uvea (Goodacre et al. 1991; Berkow
et al.
1987). Onset is usually insidious between
the ages of 20 and 35, and rare after 40 (Macnab and McCulloch 1990) The disease, as with many conditions, represents a continuum of involvement from mild to severe. In later stages the disease process leads to ossification of spinal ligaments; the characteristic changes are clearly visible on radiographs, and severe restriction of movements and spinal deformity may occur. Early in the disease there may be little to see, and a diagnosis of AS may be missed. Many people with ankylosing spondylitis remain unaware of their diagnosis, their symptoms of early morning stiffness and backache accepted as 'normal' and no investigations or health care are sought (Little 1988; Gran
et
al. 1985) Recognition of the
disease has improved so that diagnosis has come to be made more quickly, although still involving several years' delay (Calin et al. 1988). Prevalence It has been estimated that AS is ten times more common in men than women (Calin and Fries 1975); however, in the latter the disease may present in a milder form and therefore not be recognised. Population-based epidemiological studies with definite diagnosis based on radiographic findings estimated overall prevalence as around 1 %,
with higher rates in men ancllower rates in the older population
(Granetal. 1985; Carteretal. 1979; Braunetal. 1998).lL is estimated that about 10 - 15% of ankylosing spondylitis cases begin during childhood years, with symptoms commencing in lower limb peripheral joints in about half of this group (Schaller 1979). The antigen HLA-B27 is present in about 95% of patients with the condition, and this antigen is present in about 7% of the healthy white population. The disease is rare among black populations. Possibly about 10% ofHLA-B27 positive adults have AS, but probably nearer 2% (van der Linden and Khan 1984) Higher prevalence rates have been suggested (Calin and Fries 1975), but this idea has been rejected (Rigby 1991). However, it is suggested that up to 5% of back pain sufferers in primary care may represent a non-specific or mild form of inflammatory joint pain (Underwood and Dawes 1995; Dougados et al. 1991; Braun et al. 1998).
CHAPTER TWELVE
S�RIOUS SPINAL PATHOLOGY
Natural history Fro m several reviews of large numbers of patients with ankylosing spondylitis published in the 1950s, the following statements were delived concerning the natural histOlY of the disease (Carette et al. 1983): •
onset is insidious it progresses with a series of exacerbations and remissions limitation of spinal movements and spinal deformity increase with time
•
if peripheral joints are involved, this usually occurs early iritis develops early and tends to re-occur runctional disability is usually mild the course is more severe if onset is during childhood or adolescence the disease has a milder form in women than in men.
Back and/or thigh pain is the presenting feature in over 70%, with peripheral Joint disease in about 20% (Wordsworth and Mowat 1986). Pain and stifn f ess tends to be a series of exacerbations and remissions (Goodacre
et
al.
1991; Mau et al. 1988). Radiological verification of sacro-iliitis or spinal involvement may not be present for ten years (Mau Caretle
et
et al.
1987, 1988).
al. (1983) reported a long-term study of fifty-one patients
with ankylosing spondylitis with mean disease duration of thirty eight years. The average age at onset was 24 years old. About a third of patients denied any pain, another third described it as mild, 26% as moderate and only 4% as severe. Pain was generally most severe in the first ten years and then gradually decreased. Over the forty years only five deteriorated, and fourteen improved. Nearly all were working or had been working and were now retired due to age rather than the disease. Spinal restriction was mild in 41%, moderate in 18% and severe in 41%; deformity was mild in 67%, moderate in 15% and severe in 18%. A quarter of those with moderate or severe loss of mobility had little or no deformity. Peripheral joint involvement was noted
in
36% in order of frequency: shoulders, hips, knees, ankles
and metatarsophalangeals. Peripheral joint involvement and iritis, present in 24% of this sample, were both associated with more severe disease. Most had sacro-iliitis and spondylitis according to radiography.
1229
I
230 CHAPTER TWELVE
THE LUMBAR SPINE: MECHANICAL DIAGNOSIS & THERAPY
In summary, for most individuals with this disease it takes a benign course with minimal pain, loss of mobility or functional disability (Mau
et
al. 1987). Less than 20% of patients with adult onset
ankylosing spondylitis progress to significant disability, with early peripheral involvement suggesting more severe disease. In most the pattern of disease is established in the first ten years. Diagnostic criteria Recognition of patients with more advanced disease may be possible on radiography Early disease is less easily detected. Diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis were specified at the Rome conJerence in 1963 and modified in New York in 1966. These were a combination of clinical and radiological criteria. Further modifications have been proposed thaL merge the two sets of criteria (Table 12.6). Table 12.6
Modified New York criteria for diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis
A.
DIAGNOSIS 1.
2.
Clinical criteria: a)
Low back pain and stiffness for more than three months, which improves with exercise, and is not relieved by rest.
b)
Limitation of motion of the lumbar spine in both sagittal and frontal planes.
c)
Limitation of chest expansion relative to normal values corrected for age and sex.
Radiological criterion: a)
B.
Sacro-iliitis grade 2 or more bilaterally or grade 3 unilaterally.
-
4
GRADING 1.
Definite ankylosing spondylitis i f the radiological criterion is associated with at least one clinical criterion.
2.
Probable ankylosing spondylitiS if: a)
Three clinical criteria present.
b)
The radiological criterion is present withoLlt any clinical criteria.
Source: van der Linden ct al. 1984
Symptoms said to be suggestive of back pain of an inflammatory nature are: back pain at night enough to leave the bed, early morning stiffness for more than half an hour, pain and stiffness made worse by rest, improvement with exercise, association with other joint problems and an absence of nerve root signs (Calin and Fries 1975; Gran 1985) Many patients also have a positive family history These
SERJOUS SPINAL PATHOLOGY
CHAPTER TWELVE
characteristic clinical features led to the proposal for solely clinical criteria as a screening test for ankylosing spondylitis (Calin et al. 1977). Five features were found to best discriminate back pain due to ankylosing spondylitis from back pain of other causes (Table 12.7). The authors stated 95% sensitivity and 85% specifiCity against the control group for four or more of these features. However, when the same criteria were applied to other samples, a sensitivity of only 23% or 38% was found (Gran 1985; van der Linden et al. 1984). Table 12.7 T he clinical history as a screening test for ankylosing spondylitis onset of back pain before the age or 40 insidious onset persisting for at least three months associated with morning stiffness improved with exercise. Source: Calin et il/. 1977
Tests purporting to identify involvement of the sacro-iliac joint (S1]) suffer from poor reliability and unproven validity (see section on S1], Chapter 13). S1] tests have been examined in ankylosing spondylitis patients; one study found little correlation between different tests (Rantanen and Airaksinen 1989). Commonly used tests have been shown to be unhelpful in distinguishing ankylosing spondylitis patients from those with other sources of back pain (Russell
et al.
1981; Gran 1985). However, Blower and Griffin (1984) found two tests significantly associated with patients with ankylosing spondylitis pain on pressure over the anterior superior iliac spine and local sacral pressure. These tests were not positive in every patient, and they were not always both positive in the same patient In clinical practice some patients can experience significant exacerbation of symptoms in response to Cyriax5 (Cyriax 1982) three pain provocation tests, which can last several days. Many such patients have gone on to be proven to have AS. The sensitivity and specificity of individual criterion is low, but items related to the history perform better than items of physical examination (van den Hoogen et al. 1995). The prevalence of diseases has a profound effect on the value of a test The study by Calin et al. (1977) was performed in a hospital population, in which with higher prevalence rates the positive predictive value of a test will be greater.
1231
1
232 C HAPTER TWELVE
T H E LUMBAR S P I NE: MECHANICAL DI AGNOS I S & T H ERAPY
In primary care, when screening for a rare disease such as ankylosing spondylitis, the positive predictive value of a positive test is extremely low, but the negative predictive value of a negative test is high (Streiner and Norman 1996) In summary, specific inflammatory conditions such as AS, as well as non-specific spondylarthropathies, are diseases that run a chronic course. Earlier and milder forms may often be undiagnosed and may be more common than previously imagined. As in other conditions, a clinical reasoning process and combination of features is likely to be most helpful in identifying patients with presumed ankylosing spondylitis or a non-specific inflammatory joint condition who will need fu rther investigation to confirm this diagnosis. Such patients also respond to a mechanical evaluation in an atypical way Patients who are suspected to have this pathology should be referred to a rheu matolog ist.
Conclusions This chapter has considered some of the most common specific and serious pathologies that may affect the lumbar spine. These conditions are rarely encountered in clinical practice, but occasionally patients with these problems may appear, despite being screened by GPs or physicians. It is thus vital, in terms of safe practice, that clinicians are aware of these entities and the 'red flags' that might indicate their presence, as wel l as the atypical responses to mechanical evaluation that may accompany them. Some of these conditions are absolute contraindications to mechanical therapy - cauda equina syndrome, fractures, cord signs and spinal infection. If it is suspected that patients have any of these pathologi.es, urgent referral is essential. If suspicion is supported by several factors
in the history and physical examination, it is always better to be safe than sorry - get the patient to a specialist as soon as possible. In the presence of ankylosing spondylitis, osteoporosis or even cancer, if a mechanical problem is also present, cautious and appropriate management can be offered. If these pathologies are suspected, but not diagnosed, then appropriate referral is necessary. The detail proVided in this c hapter is s u mmalised in theform of criteria and operational definitions contained ill the Appendix - these a re essential for identification of the different pathologies.
13: Other Diagnostic and Management Considerations
Introduction T he majority of patients with back pain will be included in the mec hanical sy ndromes ( see Chapter 8 ) . Fro m time to time consideration of other diagnoses may have to be made. In this chapter c ertain spec ific conditions are described, as well as certain non specific entities whose existence is controversial. Spec ific c onditions, such as spinal stenosis, hip joint problems and spondy lolisthesis are described in this chapter. These are differential diagnoses that will have to be considered on some occasions. Other management issues are consid ered here, such as back pain in pregnancy , are also described in this chapter whose existence or clinical recognition is somewhat more contentious, such as zy gapophy seal joint d isorders and instability. Conditions are briefly described, and key featur es and suggested management approaches are mentioned.
A normal mechanical evaluation, as outl ined in Chapters 14 and 15, is always conducted first. These conditions only need to be considered with a failure to identify a m echanical syndrome. As will be made clear, putative recognition of these problems is often difficult and can only be d one once a thorough mechanical evaluation has excluded one of the mor e common mechanical sy ndromes. Only after the
completion of a thorough m echanical evaluation, possibly over several days and/or generation of an atypical response, should these differential diagnoses be considered. T he following sections are presented in this chapter: •
•
•
spinal stenosis hip problems sacro-iliac joint problems low bac k pain in pregnancy zy gap ophy seal jO int problems spondy loly sis and spondy lolisthesis post -surgical status
C H APTER
TH I RTEEN
1233
2341 C i IAPT E R TH I RTEEN
THE LU M BAR
S PI NE :
MECHANICAL DIAGNOSIS & TH E RAPY
chronic pain •
•
me chanically inconclusive surge ry post-surgical status chronic pain Wadde ll's non-organic signs and sym ptoms
•
tre ating chronic b ack s - the McKe nzie Institute Inte rnational Re ab ilitati on Programme
Source: McKenzie Institute International Rehabilitation Programme
The detail provided in this chapter is summarised in the fonn of criteria and operational definitions contained in the Appendix - these are essential for identification of the different syndromes. Spinal stenosis Patie nts who have spinal ste nosis that hasbee n confirme d ob je ctive ly b y im aging studie s m ay be ne fit from me chanical e valuation or ge ne ralise d phYSiothe rapy advice . Wit h an age ing population it is highly l ik e ly that patie nts with undiagnose d st e nosis will be e ncounte re d in phYSiothe rapy clinics. In hospital populations an annual incide nce of fifty pe r milli on inhab itants has bee n e stimate d, b ut m any patie nts with m inor symptom s do not see k me dical atte ntion, so its pre vale nce in the ge ne ral comm unity is unk nown Uohnsson 1 9 9 5 ) Although spinal ste nosis can fre que ntly be suspe cte db y clinical inform ation, ob je ctive inve stigations are nee de d to m ake the diagnosis. Imaging studie s are e sse ntial for the de finitive diagnosi s of lumb ar spinal ste nosis ( Yoshizawa 1 999). Pathophysiology
Ste nosis is a condition associate d withe xte nsi ve de ge ne rat ive change s of the disc and zygapophyse al joints at multiple le ve ls, which may include de ge ne rative spondylolisthe sis (Am undse n
et
al. 1 99 5 ) .
Howe ve r, ste nosi s has b oth a structural and a dynamiC compone nt. The postural nature of the patie nt's pain is partly re late d to the narrowing e ffe ct that e xte nsion has on the spinal canal and the inte rve rteb ral forame n. The more the canal is structurally nar rowe d b y the de ge ne rative proce ss, the m ore e asily slight e xte nsion motion cause s com pre ssion of the ne rve s ( Pe nning and WiImink 1 98 7 ;
OTHER D I AG N OSTIC A N D M ANAGEM ENT C O N SIDERAT I ONS
CHAPTER T H I RTEEN
Penning 1 99 2 ; Willen et al. 1 9 9 7 ) . Extension also c auses an inc rease in epi dural pressure, whic h is raised any way in individuals with stenosis (Tak ahashi et al. 1 99 5 a, 1 99 5b) Flexed postures have the reverse ef fec ts, widening the c anal and foram en and reduc ing the epidural pressure, whic h explains why tem porary reliefc an b e gained in sitting or leaning forward. C l i n ical presentation
Two t y pes of stenosis are desc rib ed depending upon whether the degenerative c hanges affec t the nerve roots in the spinal c anal or in the intervert eb ral f oram en ( Porter 1 9 9 3 ; Heggeness and Esses 1 99 1 ; Getty 1 990) . L aterally the root m ay b e entrapped b y b ony c hanges, giving unrem itting radic ular pain from whic h there is no relief even at ni ght, and whic h is m ade worse on walking. With c entral stenosis there is little or no leg pain at rest. This is brought on in one or b oth legs with walk ing a limited distanc e, term ed neurogenic c laudic ation, and is relieved with fl exed post ures ( Porter et al. 1 984; Porter 1 99 3 ) . In pract ic e, the distinc tion between the two ty pes o f stenosis m ay b e less c lear (Amundsen
et
al. 1 99 5 ) To further c onfuse diagnosis,
stenosis and disc herniationm ay occ ur together ( Sanderson and Getty 1 996) . Central stenosisc an also produc e signs and sym ptom s ofc auda equina sy ndrom e, with c onsiderab le variability in the reponed prevalence of this condition 00hnsson 1 99 5 ; Oda et al. 1 999) There has often b een a long history of b ac k pain with subsequent development of leg pain, and the c ondition is rarely found in those under f if t y ( Getty 1 9 9 0 ; H eggeness and Esses 1 9 9 1 )
The
distinguishing feature of the c ondition is the postural nature of the patient' s pai n, with aggravation of leg sym ptom s when standing, and espec ially when walk ing. L eg pain is lik ely to b e worse than b ac k pain. Conversely, patients report relief of sy rnptom s when they adopt positions of f lexion, suc h as sitting or leaning f orward. Walk ing distanc es c an b e severely im paired b ec ause of neurogenic c laudic ation. Extension is often very lim ited and m ay provok e leg sy mptoms if sustained, while fl exion m ay b e m aintained. Signs and sym ptom s of motor, sensory and ref lex defic it and root tension signs are less c omm on than with disc herniations, occ urring in ab out 50% of patients (H eggeness and Esses 1 99 1 ; Amundsen e t al. 1 99 5 ; Gett y 1 990 ; Fri tz et al. 1 998; ] onsson et al. 1 99 7 a; Onel et al. 1 99 3 ; H all et
al. 198 5 ; Zanoli et al. 2 00 1 ) .
1235
236 1 CHAPTER. T H IR.T E EN
T HE L U MBAR. S PI N E: M EC H ANICAL DIAGN OSI S & TH ER.APY
T here are, howev er, no clear clinical presentations that distinguish the different nerv e root com pression syndrom es of lateral and central stenosis and disc herniation Oonsson and Strom qv ist 1 99 3 ) . One study found that hist ory f indings m ost strongly associat ed with the diagnosis of spinal stenosis are greater age, sev ere lower limb pain and the ab sence of pain when sitting. Physical exam ination findings m ost strongly associated with the diagnosis were wide-b ased gait, ab norm al Romb erg test, thigh pain with thirty seconds of lumb ar extension and neurom uscular deficits ( Katz eL al. 1 9 9 5 ) . D ifferential diagnosis b etween stenosis and derangem ent is consi dered in T ab le 1 3 . 2 ( from original idea Young 1 99 5 ) . A s part of their prev ious study, Iv ersen and Katz (2 00 1 ) exam ined forty-three patients with radiographically confirm ed structural ev idence of spinal stenosis. T he correlation b etween radiological changes and sev erity of sym pt om s was poor. The m ean age was 72, them ean duration of sym ptom s three years. T he prev alence of cert ain findings is presented in T ab le 1 3 . 1 . Walking and standing were t he m ost comm on aggrav ating factors, b ut getting up from a chai r m ade pain worse in 43 % , and sitting and leaning forward i n ab out 2 5 % ; b ending forward only m ade 1 5 % b etter. Reduced or ab sent lordosis and m inim al extension were comm on features, and if ext ension was m aintained pain tended to radiate further down the leg. Ab out 60% of sub jects reported numb ness or tingling and weak ness, and findings of sensory or m uscle im pairm ent were comm on. Table 13.1 Features of history and examination in spinal stenosis Prevalence rate in sample oj 43
Clinical Jeature History
Severe difficulties with walking
63%
Worse walking uphill
78%
Worse walking on flat ground
72%
Worse standing for 5 m inutes
65%
Beller side lying
68%
Better / worse seated
52% / 24%
Physical examination
Wide-based stance
43%
Romberg test positive
39%
Reduced lumbar lordosis
65%
Lumbar extension
65%
Pain on flexion
55 History of cancer Unexplained weighL loss Constant, progressive pain unrelated to loading sLrategy, nOL relieved by reSL
Fracture
Spinal infection
Bony damage to vertebrae caused by
SignificanL trauma
trauma or weakness due to metabolic
Trivial trauma in individual wiLh
bone disease
osteopenia
lnfection affecting vertebrae or disc
Systemically unwell Febrile episode ConsLant severe back pain unrelated to loading strategy
Anhylosing spondylitis
One of the systemic inf1ammatory
Exacerbations and remissions
arthropathies affecting spinal and
Marked morning sLiffness
other structures
Persisting limiLaLion all movements No directional preference, but belLer wiLh exercise, not relieved by reSL SysLemic involvemenL Raised ESR,
••
+
HLA B27
The operational d e finitions provided below preseI1 l lhe criteria in more detail . These give the symptom responses and t imescale by which classification should be recognise d .
ApP E N DIX
Classification algorithm History-taking
-----..
and Physical examination and testing
�
r-I
I
- - - --' E D F LAG
Day 1 Provisional classification
Loading strategies decrease, abolish or centralise symptoms
No loading strategies decrease, abolish, or centralise symptoms
Pain only at IimiL,d d-mnge
Pain only on static loading, physical exam normal
Dysfunction ANR
Postural
r
t
t
Derangement Reducible
Derangement Irreducible
1-----. Classification confirmed within 3
-
5 visits
(reduction or remodelling process may continue for longer) Or Fail to enter mechanical classification
I
"'" Consider Other ----.. Stenos!s · conditions Hip
L...______---. �
SI] Mechanically inconclusive Spondylolisthesis Chronic pain state
Operational definitions The operational definitions describe the symptom and mechanical behaviours and the timescale needed to document each category.
Reducible Derangement Centralisation: in response to therapeutic loading strategies, pain is progressively abolished in a distal to proximal direction, and •
each progressive abolition is retained over time until all symptoms are abolished, and
•
if back pain only is present this moves from a Widespread to a more central location and then is abolished or
•
pain is decreased and then abolished during the application of therapeutic loading strategies
•
the change in pain location, or decrease or abolition of pain, remain better, and
t
1 291
292
1 ApPENDIX
THE LUMBAR SPINE: MECHANICAL DIAGNOSIS & THERAPY •
should be accompanied or preceded by improvements in the mechanical presentation (range of movement and/or deformity).
Timescale A derangement responder can be identified on day one, or •
a derangement responder will be suspected on day one and a provisional diagnosis made. This will be confirmed by a lasting change in symptoms after evaluating the response to a full mechanical evaluation within five visits
•
decrease, abolition or centralisation of symptoms is occurring but the episode may not have completely resolved within five visits
•
aggravating factors may precipitate a deterioration in symptoms and a longer recovery process.
Irreducible Derangement PeripheralisaLion of symptoms: increase or worsening of distal symptoms in response to therapeutic loading strategies, and/or •
no decrease, abolition, or centralisation of pain.
Timescale An irreducible derangement patient will be suspected on day one and a provisional diagnosis made; this will be confirmed after evaluating the response to a full mechanical evaluation within five visits.
Dysfunction Spinal pain only, and •
•
intermittent pain, and at least one movement is restricted, and the restricted movement consistently produces concordant pain at end-range, and
•
•
there is no rapid reduction or abolition of symptoms, and no lasting production and no peripheralisation of symptoms.
ANR History of sciatica or surgery in the last few months that has improved, but is now unchanging, and •
•
•
symptoms are intermittent, and symptoms in the thigh and /or calf, including 'tightness', and fl exion in standing, long sitting, and straight leg raise are clearly restricted and conSistently produce concordant pain or tightness at end-range, and
•
there is no rapid reduction or abolition of symptoms and no lasting production of distal symptoms
ApP E N DIX
Timescale •
a dysfunctionlANR category patient will be suspected on day one and a provisional diagnosis made; this will be confirmed after evaluating the response to a mechanical evaluation within five visits
•
if the patient fails to fit all criteria another category must be considered
•
rapid change will not occur in this syndrome, and symptoms will gradually reduce over many weeks, as range of movement gradually improves.
Postural Spinal pain only, and •
•
•
•
•
concordant pain only with static loading, and abolition or pain with postural correction, and no pain with repeated movements, and no loss of range of movement, and no pain during movement.
Timescale •
a posture category patient will be suspected on day one and a provisional diagnosis made. This will be confirmed after evaluating the response to a mechanical evaluation within two to three visits
•
if the patient fails to fit all criteria, another category must be considered.
'Other' categories are only considered on failure to enter a mechanical diagnosis within five treatment sessions. To be designated into 'Other' category, patients will fulfil: •
•
'other' criteria, and criteria for specific other category as listed below.
'Other' •
•
•
no centralisation, peripheralisation, or abolition of symptoms, or does not fit derangement, dysfunction or posture criteria no lasting change in pain location or pain intensity in response to therapeutic loading strategies, and
•
fulfils relevant criteria in suspected 'other' pathology listed below.
1 293
2941 ApPENDIX
THE LUMBAR. SPINE: MECHANICAL DIAGNOSIS & THERAPY Indicators for possible 'Red Flags' Cauda equina •
•
•
•
bladder dysfunction (urinary retention or overflow incontinence) loss of anal sphincter tone or faecal incontinence saddle anaesthesia about the anus, perineum or genitals global or progressive motor weakness in the lower limbs.
Possible cancer •
•
•
•
age greater than 55 history of cancer unexplained weight loss constant, progressive pain not affected by loading strategies, worse at rest.
Other possible serious spinal pathology One of the following: •
•
•
systemically unwell widespread neurology h istory of significant trauma enough to cause fracture or dislocation (x-rays will not always detect fractures)
•
history of trivial trauma and severe pain in potential osteoporotic individual
•
sudden and persistent extremes of pain causing patient to 'freeze'.
Possible inflammatory disorders •
•
•
•
•
•
gradual onset, and marked morning stiffness, and persisting limitation of movements in all directions peripheral joint involvement iritis, psoriasis, colitis, uretheral discharge family history.
Stenosis •
•
•
•
history of leg symptoms when walking upright may be eased when sitting or leaning forward loss of extension possible provocation of symptoms in sustained extension, with relief on flexion
•
•
•
•
age greater than 50 possible nerve root signs and symptoms extensive degenerative changes on x-ray diagnosiS confirmed by CT or MRl.
ApP E N DI X
Hip •
•
exclusion of lumbar spine by mechanical evaluation, and pain worsened by weight bearing, eased by rest or worse first few steps after rest, and
•
pain pattern - groin, anterior thigh, knee, anterior shin, lateral thigh, possibly buttock, and
•
positive hip pain provocation testes) - (concordant pain).
Symptomatic S IJ •
exclusion of lumbar spine by extended mechanical evaluation,
and •
•
exclusion of hip joint by mechanical testing, and positive pain provocation tests (concordant pain) - at least three tests.
Mechanically inconclusive •
•
symptoms affected by spinal movements no loading strategy consistently decreases, abolishes or centralises sympLoms, nor increases or peripheralises symptoms
•
inconsisLent response to loading strategies.
Symptomatic spondylolisthesis •
suspect in young athletic person with back pain related to vigorous sporting activity
•
worse with static loading.
Chronic pain state •
•
•
•
persistent widespread symptoms all activity increases symptoms exaggerated pain behaviour misLaken beliefs and attitudes about pain and movement.
Other definitions Definition of centralisation •
in response to therapeutic loading strategies pain is progreSSively abolished in a distal to proximal direction with each progressive abolition being retained over time until all symptoms are abolished
•
i r back pain only is present, this is reduced and then abolished.
1 295
296 1 ApP E N D I X
T H E LU M BA R S P I N E : M E CHA N I C A L D I AG N OSIS & T H E RAPY
Criteria for a relevant lateral shift •
•
•
•
•
•
upper body is visibly and unmistakably sh ifted to one side onset of shift occurred with back pain patient is unable to correct shift voluntarily if patient is able to correct shift, they cannot maintain correction correction affects intensity of symptoms correction causes centralisation or worsening of peripheral symptoms.
Right and left lateral shift •
a right lateral shift exists when the vertebra above has laterally Oexed to the right in relation to the vertebra below, carrying the trunk with it; the upper trunk and sh oulders are displaced to the right
•
a left lateral shift exists when the vertebra above has laterally Oexed to the left in relation to the vertebra below, carrying lhe trunk with it; the upper trunk and shoulders are displaced to lh e left.
Contralateral and ipsilateral shift •
contralateral shift exists when the patient'S symptoms are on one side and the shift is in the opposite direction; for instance, right back pain, with/without thigh/leg pain, and upper trunk and shoulders displaced to the left
•
ipsilateral shift exists when th e patient's symptoms are on one side and the shift is to the same side; for instance right back pain, with/ without thigh/leg pain, with upper trunk and shoulders displaced to the right.
Criteria for a relevant lateral component •
acute lateral shift deformity OR loss of frontal plane movements
and/or •
unilateral /asymmetrical symptoms affected by fromal plane movements
•
•
•
symptoms fail to improve with sagittal plane forces or symptoms worsen with sagittal plane forces and symptoms improve with frontal plane forces.
References Abdul lah Af; Wolber PGH, Warfield J R, Gunadi I K ( 1 988) Surgical management of extreme lateral lumbar d isc herniations: review of 1 38 cases. N e u rosurgery 22 .648-65 3 . Abenhaim L , Rossignol M , Gobe i l l e D , Bonvalot Y , fines P, Scott S ( 1 995) The prognostic consequences in the making of the initial medical diagnosis of work related back injuries. Spine 2 0 . 7 9 1 - 7 9 5 . Adams MA, H Ullon W C , SLOlljRR ( 1 980). T h e resistance to Oexion o f t h e l u mbar intervertebral joinl. Spine 5 .245-2 5 3 . Adams MA, Hutton W C ( 1 982). Prolapsed intervertebral disc. A hyperOexion injury. Spine 7 . 1 84- 1 9 1 . Adams MA, H u l ton W C ( 1 983). The e ffect o f fatigue o n the l u mbar i ntervertebral d isc. j BjS 65B. 1 99-203. Adams MA, HUllon WC ( 1 985a). G radual disc prolapse. Spine 1 0 . 524- 5 3 1 . Adams MA, HUllon WC ( 1 985b). The effect of posture on the l umbar spine. J BJ S 67B.625-629. Adams MA, Dolan P, H uuon WC ( 1 986). The stages of disc degeneration as revealed by discograms. J BJ S 68B.36-4 1 . Adams MA, Dolan P, Hutton WC ( 1 987). Diurnal variations i n the stresses on the lumbar spine. Spine 1 2 . 1 30- 1 37 . Adams M A , Dolan P, H utton WC, Porter RW ( 1 990) . Diurnal changes i n spinal mechanics and their c linical significance. J BJS 7 2 B . 266-270. Adams MA ( 1 994). Biomechanics of the lumbar motion segment. I n : Grieves Modem
Manual Therapy. (2nd Ed) . Eds. BoylingJD, Palastanga N . Churc h i l l Livingstone, Edinburgh. Adams MA, McNally DS, Chinn H , Dolan P ( 1 994). Posture and the compressive strength of the l umbar spine. Clinical Biomechanics 9 . 5 - 1 4 . Adams MA, Dolan P ( 1 99 5 ) . Recent advances in l umbar spinal mechanics and their clinical sign i ficance . Clinical Biomechanics 1 0. 3 - 1 9 . Adams M A , McNally D S , Dolan P ( 1 996a). 'Stress' distribution inside intervenebral discs. J BJ S 78B.965-9 7 2 . Adams MA, McMillan DW, Green TP, Dolan P ( 1 996b ) . Sustained loading generates stress concentrations in l u mbar i ntervertebral discs. Spine 2 1 .434-438. Adams MA, Dolan P ( 1 997). Could sudden increases in physical activity cause degeneration of intervertebral discs? Lancet 3 5 0 . 734- 7 3 5 . Adams M A , Mannion A f; Dolan P ( 1 999). Personal risk factors for first-time l o w back pain. Spine 24.2497-2505. Adams MA, May S, freeman BJC, Morrison HP, Dolan P (2000a). E ffects of backward bending on lumbar intervertebral discs. Spine 2 5 .43 1 -4 3 7 . Adams MA, freeman BJ C, Morrison HP, N elson I W , D o l a n P (2000b). Mechanical init iation of intervertebral disc degeneration . Spine 2 5 . 1 6 2 5 - 1 636. Adams N ( 1 99 3 ) . Psychophysiological and neuroch e mical substrates of chronic low back pain and modulation by treatm e n l . Physiotherapy abstracts 7 9 . 86. Adams N BK , Ravey j , B e l l Aj ( 1 99 5 ) . Psychological aspects of physical treatment intervention for chronic low back pain . Proceedi ngs 12th International Congress
oj World ConJederation Jor Physical Therapy. J u ne 2 5 - 3 0 , 1 99 5 , Washington DC, USA. Abstract 1 09 3 .
1297
298 1 R E F E R E N C E S
T H E L U M B A R S P I N E : MEC H A N I C A L D I AGNOS I S & T H E RA PY
Adams N ( 1 99 7 ) . The Psychophysiology oj Low Bacll Pa i n . Churchill L ivingslone, New York. AHCPR ( 1 994). Agency Jar Health Care Policy and Research - Acu tl' Low Bac1?
Problems in Adults. Eds. Bigos S , Bowyer 0, Braen
e/
al. Depan mcnl of Heallh
and H uman Services, U SA. Ahlgren BD, Vasavada A , Brower RS, Lydon C, Herkowilz HN, Panjabi M M ( 1 994). Anular incision lechnique on the strenglh and multi directional OexibililY of lhe healing inlervenebral d isc . Spine 1 9 .948-95 4 . Ahn S H , A h n M W, Byun WM (2000b). Effecl of the lransligamenlous eXlension o f l u mbar d isc h e rn ialions on lheir regression a n d the clinical OUl come of sciatica. Spine 2 5 . 47 5-480. Ahn U M , Ahn N U , Buchowski J M , Garrell ES, Sieber AN , KOSlUik JP (2000a). Cauda equina syndrome secondary to l u m bar disc herniation. A meta-analysis of surgical OUlcomes. Spine 2 5 . 1 5 1 5- 1 5 2 2 . A k e s o n W H , A m i e l D , A bel M F, G a r fi n S R , Woo S LY ( 1 9 8 7) E ffec ls o f i mmobilisation on jOi11ls. C1in O n h &: R e i Rcs 2 \9 .28-37. A l bert H ( 1 998). Pelvic pain i n pregnancy. In: Eds Vleeming A , Mooney V, Tilscher H, Dorman T, Snijders C. 3 rd In terdisciplillary World Conglcess on Low Bach and pelvi c pa i n . November 1 9-2 1 , 1 998, Vienna, Auslria. Alexander A H , Jones A M , Rosenbaum DH ( 1 99 1 ) . Non-operalive manageme11l of herniated nucleus pulposus: palie11l selection by the eXlension sign. Long-lerm fol low-up . Onhop Trans 1 5 .674. Alexander H, Jones AM, Rosenbaum OH ( 1 992). Nonoperalive managemenl of herniated nucleus p u l posus: pat ie11l selction by the eXlension sign. Long-lCl"m fol low-up. Ort hopaediC Review 2 1 . 1 8 1 - 1 88 . Altman O G ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Practical StaiisiicsJor Medical Research. Chapman &: Hal l , London . Amalo M , TOl l y W G , G i l u l a LA ( 1 984). Spondyl o l ysis of t h e lumbar s p i n e : demonstration of defects and lami nal fragme11lal i o n . Radiology 1 53 .627-629. Amundsen T, Weber H , Lilleas F; Nordal HJ , Abdel noor M, Magnaes B ( 1 995) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and radiological feaLUres. Spine 20. 1 1 78- 1 1 86. Amundsen T, Weber H , Nordal HJ , Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F (2000). Lumbar spinal slenosis: conservative or surgical managemenl? A prospective 1 0-year sludy. Spine 2 5 . 1 424- 1 436. Anderson R , Meeker WC, Wi rick BE, MOOlZ RO, Kirk OH, Adams A ( 1 992). A mela-analysis of c l i nical l r i a l s of spinal mani pulation. J Mani pulalive &: Physiological TherapeU lics 1 5 . 18 1 - 1 94 . Andersson GBJ , O n engren R , Nachemson AL, Elfslrom G , Broman H ( 1 975) The silting poslUre: an electromyographic and discomeu"ic sludy. Orth Cli nics N l h Am 6. 1 0 5 - 1 20. Andersson G BJ , Murphy RW, Ortengren R, N achemson A L ( 1 979). The inOuence of backresl inclination and l umbar support on l umbar lordosis. Spine 4 . 52-58. Andersson GBJ , Svensson HO, Oden A ( 1 983) . The in lensity of work recovery in low back pai n . Spine 8 .880-884. Andersson G BJ ( 1 99 1 ) . The epidemiology of spinal disorders. I n : The AclLdt Spine:
Principles and Practice. Ed. Frymoyer J W Raven Press Ltd , New York.
R. E F E R E N C E S
Andersson GBJ , Deyo RA ( 1 996). H i story and physical examination with herniated lumbar d iscs. Spine 2 1 . 245. 1 05- 1 85. Andersson GBJ , Bost rom M P G , Eyre DR et al. ( 1 9 9 7 ) . Consensus summary on the d iagnosis and t reatment of osteoporosis. Spine 22 .635-655. Anui-Poika I , Soini J, TallrOlh K , YrJonen T, Kon t t i ne n YT ( 1 990) Clinical relevance of discography combined with CT scann i ng. JBJS 7 2 B.480-485 . Aprill C, Bogduk N ( 1 992). H igh intensity zone : a d iagnostic sign of pain ful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Rad 6 5 . 36 1 -369. Arem AJ , Madden JW ( 1 976). Effects of stress on healing wounds. 1 . Intermittent noncyclical tension. J Surg Res 20.93- 1 0 2 . Arntz A, Dreessen L , Merckelbach H ( 1 99 1 ) Attention, n o t anxiety, i n n u ences pain. Behav Res Ther 2 9 . 4 1 -50. Aronson HA, Dunsmore RH (1963). Herniated upper lumbar discs. JBJS 45A . 3 l 1 -3 1 7. Ash ton I K, Roberts 5, Ja ffray DC, Polak J M , Eisenstein SM ( 1 994). Neuropeptides in the human intervertebral disc. J Ort hop Res 1 2 . 1 86- 1 92 . Assendelft WJJ , Koes BW, Knipsc h i l d P G , Bouter LM ( 1 99 5 ) . The relationship between m e t h o d o l ogical q u a l i t y a n d c o n c l u s i o n s in rev i e ws o f s p i n a l mani pulation . J A M A 274. 1 942- 1 948. Assendel ft WJJ , Koes BW, van d e r H eij d e n GJ M G , Bout e r L M ( 1 996) The effectiveness of c h i ropractor for t reat ment of low back pain: an update and attempt at statisti cal pooling. J Manip Physio Thera 1 9 .499-507. Atlas SJ , Dcyo RA, Patrick DL , Convery K, Keller RB, Si nger D E ( 1 996a) The Quebec Task Force Classification for spinal disorders and the severity, treatment, and outcomes of sciatica and lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2 1 . 2885-289 2 . Atlas SJ , Deyo RA, Kel l e r e t al. ( 1 996b). T h e Maine lumbar spine study, part i i . 1 year outcomes o f surgical a n d nonsurgical manage me n t of sciatica. S pine 2 1 . 1 7 77- 1 786. Atlas SJ , Deyo RA, Keller ct al. ( l 996c). The Maine l umbar spine study, part i i i . 1 year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management o f lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2 1 1 787- 1 7 9 5 . Atlas SJ , Keller R B , Robson D, Deyo RA , Si nger DE (2000). Surgical a n d nonsurgical management of lumbar spi nal stenosis. 4-year outcomes from t he Maine lumbar spine study. Spine 2 5 . 5 56-562 . Awerbuch M ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Different concepts of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Ann Rheum Dis 5 4 . 3 3 1 - 3 3 2 . Badley E M , Rasooly I , Webster G K ( 1 994). Relative importance of musculoskeletal disorders as a cause o f chronic health problems, d i sabili ty, and health care utilisation: Findings from the 1 990 Ontalio health survey. J Rheumatol 2 1 .505-5 1 4. Bahnof R (2000). I n t ra-oral burns: rehabil i tat i on of severe restriction of mouth opening. Case report . Physi otherapy 86. 263-266. Balague 1:; Nordin M, Sheikhzadeh A el al. ( 1 999). Recovery of severe sciatica. Spine 24. 2 5 \ 6-2 524. Balderston RA, Bradford DS ( 1 98 5 ) . Technique for achievement and maintenance of reduction for severe spondylolisthesis using spinous process traction w i ring and external fixation o f the pelvis. Spine 1 0 . 376-38 2 .
1 299
300 I R E F E R E N C E S
T H E L U M B A R S P I N E : M E C H A N I C A L D I AG N OS I S & TH E RAPY
Bandy WD , Irion J M ( 1 994). The effec t of time on static stretch on the Oexibil i t y of the hamstring muscles. Physical Therapy 74.845-8 5 2 . Bandy WD , I rion J M , Briggler M ( 1 99 7 ) . T h e e ffect o f t i m e a n d frequency of static stretching on Oexibility of the hamstring muscles. Physical Therapy 77 . 1 090- 1 096. Bandy WD, I rion J M , Briggler M ( 1 998) The e ffect of staic stretch and dynamic range o f motion training on the Oexibility of the hamstring muscles. JOSPT 2 7 . 29 5-300. Bannerman N, Pentecost E , Rutter S , Wil loughby S, Vuj novich A ( 1 996). I ncrease in soleus muscl e lengt h : a comparison between two stretching techn iques. N Z J Physio December 1 5- 1 8 . Barlow Y , Willoughby J ( 1 99 2 ) . Pathophysiology o f soft tissue repair. B r M e d Bull 48. 698-7 1 1 . Barnsley L, Lord S, Wal lis B, Bogduk N ( 1 993). False-positive rates of cervical zygapophyseal joint b l ocks. Clin J Pain 9 . 1 24- 1 30. Bartley R (2000). Nerve root compression and cauda equina syndrome. I n : Eds: Bartley R, Coffey P Management oJ Low Bach Pain ill Primwy Care. BULLerwonh Heinemann , Oxford. Battie M C , Cherkin DC, Dunn R, Ciol MA, Wheeler KJ ( 1 994) Managing low back pain : Attitudes and treat ment preferences o f physical thel-apists. Physical Therapy 7 4 . 2 1 9-226. Beattie P, Rothstein JM, Lamb R L ( 1 987). Reliability o f the aLLraction method for measuring lumbar spine backward bending. Physical Therapy 67. 364-369. Beattie PF, Brooks WM, Rothstein J M et al. ( 1 994). E ffect of lordosis on the position of the nucleus pulposus in supine subjects. A study using MR!. Spine 19.2096-2 102. Beattie P, Maher C ( 1 99 7 ) . The role of functional status questionnaires for low back pai n . Physical Therapy 43. 29-38. Beattie PF, Meyers SP, Stratford P, M i l lard RW, Hollenberg G M (2000) Associations between patient report of sym ptoms and the anatomic i m pai rment visible on lumbar magnetic resonance i maging. Spine 2 5 . 8 1 9-828. Begg AC, Falconer MA, McGeorge M ( 1 946) Myelography i n lumbar intervertebral disk lesions. A correlation with operative findings. Br J Surg 34. 1 4 1 - 1 57 . Belanger AY, Despres MC, Goulet H , Tro l lier F ( 1 99 1 ) . T h e McKenzie approach: h ow many clinical trials support its effectiveness? WCPT 1 l ,h I nternati onal Congress Conference Proceedings 1 334- 1 336. Bellah R D , Summervil l e D A , Treves ST, M ic h e l i LJ ( 1 9 9 1 ) Low-back pain in adolescent athletes: detection of stress injury to the pars i nterarticuiaris with SPECT Radiology 1 80 . 5 09-512. BenDebba M, Torgerson WS, Long D M (2000). A val idated, practical classification procedure for many persistent low back pain patients. Pain 8 7 . 89-97_ Bendix AF, Bendix T, Labriola M, Boekgaard P ( 1 998). Functional restoration for chronic low back pain . Spine 2 3 . 7 1 7- 7 2 5 . Bennel l K , Khan K , M c Kay H (2000). T h e role of physiotherapy in t h e prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Manual Therapy 5 . 1 98-2 1 3. Bennett N , Jarvis L, Rowlands 0, Singleton N , Haselden L ( 1 995). Resu lts Jrom the 1994
General Household Survey. OPCS. H M SO, London.
REFE R E N C ES
B e n - S i ra Z ( 1 98 2 ) . Lay e v a l u a t i o n of m ed i c a l t r e a t m e n t a n d c o m p e t e n c e development of a m o d e l o f t h e function o f the p hysician's affective behavior. Soc Sci Med 1 6. 1 0 1 3 - 1 0 1 9 . Benz RJ , Garfin SR (2000). Surgical treatment of spinal disorders. I n : E d s Mayer TG, Gatchel Rj , Polatin PB. Occupational Musculoskeletal Disorders. Function,
Outcomes & Evidence. LippincotL Williams & Wil kins, Philade l phia. Berg G , H ammar M, M o l ier-Nielse n J , Linden U , Thorb lad J ( 1 988) Low back pain during pt'egnancy. Obstet & Gynaecol 7 1. 7 1 - 7 5 . Berkow R, Fletcher AJ , Bondy PK e t al. ( 1 987). The Merck Manual oJ Diagnosis and
Therapy (15th Ed). Merck & C o I n c , N e w jersey. Bernard TN ( 1 990). Lumbar discography fol lowed by computed t o mography. Refining the diagnosis of low-back pain . Spine 1 5 .690-70 7 . Bernard T N ( 1 997). T h e role of t h e sacroiliac joints i n low back p a i n : basic aspects, pathophysiology, and management. In Eds Vleeming A, Mooney V, Dorman T, Snijders C, Stoeckan R. Movement, Stabi l i ty & Low Bach Pain. The Essential
Role oj the Pelvis. Churchi l l Livingstone, New Yor k . Bernat j L, Greenberg E R, Barrell j ( 1 983). Suspected epidural compression of t h e spinal cord a n d cauda equina by m e tastatic carcinoma. Clinical diagnosis and surviva l . Cancer 5 1 . 1 953- 1 9 5 7 . Bessette L , Liang M H , L e w RA , Weinstein j N ( 1 996). Classics i n Spine. Surgery literature revisited. Spine 2 1 . 2 59-263. Bemskens AJ , de Yet HC, Koke Aj et al. ( 1 99 5 ) . Efficacy of traction for non-specific low back pain: a randomised clinical trial . Lancet 346. 1 596- 1 600. Beurskens AJ , de Yet HC, Koke AJ et al. ( 1 99 7 ) . Efficacy of traction for nonspecific low back pain. 1 2-week and 6-month results of a randomized c linical trial. Spine 2 2 . 2 7 56-2762 . Bieri ng-Sorensen F 0983a). A p rospective study of low back pain in a general population . 1 . Occurrence, recurrence and aetiology. Scand J Rehab Med 1 5 . 7 1 -79. Biering-Sorensen F ( 1 983b) A prospective study of low back pain i n a general population. 2. Location, character, aggravating and relieving factors. Scand j Rehab Med 1 5 . 81-88. Bigos Sj , Battie MC, Spengler DM et al. ( 1 99 1 ). A prospective study of work perceptions and psychosocial factors affecting the report of back injury. Spine 1 6 . 1-6. B i ll is EV, Foster N E , Wright CC ( 1 999). I n ter-tester and i ntra-tester reliabi l i ty o f three groups of physiotherapists i n locating spinal levels b y palpation. (Abstract) PhYSiotherapy 8 5 . 3 7 5 . Binkley j , Stratforcl PW, G i l l C ( 1 99 5 ) . I nterrater reliability of lumbar accessory motion mobi l i ty testing. Physical Therapy 7 5 . 786-79 5 . Black K M , McClure P, Polansky M ( 1 996). The influence of different Sitting positions on cervical and l umbar posture, Spine 2 1 .65-70. Bland JH ( 1 99 3 ) . M echanisms of a daptation i n t he joint. In: E d s Crosbie j , McConnelij. Key Tssues i n Muscu losheletal PhYSiotherapy, 88- 1 1 3 . Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. B l i k ra G ( 1 969) I n tradural herniated lumbar disc. J Neurosurg 3 1 . 676-679.
1 301
302 1 REF E R E N C E S
T H E L U M B A R S P I N E : M EC H A N I C A L D I AG N O S I S & TH E RAr Y
Blower PW, Gri ffin AJ ( 1 984). C l i n ical sacroiliac tests in a n kylosing spondylitis and other causes of low back pain - 2 studies. Ann Rheum Dis 43. 1 92- 1 95 . Boden S O , Davis DO, Dina TS, Patronas NJ , Wiesel S W ( 1 990). Abnormal magnetic resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. J BJS 72A.403-408. Bodner RJ , Heyman 5, Drummond OS, Gregg J R ( 1 988). The use of single photon emission computer tomography (SPECT) in the diagnosis or low-back pain in young patiellls. Spine 13. 1 1 5 5- 1 1 60. Bogduk N ( 1 99 3 ) . The anatomy and physiology or nociception. I n: Eds Crosbie J , McCon n e l l j. Key iss u es i n M usCLdoslleletal P hysioth erapy. Butte rwonh Heineman, Oxrord . Bogduk N ( 1 994a). I n n e rvation, pain patterns, and mechanism or pain product ion . I n : Eds. Twomey LT, Taylor J R. Physical Therapy oj the Low Bach. Churchill Livingston e , New Yor k . Bogduk N ( 1 994b). T h e innervation or the illlervenebral d i scs. I n : Grieve's Modern
Manual Therapy. (2nd Ed) Eds BoylingJ D , Palastanga N. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh. Bogduk N, Derby R, Aprill C, Lord 5, Schwarzer A ( 1 996). Precision diagnosis or spinal pai n . I n : Pain 1996 - A n Updated Review. Ed. Campbel l J N. IASp, Seattle. Bogduk N ( 1 997). Clinical Anatomy oJ t he Lumbar Spine and Sacrull1 . (3"1 ed). Churchill Livingstone, New Yor k . Boissonnaul t W, Di Fabio R P ( 1 996). P a i n profile o r patients with l o w back pain referred to physical therapy. J Orth Spons Physical Ther 24. 1 80- 1 9 l . Bombardier C , Kerr M S , Shannon H S , Fran k ]W ( 1 994). A guide to interpreting epidemiologic studies on the etiology or back pain. Spine 1 9 . 20475-20565. Bongers PM, de Wi Iller CR, Kompier MAJ , Hildebrandt V H ( 1 993). Psychosocial factors at work and musculoskeletal disease. Scand J Work Environ Health 1 9 . 297 -3 1 2 . Boos N , Rieder R , Schade V, Spratt K F, Semmer N , Aebi M ( 1 99 5 ) . The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance i maging, work perception, and psychosocial ractors i n idell l i rying symptomatic disc herniations. Spine 20.26 1 3-262 5 . Borkan J , Reis 5 , Hermoni 0, Biderman A ( 1 99 5 ) . Talking about the pain: A pat ielll celllred study or low back pain in primary care. Soc Sci Med 40.977-988. Borrows J A , H e rbison P ( 1 995a). A comparative evaluation or four rehabili tation programmes for chronic back pain subjects in receipt or earnings compensation.
Proceedings 12th I nternational Congress oj World ConJederation Jor Physical Therapy. June 2 5-30, 1 99 5 , Washington DC, USA. Abstract 8 5 4 . Borrows J , Herbison P ( 1 99 5 b ) . ACC Chronic Bachs Study. Report oj the Evaluat ion
oj Fou r Treatment Programmes. ACC, New Zealand. Boxal l 0, B r a d ford O S , Winter RB, Moe J H ( 1 9 7 9 ) . M anage ment or severe spondylolisthesis i n children and adolescents. J BJ S 6 1 A.479-49 5 . Bozzao A , Gall ucci M , Masciocchi C, Aprile 1, Barile A , Passariello R ( 1 992). Lumbar disk herniation: M R imaging assessmelll of natural history in patients treated without surgery. Radiology 1 8 5 . 1 3 5- 1 4 l . Bradish CF, Lloyd GJ , A ldam C H et al. ( 1 988) . Do nonorganic signs help to predict the return to work of patients with low-back pain? Spine 1 3 . 5 5 7 - 5 60.
R. E F E R E N C E S
Brady TJ ( 1 998). The patiem's role in rheumatology care. CurrenL Opinion in Rheum 1 0 . 1 46-15 1 . Brault J S , Drisco l l D M , Laakso LL et al. ( 1 997). Quamification o f l umbar i mradiscal deformation during flexion and extension, by mathematical analysis of M R I pixel imensity pronles. Spine 2 2 . 2 066-2072. Braun J , Bollow M , Remlinger G et al. ( 1 998). Prevalence of spondylarthopathies i n I-lLA-B27 positive and negative blood donors. Arth &: Rheum 4 1 . 58-6 7 . Breig A ( 1 96 1 ). Biomechan ics of the Central Nervous System. A lmqvist &: Wikse l l , Stockholm. Brigh t b i l l TC, Pile N, Eichelberger RP, Whitman M ( 1 994). Normal magnetiC resonance imaging and abnormal d iscography in lumbar disc disruption. Spine 1 9 . 1 07 5 - 1 077. Brinckmann P, Porter RW (1994). A laboratory model of lumbar disc protrusio n . fissure a n d fragment. Spine 1 9 . 2 2 8-23 5 . Brismar 1 -1 , Vucetic N , Svensson 0 ( 1 996). Pain patterns in lumbar disc hernia. Drawings compared to surgical findings in 1 59 patiems. Acta Orthop Scand 67.470-472. Broadhurst N A , Bond MJ ( 1 998). Pain provocation tests for the assessmem of sacro i liac joim dysfunction. J S p i nal Dis 1 1 .34 1 -345 . Brock M , Pall S, Mayer I-IM ( 1 99 2 ) . The form and structure of the extruded disc. Spine 1 7 . 1 457- 1 46 1 . Brodowicz GR, Welsh R , Wal l is J ( 1 996) . Comparison o f stretching with ice, stretching with heat, or stretching alone on hamstring flexibi l ity. J Athletic Training 3 1 . 324- 3 2 7 . Bronfort G ( 1 999). Spinal manipulation. Current state of research a n d i t s indications. Neuro C1in Nth A m 1 7 . 9 1 - 1 1 1 . Brooks S, Dem AR, Thompson AG ( 1 983). Anterior rupture of the l u m bosacral disc. J BJS 65A. 1 l 86 - 1187 . Brown JB, Stewart M , McCracken E, McWhinney J R , Levenste i n J ( 1 986). The patienL cemred clinical method. 2 . Definition and application. family Practice 3 . 75-79. Brown MF, I-Iukkanen MVJ , McCarthy lD et al. ( 1 99 7 ) . Sensory and sympathetic innervation of the vertebral end plate i n patients with degenerative d isc disease. J BJ S 79B.147- 1 53 . Brown JJ , Wells GA, Trottier AJ , Bonneau J , ferris B ( 1998). Back pain i n a large Canadian pol ice force. Spine 2 3 .8 21 - 8 2 7 . Buchner M , Zeifang F, Brocai D R C , Schil tenmolf M (2000). E p idural corticosteroid injection in the conservative managemem of sciatica. C l i n Orth &: ReI Res 375 .149- 1 56. Buchwa lter J A , Woo S LY, Gol dberg V M et al. ( 1 99 3 ) . S o ft - tissue aging a n d musculoskeletal function. J BJ S 75A. 1 533- 1 548. Buirski G (1992). MagnetiC Resonance Signal patterns of l u mbar discs i n patiems with low back pain. Spine 1 7 . 11 99- 1 204. Buirski G , Silberstein M ( 1 99 3 ) . The symptomatic l u mbar disc in patients with low-back pain. Magnetic resonance imaging appearances in both a symptomatic and comrol populati o n . Spine 1 8 . 1 808- 1 8 1 1 .
1 303
304 1 R E FE R E N C E S
T H E L U M B A R S P I N E : M E C H A N I CA L D I AG N OS I S & TH ERA PY
Bullock j E , lu l l GA, Bullock M l ( 1 987). The relationship o f low back pain to postural changes durin; pregnancy. Aus j Physio 3 3 . 1 0- 1 7 . Burdorf A ( 1 99 2 ) . Exposure assessment o f risk factors for disorders o f the back i n occupational epidemiology. Scand j Work Environ Health 1 8. 1 -9 . Burdorf A, Sorock G ( 1 99 7 ) . Positive a n d negative evidence o f risk factors for back disorders. Scand j Work Environ Health 2 3.243-256. Burgin R , Oromard S , Eaton 0 , Panter j, Swinkels A (2000). Variations in lumbar posture: tisk factors for low back pain i n asymptomatic adults. Proceedings Congress
and Exhibition oj the Chartered Society oj Physioti1erpy. Birmingham, U K , p64. B u rton A K , Til l o tson K M , Troup J O G ( 1 989). Pred iction o f l ow-back t rouble frequency in a working population. Spine l 4.939-946. Burton AK, Til lotson KM, Main CJ , H o l l i s S ( 1 995). Psychosocial predictors of outcome in acute and subchronic low back trouble. Spine 20. 722-728. Burton AK, Clarke RO, McClune TO, Ti l l o tson KM ( l 996). The natural history o f l ow back p a i n i n adolescents. S p i n e 2 1. 2 323-2328. Burton AK, Waddel l G , Til lotson KM, Summerton N ( 1 999). Information and advice to patients with back pain can have a positive effect. A randomised cOlllrolled trial o f a novel educational booklet in primary care. Spine 24.2484-249 1 . Bush K, Cowan N , Katz D E , G ishen P ( 1 992) The natural history o f scial ica ass o c i a t e d w i t h d isc p a t h o l ogy. A pro s p e c t i ve study w i t h c l i n i cal a n d independent radi ologic fol low-up . Spine 1 7 . 1 2 05-12 1 1 . Buswel l j ( 1 982). Low back pain : a comparison o f two treatmelll programmes. NZ j Physio 1 0. 1 3- 1 7 . Butler OS ( 199 1 ) . Mobilisation oj the Nervous System. Churchill Livingstone, Melboume. Bybee R, Mamantov j, Meekins W, Will j (200 1 ). Lumbar extension range of motion: a comparison of the effects o f McKenzie advocated brief, frequent, and repeated stretching to static stretching. Proceedings 7lh M c Kenzie I nstitute International Conference, 2 5 7- 2 6 5 . August 1 7- 1 9 , 2 00 1 , Ollawa. Cadoux-Hudson T (2000). Neoplasms o f the spine. In: Eds Bartley R , Coffey P
Management oJLow Bach Pail1 il1 Primary Care. BUllerworth Heinemann, Oxford. Cali n A , Fries j F (19 7 5 ) . Striking prevalence of ankylosing spondy l i ti S in "healthy" W27 positive males and females. New Engj Med 293.83 5-839. Calin A, Porta j , Fries jF, Schurman OJ ( 1 9 7 7 ) . C l inical history as a screening test for ankylosing spondy litis. J A MA 2 3 7 . 26 1 3-26 1 4 . Cali n A , E l swood j , Rigg S , Skevington S M ( 1 988) . Ankylosing spondyl i t iS - An analytical review of 1 500 patients: the changing pattern of disease. j Rheum 1 5 . 1 2 34- 1 23 8 . Cameron H U , Macnab I ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Observations o n O A o f t h e hip joint. C l i n Orth &: Rei Res 1 08 . 3 1 -40. Caretle S , Graham D , L i t t le H, Rubenstein J, Rosen P ( 1 983). The natural disease course of ankylosing spondylitis. Arth &: Rheum 2 6 . 1 86- 1 90. Carelte S , Marcoux S , Truchon R et al. (J 99 1 ) . A contro l led trial o f corticosleroid injections i n to facet joints for chronic low back pain . New Engj Med 325. 10021 00 7 .
� EFE R E N C ES
Carette S, Leclaire R, Marcoux S et al. ( 1 997). Epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica due to herniated nucleus pulposus. New E n g ) Med 3 36. 1 634- 1640. Carey TS, Garrett J , Jackman A, McLaugh l i n C, Fryer J, Smucker DR ( 1 995a) The outcomes and costs of care for acute low back pain among patients seen by primary care practitioners, c h i ropractors, and orthopaedic surgeons. New Eng ) Med 3 3 3 . 9 1 3-9 1 7 . Carey TS, Evans A, Hadler N, Kalsbeek W, McLaughl i n C, Fryer ) ( 1 995b). Care seeking among individuals with chronic low back pain. Spine 2 0. 3 1 2-3 1 7 . Carey TS, Evans AT, Hadler N M e t al. ( 1 996 ) . Acute severe low back pain. A population-based study of prevalence and care-seek ing. Spine 2 1 .3 39-344. Carey TS, Garrett JM, Jackman A et al. ( 1 999). Recurrence and care seeking after acute back pain. Results of a long-term follow-up study Medical Care 37. 1 57 - 1 64. Carey TS, Garrett J M ,Jackman AM (2000). Beyond the good prognosis. Examination of an inception cohort of patients with chronic low back pai n . Spine 2 5 . 1 1 5- 1 20. Carmichaelj P ( 1 987). l n ter- and intra-examiner reliability of palpation for sacroiliac joilll dysfunction . ) Manip Physio Thera 1 0 . 1 64- 1 7 1 . Carragee EJ ( 1 997). Pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis. )B)S 79A.874-880 . Carrico T) , Mehrhof AI , Cohen IK ( 1 984) Biology of wound heali ng. Surg C l i n i cs N t h Am 64.72 1 -7 3 3 . Carter ET, McKenna CH, Brian DO, Kurland LT ( 1 979). Epidemiology o f ankylosing spondy l i t is in Rochester, Minnesota, 1 93 5 - 1 9 7 3 . Arth &: Rheum 2 2 . 365-370. Carter JT, Bi rrel l L N ( e d i tors) (2000) . Occupa t iol1al health gLtidelil1 es Jor t h e
l11al1agel11el1t oj low back pail1 at work. Evidence review al1d recol11l11.endat ions. F aculty of Occupational Medicine, London. Carty G , Matyas T, Collis-Brown G ( 1 986) . A comparison o f the reliabil i ty o f manual tests of com pi iance usi ng accessory movements in peripheral and spinal j oints. (Abstract) Aus J Physio 32.68. Cassidy J D, Carroll LJ , Cote P ( 1 998). The Saskatchewan health and back pain survey The prevalence of low back pain and related disabi l i t y in Saskatchewan adults. Spine 2 3 . 1 860- 1 86 7 . Cavanaugh J M ( 1 995). Neural mechanisms of lumbar p a i n . S p i n e 2 0 . 1 804- 1 809. Cedraschi C, Robert ] , Goerg D , Perrin E , F ischer W, Vischer TL ( 1 999). I s ch ronic non-speCi fic low back pain chronic? Defi n i t i ons of a problem and problems of a definition. Br J GP 4 9 . 3 58-362 . Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T ( 1 99 7 ) . Shared decision-maki ng i n the medical encounter: What does it mean 7 (Or it takes at least two
to
tango). Soc Sci Med
44.68 1 -692. Charman RA ( 1 989) Pain theory and phYSiotherapy Physiotherapy 7 5 .247-254. Chavannes AW, Gubbels J , Post D , Rutten G , Thomas S ( 1 986). Acute low back pain: patients' perceptions of pain four weeks after i nitial diagnOSiS and treatment in general practice. ] Royal Coil GP 36.2 7 1 - 2 7 3 . Cherkin D C , MacCornack FA ( [ 989). Patient evaluations o f low back care from fami l y physicians and c h i ropractors. West J Med 1 50 .3 5 1 -3 5 5 .
1 305
306 1 R E F E R E N C E S
T H E L U M BA R S P I N E : M E C H A N I C A L D I AG N O S I S & T H E RA P Y
Cherkin D , Deyo RA , Berg AO ( 1 99 1 ) . Evaluation o f a physician education i ntervention to i m p rove primary care for low-back pain. 2 : I mpact on patients. Spine 1 6 . 1 1 7 3- 1 1 78. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA , Loeser ] D , Bush T, Waddell G ( 1 994a). An i nternational comparison of back surgery rates. Spine 1 9. 1 20 1 - 1 206 . Cherkin D C , Deyo RA , Wheeler K, C i o l M A ( 1 994b). Physician variation in diagnostic testing for low back pain. What you see is what you get. Anhl·itis &: Rheumatism 3 7 . 1 5- 2 2 . Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Street J H , Barlow W ( 1 996a) . Predicting poor outcomes for back pain seen in primary care using patients' own criteria. Spine 2 1 .2900-2907. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA , Street ] H , H um M , Barlow W ( 1 996b) . Pitfalls of patielll education. Limited success of a program for back pain in primary care. Spine 2 1 . 345-35 5 . Cherkin D C , Deyo RA, Battie M , Stree t J , Barlow W ( 1 998). A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipu lation , and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pai n. N EJ M 3 3 9 . 1 02 1 - 1 029. Choudhury A R, Tay l o r ] C ( 1 980). Cauda equina syndrome i n lumbar disc disease. Acta Orthop Scand 5 1 .493-49 9 . Cibulka M T , Delitto A , Koldehoff RM ( 1 988). Changes i n innominate t i l t after manipulation of the sacro i l iac j O i n t in patients with low back pai n. Phys Ther 68. 9 . 1 3 5 9 - 1 363 . Cibulka MT, Koldehoff R ( 1 999). Clinical usefulness of a cluster of sacro i l iac tests in patiems with and without low back pain. JOSPT 2 9 . 83-92. Ciul l o JV, Jackson DW ( 1 98 5 ) . Pars interarticularis stress reaction , spondylolysis, and spondylolisthesis i n gymnasts. Clin Sports Med 4 . 9 5- 1 09 . Clark S , Chritiansen A , H e ll man OF, H ugunin JW, H urst K M ( 1 999). Effects o f ipsilateral anterior thigh soft tissue stretching o n passive unilateral straight-leg raise. J OSPT 2 9 . 4-9. Cloward RB ( 1 95 2 ) . Anterior herniation of a ruptured lumbar intervertebral disc. A . M .A . Archives of Surgery 64.457-463. Cloward R B ( 1 9 5 9 ) . Cervical discography. A contribution to the aetiology and mechanism of neck, shoulder and arm pain. Ann Surg 1 50 . 1 052- 1 064. Cohen J E , Goel V, Frank JW, Bombardier C, Pelosos P, G u i l leman F ( 1 994). Group education i n terventions for people with low back pain. An overview of the l iterature. Spine 1 9 . 1 2 1 4- 1 22 2 . Colhoun E , McCall IW, Wil liams L , Cassar Pullicino VN ( 1 988). Provocation discography as a guide to plan n i ng operations on the spine. J BJ S 70B. 267 -27 1 . Col l i er B D , J ohnson R P, Carrera GF e t al. ( 1 98 5 ) . P a i n ful spondy l o l ysis o r spondylolisthesis studied by radiography a n d Single-photon emission computed tomography. Radiology 1 54 .207-2 1 1 . Comstock CP, Carragee EJ , O'Su l livan GS ( 1 994). Spondylolisthesis in the young athlete. Physician SportsMed 2 2 .39-46. Congeni J, McCu ll och J, Swanson K ( 1 99 7 ) . Lumbar spondylolysis. A sLUdy of natural progreSSion i n athletes. Am ] Spons Med 2 5 . 248-2 5 3 .
R . H E IU N C E S
Cooper RG, freemont AJ , Hoyland J A et al. ( 1 99 5 ) . Herniated i n tervertebral disc associated periradicular fibrosis and vascular abnormal i ties occur without in Oammatory cell infi l t ration. Spine 20 . 5 9 1 -598. Coppes MH, Marani E, Thomeer RTWM , Groen GJ ( 1 997). Innervation of "painful" lumbar d iscs. Spine 2 2 . 2342-2350. Corrigan B, Maitland GD ( 1 983). Pract ical Orthopaedic Medicine. Bulterworth Heinemann , Oxford. Cost e J , Delecoeuillerie G , Cohen de Lara A, Le Parc J M , Paolaggi J B ( 1 994). Clinical course and prognostic factors in acute low back pain : an inception cohort study in primary care practice . B MJ 308 . 57 7-580. Cousins M ( 1 994). Acute and postoperative pain . In: E ds Wal l P D , M e l zack R.
Textbook oJ Pain (3,01 ed). Churchi l l Livingstone, E d i nb urgh . Crock HV ( 1 970). A reappraisal of i ntervertebral disc lesions. M e d J Aus, May 983-989. Crock HV ( l 986). 1 nternal disc d isru ption . A challenge to disc prolapse fifty years on. Spine L 1 .650-653. Croft P, Papageorgiou A, Ferry S , Thomas E , Jayson M I V, S i l man AJ ( 1 9 9 6 ) . Psychologic d istress a n d low b a c k pain. Evidence from a prospective s t u d y i n t h e general population. S p i n e 20 . 2 7 3 1 -2 7 3 7 . Croft P, Papageorgiou A , M c N a l l y R ( 1 99 7 ) . Low Back Pain - Health Care Needs Assessl11ent Radc l i ffe Medical Press, Oxford.
Croft PR, Macfarlane GJ , Papageoorgiou AC, Thomas E, Silman AJ ( 1 998). Outcome of low back pain i n general practice: a prospective study BMJ 3 1 6 . 1 356- 1 3 5 9 . Croft P, Papageorgiou A, Thomas E , Macfarlane GJ , S i lman AJ ( 1 999). Short-term physical risk factors for new episodes of low back pain. Prospective evidence from the south Manchester back pain study Spine 24. 1 556- 1 56 1 . Crook J , Wei r R, Tunks E ( 1 989). An epidemiological fol low-up survey of persistent pain sufferers in a group fam i ly practice and speCiality pain clinic. Pain 36.49-6 1 . CSAG ( 1 994) Clin ical Standards AdviSOry Group: Back Pain. H M S O , London. Culler RB, Fishbain DA, Rosomoff HL, Abdel-Moty E , K ha l i l T M , Rosomoff RS ( 1 994). Does nonsurgical pain centre treatment o f chronic pain return patients to work! A review and meta-analysis of the l iterature . Spine 1 9 . 643-65 2 . CyriaxJ ( 1 982) Textbook oj Orthopaedic Medi.cine (8,h ed). Bailliere Tindall , London. Cyron BM, Hulton WC, Troup JDG ( 1 976) Spondylolytic fractures JBJS 58B.462-466. Cyron BM, Hulton WC ( 1 978). The fatigue strength of the l u mbar neural arch i n spondylolysis. J BJ S 60B . 2 3 4-238. Dalton M , Coutts A ( 1 994). The e ffect of age o n cervical posture i n a normal population. In BoylingJD, Palastanga N (Eds). Grieves Modern Manu.al Therapy (2nd ed). Church i l l Livingstone, Edinburgh . Damkot OK, Pope M H , Lord j , Frymoyer JW ( 1 984). The relationship between work h istory, work environment and l ow back pain in men. Spine 9 . 395-399. Danielsen J M , Johnsen R, Kibsgaard S K , Hellevik E (2000). Early aggressive exercise for postoperative rehab i l itation after discectomy. Spine 2 5 . 1 0 1 5- 1 02 0 .
1 307
308 1 R E F ER E NC E S
T H E L U M B A R S P I N E : M E C H AN I C A L D I AG NOS I S & T H E RAPY
Danielson B I , Frennered A K , Irstam LKH ( 1 99 1 ) . Radiologic progression of isthmic lumbar spon dylolisthesis i n young patients. Spine 1 6.422-42 5 . Davies J R , Gibson T, Tester L ( 1 979). T h e value of exercise i n t h e treatment o f low back pain. Rheumatol Rehab 1 8. 243-247. Davis P, Len t le BC ( 1 978). Evidence for sacroil iac disease as a common cause of low backache i n women. Lancet i i . 496-497 . de B i e RA , Verhagen AP, Lenssen A F et al. ( 1 998). Efficacy of 904nm laser therapy i n the management of musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. Phys Ther Rev 3 . 59-72 . Delaney PM, Hubka MJ ( 1 999). The diagnostic utility of McKenzie clinical assessment for lower back pain. J Manipulative &: Physiological Therapeutics 2 2 . 628-630. Delauche-Cavall i e r MC, Budet C, Laredo J D et al. ( 1 99 2 ) . Lumbar disc herniation. Computed tomography scan changes after conservative treatment of nerve root compression. Spine l 7 . 927-933 . Delillo A, Cibulka MT, Erhard R E , Bowling RW, Tenhula JA ( 1 993) Evidcnce for use of an extension-mobil isation category in acute low back syndrome: a prescriptive validation pilot study. Physical Therapy 7 3 . 2 1 6-228. DelillO A , Erhard R E , Bowling RW ( 1 995). A treatment-based classification approach to low back syndro m e : I d e n t i fying and staging patients for conservative treatment. Physical Therapy 7 5 .470-489. Derby R , Howard MW, Grant J M , Lett ice JJ , van Peteghem PK, Ryan DP ( 1 999). The a b i l i t y o f p ressure - c o n t ro l l e d d i s cography t o predict surgical and nonsurgical outcomes. Spine 24. 364-372. Dettori J R, Bul lock S H , Sutlive TG, Franklin RJ , Patience T ( 1 995). The e ffects of spinal l1exion and extension exercises and t heir associated postures in patients with caute low back pain. Spine 2 0 . 2 303-2 3 1 2 . Deutman R , Diercks R L , de Jong TEAM , van Woerden H H ( 1 99 5 ) . Isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis with sciatica: the role of the disc. Eur Spine J 4 . 1 36 - 1 38. Deville W Lj M , ven der Windt DAW M , Dzaferagic A, Bezemer PD, Bouter LM (2000). The test o f Lasegu e . Systematic review of the accuracy in diagnosing herniated discs. Spine 2 5 . 1 1 40- 1 1 47 . DeWald R L , Bridwell K H , Prodromas C, Rodts M F ( 1 98 5 ) . Reconstructive spinal surgery as palliation for metastatic mal ignancies of the spine. Spine 1 0. 2 1 -26. Deyo RA ( 1 982). Compliance with therapeutic regimens i n arthritis: Issues, current status, and a future agenda. Seminars in A n h &: Rheum 1 2 . 2 3 3-244. Deyo RA ( 1 98 3 ) . Conservative treatment for low back pain. Distinguishing useful from useless therapy. J A MA 2 5 0 . 1 057- 1 06 2 . Deyo RA, Diehl A K ( 1 986). Patient satisfaction with medical care for low-back pain. Spine 1 1 .28-30. Deyo RA , Tsu i-Wu YJ ( 1 987). Descriptive epidemiology of low-back pain and its related medical care in the U n i ted States. Spine 1 2 . 2 64-268. Deyo RA, D iehl A K ( 1 988a). Psychosocial predictors of disability in patiellls with low back pain. J Rheum 1 5 . 1 557- 1 564. Deyo RA, Diehl AK ( 1 988b). Cancer as a cause of back pai n : frequency, cl inical presentation, and diagnostic strategies. J Gen Int Med 3 . 2 30-238.
RE F E R E N C E S
Deyo RA, Loeser J D, Bigos SJ ( 1 990). H e rniated lumbar intervertebral disc. Ann l n t Med 1 1 2 . 598-603. Deyo RA, Rainv i l l e J, Kent DL ( 1 9 9 2 ) . What can the history and physical examination tell us about low back pain? J A M A 268. 760-765. Deyo RA ( 1 993). Practice variations, treatment fads, rising disab i l i ty. Spine 1 8 . 2 1 532 1 62 . Deyo RA ( 1 996) D rug therapy for back pain. Which drugs help which patients' Spine 2 1. 2840-2850. Dieck GS, Kelsey JI, Goel VK, Panjabi MM, Walter SD, Laprade MH ( 1 985) . An epidemiologic study o f the relationship between postural asymmetry i n the teen years and subsequent back and neck pain. Spine 1 0 . 872-877 . Dieppe P ( 1 995). Management of h i p osteoarthritis. BMJ 3 1 1 .853-85 3 . D i Fabio R P ( 1 992) Efficacy of manual therapy. Physical Therapy 7 2 . 8 5 3-864. Di Fabio RP ( 1 995). Efficacy of comprehensive rehabilitation programs and back school for patients with low back pain: a meta-analysis. Physical Therapy 7 5 . 865-878. Digby J M , Kcrsley J B ( 1 979). PyogeniC non-tuberculous spinal infection. An analysis of thirty cases. J BJ S 6 1 B .47-5 5 . D lHTA ( 1 999) Dan is/1 InstituteJor Health Technology Assessment: Low-Bach Pain.
Frequency, Management and Preven tionJrom an H TA perspective. Danish Health Technology Assessmen t . 1 ( I ) . Dillane J B , Fry J , Kalton G ( 1 966). Acute back syndrome - A study from general practice. BM] 2 .82-84. Dixon M , Sweeney K (2000). The Human EJJect in Medicine. Theory, Research and
Practice. Radcl i ffe Medical PI"eSS, Oxford. Dockrell S ( 1 988). An i nvestigation of the use of verbal and non-verbal communication skills by final-year physiotherapy students. Physiotherapy 7 4 . 5 2 - 5 5 . Dodd T ( 1 997). The Prevalence oJ Bach Pain i n G reat B ritain i n 1 996. The Stationery Office, London. Doita M , Kanatani T, Harada T, M izuno K ( 1 996). I mm unohistologic study of the ruptured intervertebral disc of the l umbar spin e . Spine 2 1 . 2 3 5-24 1 . D o lan P, Adams MA, H utton WC ( 1 988). Commonly adopted postures and their effect on the lumbar spine. Spine 13. 1 97-20 1. Dolan P ( 1 998) Associations between mechanical loading, spinal function and low back pain. In: Proceedings Third Interdisciplinary World Congress on Low Bach & Pelvic Pain , November, Vienna. Eds Vleem i ng A, Mooney V, Tilscher H, Donnan T, Snijders C.
Dolan P, Greenfield K, Ne lson RJ , Nelson lW (2000). Can exercise therapy i mprove the outcome of microdisceclOmy' Spine 2 5 . 1 523- 1 53 2 . Donahue MS, Riddle D L , Sullivan M S ( 1 996) I n t e nester reliability o f a modified version of M c Kenzie's lateral shift assessments obtained on patients with low back pain . Physical Therapy 76. 706-726. Donatelli R , Owens-Burkhart H ( 1 98 1 ) . Effects of immobilization o n the extenSibility of periarticular connective tissue . JOSPT 3 . 67-72 .
1 309
310 I R U E R E N C E S
T H E L U M BA R S P I N E : M E C H A N I C A L D I AG N O S I S & T H ERAPY
Donelson R, Silva G , Murphy K ( 1 990). Central i zation phenomenon. Its usefulness in evaluating and treating referred pain . Spine 1 5 . 2 1 1 - 2 1 3 . Donelson R , Grant W, Kamps C , Medcalf R ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Pain response t o sagital end-range spinal motion. A prospective, randomised, multicentered trial Spine 1 6. 5206-52 1 2 . D o n e l son R , A p r i l ! C , M e d c a l f R , G ra n t W ( 1 9 9 7 ) . A prospective s t u d y o f centra l ization of lumbar a n d referred p a i n . A predictor of sym ptomatic discs and annular competence. Spine 22 . 1 1 1 5- 1 1 22 . D o n Tigny RL ( 1 990) . Anterior dysfunction of t h e sacroi liac joint as a major factor i n t h e etiology of idiopathic l o w back pain syndrome. Physical Therapy 70.250-265. Don Tigny RL ( 1 99 7 ) . Mechanics and treatment of the sacro i l iac joint . I n : Eds Vleemi ng A , M ooney V, Dorman T, Snijders C, Stoeckart R. Movemel1 t, Stabi l ity
& Low Back Pail1. The Essential Role oj the Pelvis. Churchill Livingstone, New York. Dougados M, van del' Linden S,Juhlin R et al. ( 1 99 1 ). The European spondylarthropathy study group pre l im inary criteria for the classification of spondylart h ropathy. Arth & Rheum 34. 1 2 1 8 - 1 22 7 . Dreyer Sj , Dreyfuss P H ( 1996) Low back pain a n d t h e zygapophyseal (facet) joints. Arch Phys M e d Rehabil 7 7 . 2 90-300. Dreyfuss P, Dreyer 5, Griffin j, H o ffman j, Walsh N ( 1 994). Positive sacro i l iac screening tests in asymptomatic adults. Spine 1 9 . 1 0 . 11 38- 1 1 43 . Dreyfuss P, M i chaelsen M , Pauza K , McLarty j , Bogduk N ( 1 996). The value o f medical history a n d physical examination i n d i agnOSing sacroil iac jOint pai n. Spine 2 1 .2 2 . 2 594-2602 . D u b n e r R ( 1 99 1 ) . N euronal p l a s t i c i t y a n d p a i n fo l l o w i n g peripheral t issue in nammation or nerve i nj u ry. In Proceedil1gs oj the Sixt h World COl1gress 011 Pai n , Eds Bond M R, Charlton j E , Woo l f CJ . Elsevier Publishers BV Duggleby T, Kumar 5 ( 1 99 7 ) . Epidemiology of juveni l e low back pain : a review. D is & Rehab 1 9 . 5 0 5 - 5 1 2 . Dumas GA, Reid j G , Wolfe LA , Griffin M P, McGrath MJ ( 1 99 5 ) . Exercise, posture, and back pain during pregnancy. Pan 1 . Exercise and posture. Clin Biomech 1 0. 98- 1 0 3 . Dupuis P R , Yong-H i ng K , Cassidy j D , Kirkaldy-Wil l is W H ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Radiologic diagnosis of degenerative lumbar spinal i nstability. Spine 1 0. 2 62-276. Dvorak j, Gauchat MH, Valach L ( 1 988). The outcome of surgery for lumbar d isc herniation. 1 . A 4- 1 7 years' fol low-up with emphasis on somatic aspects. Spine 1 3 . 14 1 8- 1 42 2 . Dzioba R B , Doxey N C ( 1 984). A prospective investigation i n t o t h e orthopaedic and psychologiC p re di c tors o f outcome o f first l u m bar surgery fol lowing industrial injury. Spine 9 . 6 1 4- 6 2 3 . E d mondston Sj , Song 5, Bricknell RV et al. (2000). M R 1 evaluation of lumbar spine nexion and extension in asymptomatic ind ividuals. Manual Therapy 5 . 1 58- 1 64. Egan D , Col e j , Twomey L ( 1 996). The standing forward nexion test : An inaccurate determinant of sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Physio 8 2 . 4 . 2 36-242. Eisenstein SM, Ashton IK, Roberts 5 et af. ( 1 994). Innervation of the spondylolysis " ligament". Spine 1 9 . 9 1 2-9 1 6.
RE F E RE N C E S
Eklund JAE, Cori ell EN ( 1 987). Evaluation of spinal loads and chair design i n seated work tasks. Clin Biomech 2 . 2 7 - 3 3 . Ellenberg MR, Ross M L , Honet jC, Schwartz M , Chodoroff G , Enochs S ( 1 993). Prospect ive evaluation o f the course o f disc herniations i n patients with proven radiculopat hy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74. 3-8. E lnaggar 1M, Nordin M, Shei khzadeh A , Parnianpour M, Kahanovitz N ( 1 99 1 ). Effects of spinal Oexion and extension exercises on low-back pain and spinal mobil i t y in chronic mechanical low-back pain patients. Spine 1 6 . 967-9 7 2 . Ensink FBM , S a u r P M M , Frese K , Seeger D , H i l debrandt J ( 1 996). Lumbar range of motion: i n O uence of t ime of day and individual factors on measurements. Spine 2 1 . 1 33 9 - 1 343. Enwemeka CS ( 1 989). InOammation , cell ularity, and fibrillogenesis in regenerating tendon: i m p lications for tendon rehabil i tation. Physical Therapy 69.8 1 6-82 5 . Erhard R E , Delillo A, Cibulka MT ( 1 994). Relative e ffectiveness o f an extension program and a combined program of manipulation and Oexion and extension exercises in paLients with acute low back syndrome. Physical Therapy 74. 1 093-1 1 00. Evans G , Richards SH ( 1 996). Low Bach Pa i n : A n Evaluation oj Therapeut i c
lnlervent. ions. Un iversity of Bristol . Evans P ( 1 980). The healing process a t cellular leve l : a review. Physiotherapy 66.2 56259. Evans RB ( 1 989). Cl inical application of comro l led stress to t h e heal i ng extensor tendon: a review of 1 1 2 cases. Physical Therapy 69 . 1 04 1 - 1 049. Ezzo j, Berman B, H adhazy VA, Jadad AR, Lao L, Singh B B (2000). I s acupuncLUre effectivc for t he treatment of chronic pain? A systematiC review. Pain 86.2 1 7 -225. Faas A ( 1 996). Exercises: which ones are worth trying, for which patients, and when? Spine 2 1 . 2874-2879. Fahey V, Opeskin K, Silberstein M , Anderson R, Briggs C ( 1 998) The pathogenesis of Schmorls nodes in relation to acute trauma. An autopsy study. Spine 23.2272-2275. Fairbank jCT, Couper J, Davie s J B , O'Brie n J P ( 1 980). The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66. 2 7 1 -2 73 . Fairbank J CT, Park W M , McCa l l l W, O'Brien J P ( 1 98 1 ) . Apophyseal injection o f local anesthetic a s a diagnostic aid i n primary low-back pain syndromes. Spine 6. 598-605 . Fairbank jCT, Pynsent PB ( 1 992). Syndromes of back pain and their classification. In: Ed . J ayson M IV The Lumbar Spine and Bach Pain (4,h ed). Churchi l l Livingstone, Edinburgh. Falconer MA, Glascow GL, Cole DS ( 1 947). Sensory disturbances occurring i n sciatica d u e to intervertebral d isc protrusions: s o m e observations on t h e fifth lumbar and first sacral dermatomes. J Neuro l Neurosurg & Psychiat 1 0 . 72-84. Falconer MA, McGeorge M , Begg AC ( 1 948). Observations on the cause and mechanism of symptom-production in sciatica and low-back pain . J N eurol Neurosurg & Psych iat 1 1 . 1 3-26. Fanci u llacci F, Sandri S , Politi P, Zanol l o A ( 1 989) . C l inical , urodynam i c and neurophysiological findings i n patients with neuropathic bladder due to l u mbar intervertebral disc protrusio n . Paraplegia 2 7 . 354-358.
1 31 1
31 2 1 R E r ER E N C E S
T H E L U M Bi\ � S P I N E : M E C H A N I C A L D I AG N O S I S & T H E AA P V
fardon Of, M i lette PC, Faciszewski T et al. (200 1 ). NomenclaLUre and classification of l umbar disc pathology. Recommendations of the combined task forces of the N orth American Spine Society, Americal Society of Spine Radiology, and Americal Society of Neuroradiology. Spine 2 6 . E93- E 1l 3 . fast A , Shapiro D , Ducomunn EJ e t al. ( 1 987). Low-back pain i n pregnancy. Spine 1 2 . 368-37 1 . Fast A, Weiss L, Ducommun EJ, Medina E, ButlerJG ( 1 990). Low-back pain in pregnancy. Abdominal muscles, sit-up performance, and back pain . Spine 1 5 . 28-30. Feinstein B , Langton ]NK, Jameson RM, Schil ler F ( 1 954). Experiments on pain referred from deep somatic tissues. J BJS 36A.98 1 -997. Felson DT ( 1 988 ) . E pidemiology of h i p and knee osteoarthritis. Epidemiologic Reviews 1 0. 1 -2 8 . Fennell AJ , Jones Ap, H ukins DWL ( 1 996). M igration of t h e nucleus pul posus within the intervertebral d isc during flexion and extension of the spine. Spine 2 1 . 2 75 3 - 2 7 5 7 . F e rguson SA, M arras WS ( 1 99 7 ) . A l i te rat u re review o f l ow b a c k d i sorder surveillance measures and risk factors. C1in Biomech 1 2 . 2 1 1 -226. ferguson SA, Marras WS, Gupta P (2000). Longitudinal quantitative measures of the natural course o f l ow back pain recovery. Spine 2 5 . 1 950- 1 956. fernand R, Fox DE ( 1 98 5 ) . Evaluation o f lumbar lordosis. Spine 1 0 . 799-803. Fernstrom U ( 1 960). A discographical study of ruptured lumbar intel'vertebral discs. Acta C h i r Scand S258 . 1 -7 3 . find lay G F G ( 1 99 2 ) . Tumours of t he l umbar spine. I n : Ed. Jayson M I V Th e Lumbar
Spi n e and Bach Pain (4,h ed). Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh. Fitzpatrick RM, Bury M, frank AO, Donnelly T ( 1 987). Problems in the assessment of outcome in a back pain clinic. I n ternational Disability Studies 9 . 1 6 1 - 1 65. Floman Y (2000). Progression of lumbosacral isthmic spondylolisthesis in adul ts. Spine 2 5 , 342-347. Flor H, Fydrich T, Turk DC ( 1 99 2 ) . E fficacy o f multidiSCiplinary pain treatment centres: a meta-analytic review. Pain 49. 22 1 -230. Fordyce W E , Atkinson R E , Battie M et al. ( 1 99 5 ) . Bacll Pa i n in t he Workplace.
Management of Disab i l i ty in Nonspecific Condi.Uons. [ASP Press, Sea u l e . f o n i n J D , Dwyer AP, West S, P i e r J ( 1 994). Sacro i l iac j oint: Pain referral maps upon applying a new injection/arthrography technique. Pan 1 : Asymptomatic volunteers . Spine 1 9 . 1 3 . 1 475- 1 48 2 . Foster D , John 0, E lliott B , Ackland T , Fitch K ( 1 989). Back injuries to fast bowlers in cricket : a prospective study. Br J Spons Med 2 3 . 1 50- 1 54. Foster N E , Thompson KA, Baxter G D , Allen J M ( 1 999). Management of non-speCific low back pain by physiotherapists in Britain a n d I re l a n d . A descri ptive questionnaire of curre11l c l inical practice . Spine 24. 1 3 3 2 - 1 342. Fowler B, Oyekoya ° ( 1 99 5 ) . The therapeutic efficacy of McKenzie concept in the management of low back pain. Proceedings 1 2 t h Int ernational Congress of World Confederat ion for Physical Therapy. June 25-30, 1 99 5 , Washington DC, USA. Abstract 1 09 3 .
R. E F E R E N C E S
Frank C, Woo SLY, Amiel D, Harwood F, Gomez M , Akeson W ( 1 983). Medial collateral ligament healing. A m ul tidisciplinary assessment in rabbits. Am J Spons Med 1 1. 3 79-389. FrankJW, Kerr MS, Brooker AS et al. ( 1 996). Disabi l ity resulting from occupational low back pain. Part 1 : What do we know about primary prevention) A review of the scientific evidence on prevention before disability begins. Spine 2 1 .2908-29 1 7. Fraser R (200 1) Point of view. Spine 2 6 . 2 6 5 2 . Freburger J K, Riddle DL ( 1 999). Measurement o f sac o i liac j oint dysfunction : a multicenter i ntenester reliability study. Physical Therapy 79. 1 1 34- 1 1 4 1 . Freburger J K , Riddle D L (200 1 ) . Using published evidence to guide the examination of the sacroiliac joint region. Physical Therapy 8 1 . 1 1 35 - 1 1 43 . Fredrickson B E , Baker D , McHolick WJ , Yuan H A , Lubicky J P ( 1 984). The natural history of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. J BJ S 66A . 699-707. Freemont AJ , Peacock TE, Goupille P, Hoyland JA, O'Brien J , Jayson M IV ( 1 99 7 ) . Nerve in growth i n t o diseased intervertebral d i s c in chronic b a c k p a i n . Lancet 350. 1 78- 1 8 1 . Frennered AK, Danielson B l , Nachemson AL, Nordwall AB ( 1 9 9 1 ) . M i d term fol low up of young patients fused in situ for spondylolisthesis. Spine 1 6.409-4 1 6. Friberg 0 ( 1 983). Clinical symptoms and biomechanics of lumbar spine and hip joint in leg length inequality. Spine 8 .643-650. Friberg 0 ( 1 987). Lumbar instabi lity: a dynamiC approach by traction-compression radiography. Spine 1 2 . 1 1 9- 1 2 9 . Fries JW, Abodeely D A , ViJLlIlgCO J G , Yeager VL, Gaffey WR ( 1 982). Computed tomography o f herniated and extruded nucleus pulposus. J Computer Assisted Tomography 6.874-887 . Fritz J M , E rhard RE, Vignovic M ( 1 997). A nonsurgical treatment approach for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Physical Therapy 7 7 . 962-9 7 3 . Fritz J M , DelillO A, Welch W C , Erhard R E ( 1 998). Lumbar spinal stenosis: A review of current concepts in evaluation, management, and outcome measurements. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 79. 700-708. Fritz J M , George S (2000) The use of a classification approach to identify subgroups of patients with acute low back pain. Spine 2 5 . 1 0 6- 1 1 4 . FritzJ M , DelillO A, Vignovic M , Busse R G (2000a). Interrater reliability of judgements of the central ization phenomenon and status change during movement testing in patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 8 1 . 57-6 1 . Fritz J M , Wainner RS, Hicks G E (2000b) The use o f nonorganic signs and symptoms as a screening tool for return-to-work in patients with acute low back pain. Spine 2 5 . 1 9 2 5- 1 93 l . Fritz J M , George SZ, DelillO A (200 1 ) . The role of fear-avoidance beliefs in acute low back pain: relationships with current and future disability and work status. Pain 94. 7- 1 5 . Frost H , Klaber Moffetl JA, Moser J S , Fairbank J CT ( 1 99 5 ) . Randomised contro l le d trial for evaluation of fitness programme for patients with c h ronic low back pain. BMJ 3 1 0 . 1 5 1 - 1 54 .
1 31 3
31 4 1 R E F E R E N C E S
T H E L U M BA R S P I N E : M E C H A N I C A L D I AG N O S I S & T H E RA PY
Frost H , Lamb S E , K laber M offe t t J A , Fail-bank J CT, Moser ( 1 99 8 ) . A fitness p mgramme for patients with chronic low back pai n: 2-year fol l ow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Pain 7 5 . 2 73-279. Frymoyer Jw, Pope M H , Clements J H eL al. ( 1 983). Risk factors i n low-back pain. J BJ S 65A . 2 1 3 - 2 1 8 . F rymoyerJw, Newberg A , Pope M H , Wi lder DG, ClementsJ , MacPherson B ( 1 984) . Spine radiographs i n patients with low-back pain. J BJS 66A. I 048- 1 05 5 . Fuchioka M , Nakai 0, Yamaura 1, Ohkawa J ( 1 993). Perforating patterns of nucleus pul posus i n the lumbar d isc herniation. Mc Kenzie institu te (UK) Newsletter 1 . 3 . 3- 1 0. Funk D , Swank A M , Adams KJ , Treolo D (200 1 ) . E fficacy of moist heat pack appl ic a t i o n over static s t re tc h i n g on hamstring fl e x i b i l i ty. J S t rength & Conditioning Res 1 5 . 1 23 - 1 26. Gaines W G , Hegmann KT ( 1 999) . E ffecti veness of Waddell's nonorganic signs in predicting a delayed return to regular work i n palients experiencing acute occupational l ow back pain. Spine 24. 396-40 1 . G a l lagher J , d i Vad i PLP, Wedley J R e t al. ( 1 994) Rad iofrequency facet joint denervation in the treatment of low back pain : a prospective control led double blind study to assess i ts e fficacy. The Pain Clinic 7 . 1 9 3- 1 98 . Gam A N , Johannsen F ( 1 99 5 ) . U l t rasound therapy i n musculoskeletal disorders: a meta-analysis. Pain 63.85-9 1 . Gamsa A ( 1 990) . Is emotional disturbance a precipitator or a consequence of chmnic pain) Pain 42 . 1 83- 1 9 5 . Garfin S R , Rydevik B, Lind B, Massie J ( 1 99 5 ) . Spinal nerve root com lxession. Spine 20. 1 8 1 0- 1 820. Gatchel RJ , Polatin P B , Mayer TG ( 1 99 5 ) . The domi nant role o f psychosocial risk factors in the development of chronic low back pain disability. Spine 20.2702-2709. Gauvin M G , Riddle D L , Rothstein JM ( 1 990). Reliability of clinical measurements of forward bending using the modi fied finger-to-noor method. Physical Therapy 70.443-447. Gebhardt WA ( 1 994). Effectiveness of training to prevent job-re lated back pain: a meta-an a l ysis. Br J Clin Psychology 3 3 . 5 71 -574. Gelberman RH, Amiel 0 , Gonsalves M , Woo S , Akeson WH ( 1 98 1 ) . The i n n uence of protected passive mobilisation on the heal ing of nexor tendons: A biochemical and micoangiographic study. Br Soc for Surg Hand 1 3 . 1 20- 1 28. Gelberman G H , Woo SLY, Lothringer K, Akeson WH, Amiel 0 ( 1 982). Effects of early intermittent passive mobil isation on healing canine flexor tendons. J Hand Surg 4. 1 70- 1 7 5. Gertzbein SD, Koltby R, Ti l e M , Kapasou;-i A , Ci1an KW, Crui kshank B ( 1 984) . Determination of a locus of instantaneous centers of mtat i on of the lumbar disc by Moire fringes. Spine 9 . 409-4 1 3 . Gertzbein S O , Seligman J , Koltby R eL al. ( 1 98 5 ) . Cell l mde patterns and segmental instab i l i t y i n degenerative disc disease. Spine 1 0. 2 5 7-26 1 . Getty J ( 1 990). Lam inectomies. I n : The Lu mbar Spi l1 e. Eds We instein I N , Wiesel SW WB Saunders Company, P h i l idelphia.
RE F E RENCES
Gibson JNA, GI'ant IC, Waddell G ( 1 999) The Cochrane review or surgery ror lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Spine 24. 1 820- 1 83 2 . G irlord L ( 1 998a). T h e 'central' mechanisms. I n : E d . Girrord L. Topical Issues in Pain. N O I Press, Falmouth. Gi frord L ( 1 998b) Pai n , the tissues and the nervous system: A conceptual mode l . Physiotherapy 84.27-36. Gill K, Krag M H , Johnson G B , Haugh L D , Pope M H ( 1 988) Repeatab i l i t y or rour clin ical methods ror assessment or l umbar spinal mot i on . Spine 1 3 . 50 - 5 3 . G i l lan MGC, Ross j C , McLean l P, Porter R W ( 1 998) T h e natural history o [ t r u n k list, i ts associated disability and t h e influence of M c Kenzie managemen t . E u r Spin e J 7 . 480-483. Gleave J RW, M acfarlane R ( 1 990). Prognosis [or recovery or bladder runction rol lowing lumbar central disc prolapse Br j Neurosurg 4 . 205-2 1 0 . Goertz M N ( 1 990). Prognostic indicators ror acute low-back pai n . Spine l S . 1 307 - 1 3 1 0. Goldby L ( 1 995). A randomised controlled trial comparing the M c Kenzie method or mechanical diagnosis and therapy with a non-prescriptive exercise regime in the conservat ive treatment o[ chronic low back pai n . Proceedings 4th McKenzie
Institute I n l en1Cll ionai Conference, Cambridge, England, 1 6- 1 7 September 1 99 5 . Gonnella C, Paris SV, Kutner M ( 1 982). Reliabil i ty i n evaluating passive intervertebral mot ion. Physical Therapy 62.436-444 . Goodacre JA, Mander M , Dick WC ( 1 99 1) . Patients with ankylosing spondylitis show ind ividual patterns or variation in disease activity. BrJ Rheum 30. 336-338. Gordan SJ , Yang KH, Mayer PJ , Mace AH, Kish VL, Radin E L ( 1 99 1) . Mechanism o r d isc ru ptu re . A pre l i m inary report. Spine l 6.450-456. Gran JT ( 1 985). An epidemiological survey or the signs and symptoms of ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Rheum 4 . 1 6 1 - 1 69 . Gran JT, Husby G , H ordvik M ( 1 985). Prevalence or ankyl osing spondyli t i S i n males and remales i n a young middle-aged population o r Tromso, northern N orway. Ann Rheum Dis 44.359-367. Gray J A M ( 1 99 7 ) . Evidence-based Hea l t hcare. How 10 Make Health Policy and
Managemenl Decisions. Churchil l Livingstone, New York. G reene G (200 1 ) . ' Re d F lags ' : esse n t i a l factors in recogn i s i ng serious s p i n a l pathology. Manual Therapy 6 . 2 5 3 - 2 5 5 . Greenfield S , Anderson 1-'1 , Winickorr RN , M o rgan A, Komarorr AL ( 1 9 7 5 ) N u rse protocol management or low back pai n . Outcomes, patient satisraction, and efficiency or primary care. West ] Med 1 2 3 . 350-359. Grobler LJ , Novotny J E , Wilder D G , Frymoyer JW, Pope M H ( 1 994). L 4-5 isthmic spondylolisthesis. A biomechanical analysis comparing stability i n L 4-5 and L5-S l ist hmic spondylolisthesis. Spine 1 9 . 2 22 - 2 2 7 . Gronblad M , VilTi J , Tolonen J el a L ( 1 994). A control led immunohistochemical study or in flammatory cells in disc herniation tissue . Spine 1 9 . 2 744-2 7 5 1 . Grubb SA, Li pscomb HJ , Gui l rord WB ( 1 98 7 ) . The relative value or lumbar roentgenograms, metrizamide myelography, and discography i n the assessment or patieills with chronic low-back syndrome. Spine 1 2 . 282-286.
1 31 5
31 6 1 R E F E R E N C E S
T H E L U M BA R S P I N E : M E C H A N I C A L D I A G N O S I S & T H E RA PY
Grundy PF, Roberts C] ( 1 984). Does unequal leg length cause back pain? A case control study. Lancet i i . 2 56-25 8 . Hackett G J , Bundred P, Hutton ]L, O'Brien j , Stanley 1 M ( 1 993). Management of joint and soft tissue injuries i n 3 general practices: value of on-sile physiolherapy. B r ] General Practice 43.6 1 -64. Hadler N M ( 1 99 7) Back pain i n the workplace. Spine 2 2 . 9 35-940. Hagen KB, Thune 0 ( 1 998). Work incapacity from low back pain i n the general population. Spine 2 3 . 209 1 -209 5 . Hagen K B , H i l de G . Jamtvedt G , Winnem M F (2000). The Cochrane review of bed reSl for aCUle low back pain and sciatica. Spine 2 5 . 2932-2939. Haigh R , Clarke AK ( 1 999). E ffectiveness of rehabilitation for spinal pain . Clin Rehab l 3 . S 1 .63-8 1 . Haldeman S , Rubinstein S M ( 1 992). Cauda eqllina syndrome in patients undergoing manipulation of the lumbar spine. Spine 1 7 . 1 469- 1 4 7 3 . H a l l H , M c lntosh G , Wilson L, Melles T ( 1 998). Spontaneous onset o f back pai n . Clin j Pain 1 4 . 1 29- 1 33 . Hall j A , Dornan M C ( 1 988) . What patients l i ke about their medical care and how often are they aske d : A meta-analysis of the satisfaction literalure. Soc Sci Med 2 7 .935-939. Hall S , Bartleson JD, Onofrio B M e L al. ( 1 98 5 ) . Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical fealures, diagnostic procedures, and resulls of sllrgical lrealmel1l in 68 palients. Ann I n t Med 1 0 3 . 2 7 1 -2 7 5 . Hamanishi C, Kawabata T, Yosii T , Tanaka S ( 1 994). Schmorl's nodes o n magnelic resonance imaging. Their incidence and cli nical relevance. Spine 1 9 .450-45 3. Hampton 0 , Laros G, McCarron R, Franks 0 ( 1 989). Healing pOlel1lial of the anllills fibrosus. Spine 1 4 . 398-40 1 . Hanai F, Matsui N , Hongo N ( 1 996). Changes in response of wide dynamiC range neurons in the spinal dorsal horn after dorsal root or dorsal root ganglion compression. Spine 2 1 . 1 408- 1 4 1 5 . Hansson T, Bigos S , Beecher P, Wortley M ( 1 985). The lumbar lordosis i n acute and chroni c low-back pain. Spine 1 0 . 1 54- 1 5 5 . Harada Y , Nakahara S ( 1 989). A pathologic sllldy of lumbar d isc herniation in lhe e l derly. Spine 1 4 . 1 020- 1 024. Harada M , Abumi K , Ito M, Kaneda K (2000) . Cineradiographic motion analYSis of normal lumbar spine during forward and backward flexion. Spine 2 5 . 1 932- 1 937. Hardcastle P, Annear P, Foster DH eL al. ( 1 992). Spinal abnormalilies in young fast bowlers . J BJ S 74B.42 1 -4 2 5 . Hardcastle PH ( 1 993). Repair of spondylolysis in young fast bowlers. JBJS 75B.398-402. Hardy MA ( 1 989). The biology of scar formal ion . Physical Therapy 69 . ] 0 1 4- 1 024. Hardy GLH, Napier]K ( 1 99 1) . Inter and imralherapist reliability of passive accessory movement technique. NZ J Physio December 2 2-24. Harms M ( 1 990). E ffect of wheelchair design on postu re and comfort of users. Physiotherapy 76. 266-2 7 1 .
RU E RE N C E S
Harms-Ringdahl K ( 1 986) . On assessment of shoulder exercise and load-elicited pain in the cervical spine. Scand ] Rehab Med 5 1 4 . 1 -40. Harreby M, Hesselsoe G , Kje r J, Neergaard K ( 1 99 7 ) . Low back pain and physical exercise in leisure t ime i n 38-year-old men and women: a 2 5 -year prospective cohon study of 640 school chi ldren. Eur Spine J 6 . 1 8 1 - 1 8 6 . Harris I E , Weinste i n SL ( 1 987). Long-term follow-up o f patients w i t h grade- I l l and I V spondylolisthesis. ]B]S 69A.960-969. Harrison DO, H arrison SO, Croft AC, Harrison D E , Troyanovich SJ ( 1 999). Sitting biomechanics pan 1 : review of the l iteraLUre . ] Manip Physiological TherapeutiCS 2 2 . 594-609 . Harrison DO, Harrison SO, Croft AC, Harrison DE, Troyanovich 5] (2000). S it t i ng biomechanics part 2: Optimal car drivers seat and optimal driver's spinal model. J Manip PhYSiological Therape u tics 2 3 . 37-47. Hart LG, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC ( 1 99 5 ) . Physician office visits for low back pain. Spine 20. ll - 1 9 . Hanvigsen J , Bakketeig LS, Leboeuf-Yde C, Engberg M E , Lauritzen T (200 1 ) . The association between physical workload and low back pain clouded by the "healthy worker" e ffec t . Spine 2 6 . 1 788- 1 79 3 . Harvey Cj , Richenberg ]L, Sai fuddin A, Wol man RL ( 1 998). Pictorial review: The radiological investigation of l u mbar spondylolYSiS. Clin Rad 5 3 . 723-728. Hasenbring M , Marienfe l d G , Kuhlendahl D , Soyka D ( 1 994) Risk factors of chronicity in lumbar d isc patients. A prospective investigation of biologiC, psychologic, and social predictors of therapy outcome. Spine 1 9 . 2 7 59-2765 . Haswell K, Gilmo u r J ( 1 99 7 ) . Basic i nterviewing skills: how they are used by manipulative physiotherapists. N Z ] Physiotherapy August 1 1 - 1 4 . Hayes M A , Howard T C , Gruel C R , Kopta ]A ( 1 989). Roentenographic eval uation of lumbar spine [Jexion-extension i n asymptomatic individuals. Spine 1 4 .327-33 1 . Hazard R G , Reid 5 , H augh L D , M c Fa rlane G (2000). A controlled t rial o f an educational pamphlet to prevent disabi l i ty after occupational low back i nJUry. Spine 25 . 1 4 1 9- 1 4 2 3 . Hedman TP, F e rn i e G R ( 1 99 7 ) . Mechanical response o f the lumbar s p i n e to seated postural loads. Spine 2 2 . 734-743. Heggeness M, Esses 5 1 ( 1 99 1 ). Degenerative spinal stenosis. Current OrthopaediCS 5 . 1 1 9 - 1 24. Heiberg E, Aarseth SP ( 1 997). Epidemiology of pelvic pain and low back pain in pregnant women . I n : Eds Vleeming A, Mooney V, Dorman T, Snij ders C , Stoeckan R. Movel11 ent, Stability & Low Bad? Pain . The Essential Role oj the
Pelvis. Churchill Livingstone, New Yor k . Helbig T, Lee CK ( 1 988) The lumbar facet syndrome. S p i n e 1 3 . 6 1 -64. H elewa A, Goldsmi t h CH, Lee P, Smythe H A , Forwell L ( 1 999). Does strengthening the abdom inal muscles prevent low back pain - A randomised controlled trial . J Rheumatol 2 6 . 1 808- 1 8 1 5 . l-leliovaara M , Impivaara 0 , Sievers K, M e l kas T, Knekt P, Korp i ] , Aromaa A ( 1 987). Lumbar elise syndrome in Finland. J E p idem &: Comm Health 4 1 . 2 5 1 -2 5 8 .
1 31 7
31 8 1 R E F E I U N C E S
T H E L U M B A R S P I N E : M EC H A N I C A L D I A G N O S I S & T H E RA PY
Heliovaara M , Sievers K, Impivaara 0 et al. ( 1 989). Descriptive epidemiology and public health aspects of low back pain . Annals of Medicine 2 1 .327-333. H e lising AL, Linton SJ , Kalvemark M ( 1 994). A prospective study of patients with acute back and neck pain in Sweden . Physical Therapy 74. 1 1 6- 12 8 . Henricson AS, fredriksson K , Persson I , Pereira R , Rostedt Y, Westlin N E ( 1 984). The e ffect of heat and stretching on the range of hip motion. JOSPT 6. 1 1 0- 1 1 5 . Henry J L ( 1 989) . Concepts of pain sensation and its modulation. J Rheumatology Supp 1 9 . 1 6. 1 04- 1 1 2 . Hensinge r R N ( 1 989). Current concepts review Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in children and adults. J BJ S 7 1 A. 1 098- 1 1 07. Henson J, McCall I W, O'Brien J P ( 1 987). Disc damage above a spondylolisthesis. B r J Radi ology 60.69 - 7 2 . Herkowitz H N ( 1 995). Spine update Degenerative lumbar spondylol isthesis. Spine 20. 1 084- 1 090. Heszen- Klemens I , Lapinska E ( 1 984). Doctor-patient illleract ion, patiellls' health behavior and e ffects of treatme n t . Soc Sci Med 1 9 .9- 1 8. Hickey O S , H u k i n s OWL ( 1 980). Relation between the structure of the annulus fi brosus and the function and fail ure of the illlervenebral d isc. Spi ne 5 . 1 06- 1 1 6 .
H ilde G , Bo K ( 1 998). E ffect of exercise in t h e treatmelll of chronic low back pain : a systematic review, emphaSiSing type and dose of exercise. Phys Ther Rev 3. 1 07 - 1 1 7. H ill P ( 1 998). Fear-avoidance theories. I n : E d . Gi fford L. Topical Issues in Pai n . N O I Press, falmouth. H i l l m a n M, Wri ght A, Raj aratnam G, Ten nant A , Chambe rlain MA ( 1 996). Prevalence of low back pain in the community: implications for service provision in Bradford, U K . J E pidem Comm Health 5 0 . 347- 3 5 2 . H ilton RC, BaIl J , B e m m R T ( 1 976). Vertebral end-plate lesions (Schmorl's nodes) in the dorsolumbar spine. Ann Rheum Dis 3 5 . 1 2 7 - 1 3 2 . H i rsch C, Schaj owicz f ( 1 9 5 3 ) . Studies on structural changes i n lumbar anulus fibrosus. Acta Orth Scand 22 . 1 84-23 1 . H o ffman RM , Wheeler KJ , Deyo RA ( 1 99 3 ) . Surgery for herniated lumbar discs: a l i terature synthesis. J Gen l illern Med 8.487 -496. Hollenberg GM, Beattie PF, Meyers SP, Weinberg EP, Adams MJ (2002) Stress reactions of the l u mbar pars interarticularis. The development of a new MRI classification system. Spine 2 7 . 1 8 1 - 1 86 . Holmes M A M , Rudland J R ( 1 9 9 1 ) . C l inical trials o f u l t rasound treatment i n soft tissue i nj u ry: A review and critique. Physio Theory &: Practice 7 . 1 63- 1 75 . Hopayian K , M ugford M ( 1 99 9 ) . Con nicti ng conclusions from two systematic reviews of epidural steroid injections for sciatica: which evidence should general practitioners heed? Br J Gen PraCl 4 9 . 5 7 -6 1 . H oogendoorn WE, van Poppel M N M , Bongers P M , Koes BW, Bouter LM ( 1 999). Physical load during work and leisure t i me as risk factors for back pain. Scand J Wor k Environ Health 2 5 .387-403. H oogendoorn W E , Bongers PM, de Vet et al. (2000a). flexion and rotation of the trunk and l i ft i n g at work are risk factors for low back pain. Results of a prospective cohort study. Spine 2 5 . 3087-309 2 .
R U E R E N C ES
Hoogendoorn W E , van Poppel M N M , Bongers P M , Koes BW, Bouter LM (2000b). Systematic review of psychosocial factors at work and private l i fe as risk factors for back pain. Spine 2 5 . 2 1 1 4-2 1 25 . Honon WC, Oaftari T K ( 1 992). Which disc as visualised b y M R I i s actually a source of pain' A correlation between M R L and discography. Spine 1 7 . 5 1 64-5 1 7 1 . Howe J F, Loeser J O , Calvin W H ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Mechanosensitivity o f dorsal root ganglia and chronica l l y inj ured axons: a physiological basis for the radicular pain o f nerve root compressio n . Pain 3 . 2 5-4 l . Hsu KY, Zuchennan JF, Derby R, White AH, Goldthwaite N , Wynne G ( 1 988). Painful lumbar end-plate disruptions: a Significant discographic finding. Spine 1 3.76-78. Hubley CL, Kozey J W, Stanish W O ( 1 984). The e ffects of static stratching exercises and stationary cycling on range of motion at the hip joint. JOSPT 6. 1 04- 1 09 . Hunter G ( 1 994). Spec i fic soft tissue mobil isation i n t h e treatment o f soft t issue lesions. Physiotherapy 80. 1 5-2 1 . Huskisson EC ( 1 974). Measure me n t of pai n. Lancet 2 . 1 1 2 7- 1 1 3 l . I ndahl A, Velund L, Rei keraas 0 ( 1 995). Good prognosis for low back pain when l e ft untampered . Spine 20.473-477. Lndahl A, Haldorsen EH, H o l m 5, Reikeras 0 , U rsin H ( 1 998) Five-year fol low-up study of a contro l led clinical trial using l ight mobilisation and an i n formative approach lO low back pai n . Spine 2 3 . 2625-2630. Lnman VT, Saunders J BC M ( 1 947). Anatomicophysiological aspects of i nj u ries to t he intervertebral disc. J BJ S 2 9 . 46 1 -4 7 5 . Lto T, Takano Y , Yuasa N (200 1 ) . Types of lumbar herniated disc a n d clinical course. Spine 26.648-65 1 . Lversen M O , KatzJN (200 1 ) . Examination findings and self-reported walking capacity in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Physical Therapy 8 1 . 1 296- 1 306. Jackson OW, Wiltse LL, Crincione RJ ( 1 976) Spondylolysis i n the female gymnast. Clin Orth &: Rei Res 1 1 7 .68-73. Jackson OW ( 1 979). Low back pain in young athletes: evaluation of stress reaction and discogenic problems. Am J Spons M ed 7 . 364-366. Jackson RP, G lah JJ ( 1 987). Foram inal and extraforaminal lu mbar disc herniation: diagnOSiS and treatment. Spine 1 2 . 577-585. Jackson RP, Jacobs RR, Montesano PX ( 1 988) . Facet j oi n t injection i n low-back pain. A prospective statistical study. Spine 1 3 . 966-97 1 . Jackson RP, McManus AC ( 1 994). RadiographiC analysis of sagital p lane alignment and balance in standing volunteers and patients with low back pain matched for age, sex, and size. A prospective controlled clinical study. Spine 1 9 . 1 6 1 1 - 1 6 1 8 . Jadad A R , McQuay HJ ( 1 99 3 ) . The measurement of pain. I n Outcome Measures i n
Orthopaedics. Eds Pynsent PB, Fairbank J CT, Carr A . Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. J affray D, O'Brien JP ( 1 986) . Lsolated intervertebral disc resorption . A source of mechanical and inflammatory back pain' Spine 1 1 .397-40 1 . Jason H ( 1 99 7 ) . Manual skills and good J u dgement are vital but insufficient: clinicians must also be e ffective educators. J Manual &: Manip Therapy 5 . 1 78 .
1 31 9
320
I R E F E RE N C E S
T H E L U M BA R S P I N E : M EC H A N I C A L D I A G N OS I S & TH E RA PY
Jellema P, van Tulder MW, van Poppel MNM, Nachemson AL, Bouter LM (200 1 ). Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain. A systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review G roup. Spine 26.377 -386. Jenis LG, An H S (2000). Spine U pdate. Lumbar foraminal stenosis. Spine 2 5 . 389-394. Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki M N , Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Mal kasian D, Ross J S ( 1 994). Magnetic resonance imaging of t h e lumbar spine in people without back pain. N EJ M 3 3 1 . 69-73. Jensen M P, Turner JA , Romano J M , Karoly P ( 1 99 ] ). Coping with chronic pain: a critical review of the l i terature. Pain 47. 249-283. Jette AM, Smith K, Haley S M , Davis KD ( 1 994). Physical therapy episodes of care for patients with low back pain . Physical Therapy 74. 1 0 1 - 1 1 5 . Jette M A , Delillo A ( 1 99 7 ) . Physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal impairments. Physical Therapy 7 7 . 1 45 - 1 54. J inkins J R, Whillemore AR, Bradley WG ( 1 989). The anatomic basis of venebrogenic pain and the aULOnomic syndrome associated with lumbar disc extrusion. AJ R 1 52 . 1 277- 1 289. J ohnson M l ( 1 99 7 ) . The physiology of the sensory di mensions of c l i n ical pain . Physiotherapy 8 3 . 5 2 6-536. Johnson RJ ( 1 99 3 ) . Low-back pain i n spons. Managing spondylolysis in young patients. Physician &: Sporlsmed 2 1 . 5 3 - 5 9 . Johnsson K E , U den A , Rosen 1 ( 1 99 1 ) . T h e e ffect of decompression on t h e natural course of spi nal stenosis. A comparison of surgically treated and untreated patients. Spine 1 6. 6 1 5-6 1 9 . Johnsson KE, Rosen 1 , U den A ( 1 99 2 ) . The natural course o f lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Onh &: Rei Res 279.82-86. Johnsson KE ( 1 99 5 ) . Lumbar spi nal stenosis. Acta Onhop Scand 66.403-405. Jones M, Butler D ( 1 99 1 ). Clinical reasoning. In: Butler DS, Mobilisat iol1 of t he
Nel"vous Syst e m . Churchill LivingsLOne, Me lbourne . J o nes M, Christensen N , Carr J ( 1 994). Clinical reason ing in onhopaedic manual therapy. I n : E d . Grant R. Physical Therapy of the Cervical al1d Thoracic Spi l1e
(2I1d). Churchill LivingsLOne, N ew York. Jones MA ( 1 992). Clinical reasoning in manual therapy. Physical Therapy 72.875-884. J o nsson B, Stromqvist B ( 1 993). SympLOms and signs in degeneration of the lumbar spine. J BJ S 7 5 B . 38 1 -3 8 5 . J onsson B , Stromqvist B ( 1 996). N e u rologic signs i n lumbar d i sc herniation . Preoperative a rn iclion and posLOperative recovery in 1 50 cases. Acta Onhop Scand 67 .466-469. J o nsson B, S t ro m q v i s t B ( l 9 9 6 b ) . C l i n i c a l a p p ea l"a n c e of c o n t a i n e d and noncontained lumbar dsic herniations. J Spinal Disorders 9 . 32-38. J o nsson B , Annertz M , Sj oberg C , S t romqvist B ( 1 9 9 7 a ) . A prospective and consecutive study of surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis. Pan i: Clinical features related to radiographic findings. Spine 2 2 . 2932-29 3 7 . J onsson B , Annenz M , Sj oberg C , S t romqvist B ( l 9 9 7 b ) . A prospect ive and consecutive study o f surgically treated l umbar spinal stenosis. Pan ii: Five-year follow-up by an independent observer Spine 2 2 . 29 38-2944.
RE F E RE N C E S
Jonsson B , Johnsson R, Stromqvist B ( 1 998). Contained and noncontained l umbar disc herniation in the same patient. Two case reports. Spine 2 3 . 2 77-280. Jorring K ( 1 980). Osteoarthritis of the hip. Acta Orthop Scand 5 1 . 523-530. J u l l G , Bogduk N, Marsland A ( 1 988). The accuracy o f manual diagnosis for zygapophysial joint pain syndromes. Med J Aus 1 48 . 233-236. Kaapa E , Han X, Holm S , Peltonen J, Takala T, Vanharanta H ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Collagen syntheSiS and types I, I l l , lV, and VI collagens i n an animal model o f disc degenerat ion. Spine 2 0 . 59-67. Kadish LJ , Simmons E H ( 1 984). Anomalies of the l u m bosacral nerve roots. An anatomical investigation and myelographic study. J BJ S 66B . 4 1 1 - 4 1 6 . Kaneda K , Satoh S , Nohara Y , Oguma T ( 1 98 5 ) . Distraction rod instrumentation with posterolateral fusion i n isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine 1 0. 383-389. Karas BE, Conrad KM ( 1 996)
Back inj ury p revention i n terventi o n s i n the
workplace. An integrative review. AAOHN 44. 1 89- 1 96. Karas R , M c i ntosh G , Hall H, Wi lson L, M e lles T ( 1 997). The relationship between nonorganic signs and celllralization of symptoms in the prediction of return to work for patients with low back pain . Physical Therapy 7 7 . 3 54-360. Karppinen J, Mal mivaara A , Kurunlahti M et al. (200 1 a) . Peri radicular i n fi l t ration [or sciatica. A randomized controlled trial. Spine 2 6 . 1 059- 1 06 7 . Karppinen J , O h i n maa A , Malmivaara A et a l . (200 1 b ) . Cost e ffectiveness o f peri rad icular i n fi ltration for sciatica. Subgroup analysis o f a randomized control led trial . Spine 2 6 . 2 587-2 5 9 5 . Katz J N , Lipson SJ , Larson M G , M c lnnes J M , Fossel A H , Liang M H ( 1 99 1 ) The outcome of decompressive laminectomy [or degenerative lumbar stenosis. J BJ S 73A809-8 1 6. Katz I N , Dalgas M, Stucki G e/ al. ( 1 99 5 ) . Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Diagnos t i C value of t he h i st o ry and physical e x a m i n at i o n . A r t h r i t i s & Rheumatism 38. 1 236- 1 24 1 . Katz J N , Lipson SJ , Chang LC, Levine SA, Fossel A H , Liang M H ( 1 996). Seven to l O-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2 1 . 92-98. Kay MA, Helcwa A ( 1 994) The e ffects of M a i t land and McKenzie techniques in the musculoskeletal management of low back pai n : a p i lot study Physical Therapy 74. 5S.559 (abstract). Keegan JJ ( 1 9 5 3 ) . Alterations of the lumbar curve related to posture and seating. J BJ S 35A 589-603. Keim HA, Reina EG ( 1 975). Osteoid-osteoma as a cause of scoliosis. J BJS 57A 1 59- 1 63 . Kellgre n J H ( 1 939). On t h e distribution of pain arising from deep segmental somatic structures with chans of segmental pain areas. Clin Sci 4 . 3 5-46. Kellgren J H ( 1 977). The anatomical source of back pain . Rheum & Rehab 1 6 . 3- 1 2 . Kelsey J L ( 1 975). An epidemiological study o f acute herniated l umbar i n tervertebral discs. Rheumatology & Rehabi litation 1 4. 1 44- 1 59 . Kelsey JL, Githens PB, White A A et al. ( 1 984a) . An epidemiological study o[ l i ft i ng and twisting on the job and risk [or acute prolapsed lumbar i ntervertebral disc. J Onhop Res 2 . 6 1 -66.
1 321
322 1 R E F E R E N C E S
T H E L U M BA R S P I N E : M EC H A N I C A L D I AG N O S I S & T H E RA I'Y
Kelsey]L, Githens P B , O'Connor T ( 1 984b) Acute prolapsed l umbar intervertebral disc . An epidemiological study with special reference to driving automobiles and cigarette smoking. Spine 9 . 608-6 1 3 . Kendall N , Watson P (2000) l dentifying psychosocial yellow flags and modifying management. In: Ed. Gifford L. Topical Issues in Pain 2. Biopsydwsocia/ Assessment
and Management. Physiotherapy Pain Association, CNS Press, U K . Kendall P H , ]enkins ] M ( 1 968). Exercises for backache: A double-bl ind controlled trial Physiotherapy 5 4 . 1 54- 1 57 . Kent D L , Haynor D R , Larson E B , Deyo RA ( 1 99 2 ) . Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis in adults: a metaanalysis of the accuracy of CT, M R, and myelography. AJ R 1 58 . 1 1 3 5 - 1 1 44. Key]A, Ford LT ( 1 948). Experimental intervertebral disc lesions. ] BJS 30A.62 1 -630. Khu[fash B, Porter RW ( 1 989) Cross leg pain and trunk list . Spi ne 1 4.602-603. Kilby J , Stigant M, Roberts A ( 1 990) The reliability of back pain assessment by physiotherapists, using a 'McKenzie algorit h m ' . Physiot herapy 76. 579-583. Kilpi koski S , Airaksinen 0, Kankaanpaa M , Lem i nen P, Videman T, Alcn M (2002) I n ter-tester reliability o f low back pain assessment using the McKenzie method. Spine 2 7 . E207-E2 1 4 . Kje l lby-Wendt G , Styf J ( 1 998). E a rl y active t raining after l umbar discectomy. A prospective, randomised , and control led study. Spine 2 3 . 2 345-2 35 1 . Klaber Moffe t t ] A , Richardson P H ( 1 99 5 ) . The i n fluence o f psychological variables on the development and perception o f musculoskeletal pai n . Physio Theory &: Pract 1 1 . 3- 1 1 . Klaber Moffett J , Richardson G , Sheldon TA, Maynard A ( 1 99 5 ) . Back Pain: its
Management and Cost to SOCiety . NHS Centre for Reviews and Disseminatio n , U n i versity of York. Klapow J C , Slater MA, Patterson TL, Doctor IN, Atkinson J H , Garfi n SR ( 1 993). An em pirical evaluation o f multidimensional clinical outcome i n chronic low back pain patients. Pain 5 5 . 1 07- 1 1 8 . Klenerman L , Slade P O , Stanley 1M et a l . ( 1 995). The predication of chronicity i n patients w i t h an acute attack of l o w back pain in a general practice selling. Spine 2 0 . 4 78-484. K n u tsson B, L i n d h K, Tel hag H ( 1 966) . S i t t i n g - an e lectromyographic and mechanical study. Acta Orthop Scand 3 7 . 4 1 5-428. Koes BW, Bouter L M , Beckerman H , van der Heijden G] M G , Kni pschi l d PG ( 1 99 1 ) . Physiotherapy exercises and back pai n : a blinded review BM] 302 . 1 572- 1 5 76. Koes BW, van Tulder MW, van der Windt D AWM , Bouter LM ( 1 994). The efficacy of back schools: a review of randomized clinical trials. ] Clin Epidem 47.85 1 -862 . Koes BW, Scholten R]PM , M e ns ] MA, Bouter LM ( 1 995). Efficacy of epidural steroid i nj ections for low back pain and sciatica: a systematic review of randol1lised clinical trials. Pain 6 3 . 2 79-288. Koes BW, van den H o ogen ( 1 994). Efficacy o f bed rest and orthosis of low-back pain. A review of randomised clinical trials. E u r ] Phys Med Rehabil 4.86-93. Koes BW, Assendelft W]] , van der H e iJ d e n G]M G , Bouter LM ( 1 996) Spi nal mani pulation for low back pai n . An updated systematic review o f randomized clinical trials. Spine 2 1 . 2860-2873 .
R E F E RE N C E S
Koes BW, Scholten RjP M , Mens j M A , Bouter LM ( 1 99 7 ) . E fficacay of N SA l Ds for low back pain : a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis 56. 2 1 4- 2 2 3 . I