scholarly journals Preliminary validity study comparing the prone lumbar hypermobility test against the prone instability test*

2021 ◽  
pp. 397-414
Author(s):  
Gordon Lawson ◽  
David Gryfe

Abstract: Objective: The Prone Instability Test (PIT) is an established orthopaedic test that predicts the probability of low back pain patients responding positively to a spinal stabilization program (.71 sensitivity, .57 specificity for PIT). This preliminary study suggests the Prone Lumbar Hypermobility Test (PLHT) as an effective alternative to the PIT that is more suitable for a wider population due to the modified patient positioning. In contrast to the PIT, the PLHT has the patient's entire body supported by the examination table. This is hypothesized to maximize patient comfort while still maintaining clinical effectiveness for the chronic low back pain population. The purpose of this preliminary study is to determine whether the PLHT is comparable to the PIT in diagnostic effectiveness when predicting the benefits of stabilization interventions. Methods: To compare the clinical effectiveness of the PLHT to the PIT, each subject underwent parts I and II (relaxed and contracted) of each test (PIT and PLHT). 36 subjects received both parts of PIT and PLHT (in a randomized order). Subjects assumed each of the four positions and 4 kg/cm2 of pressure was applied directly on the skin over the L4 spinous process, using an algometer. The subjects verbally indicated perceived pain following each of the 4 positions. Results: Of the 36 participants included in the study, 23 participants had a negative PIT and a negative PLHT and six had a positive PIT and a positive PLHT. Three participants had a positive PIT and negative PLHT and four had a positive PLHT and negative PIT. This indicates that the PIT and PLHT have a statistically significant level of agreement. Conclusions: This study found that the PLHT is valid in identifying negative results in the predicted negative population, as well as positive results in the predicted positive population. For future investigations, a larger sample size is advantageous - particularly with an evenly distributed and accurate sample of positive and negative participants. This will more accurately determine the validity of the PLHT and broaden the application of the PLHT to the population for which the test is aimed to identify in clinical practice. 

Syntax Idea ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (11) ◽  
pp. 2335
Author(s):  
Evan Filemon ◽  
Gerry Silaban ◽  
Nurmaini Nurmaini

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common health complaints in the community. About 80 percent of adults have experienced this condition. This research is a quantitative research with a cross sectional approach. The study was conducted at the Ulos Sianipar Gallery onAugust 2021. The population in this study were all weavers who worked at the Ulos Sianipar Gallery Medan as many as 54 people by using the slovin formula obtained sample of 48 people. Data was collected through a questionnaire, specifically for work attitudes with the Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) method, carried out with the help of cameras, bows and worksheets. The results showed that individual factors: age (p=0.003), body mass index (p=0.044) and length of work (p=0.022); work environment factors: work duration (p=0.020) and rest time (p=0.018); and work factors: workload (p=0.001) and work attitude (p=0.001) have a relationship with LBP on weavers at Galeri Ulos Sianipar Medan. It is recommended for business owners to adjust the position of the thread on the weaving machine to the sitting position of the worker so that it does not require the worker to raise his hand higher, the weaver is advised to reduce or avoid awkward postures such as bending over which can cause muscle fatigue due to frequent or repetitive weaving.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Payman Dadkhah ◽  
Masoud Hashemi ◽  
Babak Gharaei ◽  
Mohammad Hassan Bigdeli ◽  
Ali Solhpour

Abstract Introduction Low back pain after spinal anesthesia is of concern in lithotomy position. During our study, low back pain in both midline and paramedian approaches after spinal anesthesia in lithotomy position was compared. Material and methods Spinal anesthesia was performed by two approaches of midline and paramedian by an expert. The midline at middle line and paramedian at 1 cm inferior and 1 cm lateral to the spinous process performed with the needle type of Quincke 25G. The severity of back pain in patients was measured with numerical rating scale method by an anesthesiology assistant 24 and 72 h and a week after surgery. Results A total of 139 patients were studied. After 24 h, back pain in the midline group was 21% and in the paramedian group was 25.4%, respectively. There were no significant differences between them. In the first 24 h, the only significant variable was the number of tries. In patients with ≥ 2 times of tries for performing spinal anesthesia, multivariate analysis of patients showed back pain to be 4.7 times more common compared to single try (OR 4.70, CI 1.79–10.18; p = 0.001). Conclusion There were no significant differences between the two methods of midline and paramedian approaches after spinal anesthesia in the incidence of back pain. However, two or more times of tries compared with one time try had increased risk of low back pain.


2007 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 270-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naohisa Miyakoshi ◽  
Yoichi Shimada ◽  
Yuji Kasukawa ◽  
Hidetomo Saito ◽  
Hiroyuki Kodama ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (74) ◽  
pp. 1-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saowarat Snidvongs ◽  
Rod S Taylor ◽  
Alia Ahmad ◽  
Simon Thomson ◽  
Manohar Sharma ◽  
...  

BackgroundPain of lumbar facet-joint origin is a common cause of low back pain in adults and may lead to chronic pain and disability, with associated health and socioeconomic implications. The socioeconomic burden includes an inability to return to work resulting in loss of productivity in addition to direct and indirect health-care utilisation costs. Lumbar facet-joints are paired synovial joints between the superior and inferior articular processes of consecutive lumbar vertebrae and between the fifth lumbar vertebra and the sacrum. Facet-joint pain is defined as pain that arises from any structure that is part of the facet-joints, including the fibrous capsule, synovial membrane, hyaline cartilage and bone. This pain may be treated by intra-articular injections with local anaesthetic and steroid, although this treatment is not standardised. At present, there is no definitive research to support the use of targeted lumbar facet-joint injections to manage this pain. Because of the lack of high-quality, robust clinical evidence, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on the management of chronic low back pain [NICE.Low Back Pain in Adults: Early Management. Clinical guideline (CG88). London: NICE; 2009] did not recommend the use of spinal injections despite their perceived potential to reduce pain intensity and improve rehabilitation, with NICE calling for further research to be undertaken. The updated guidelines [NICE.Low Back Pain and Sciatica in Over 16s: Assessment and Management. NICE guideline (NG59). London: NICE; 2016] again do not recommend the use of spinal injections.ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility of carrying out a definitive study to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lumbar facet-joint injections compared with a sham procedure in patients with non-specific low back pain of > 3 months’ duration.DesignBlinded parallel two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial.SettingInitially planned as a multicentre study involving three NHS trusts in the UK, recruitment took place in the pain and spinal orthopaedic clinics at Barts Health NHS Trust only.ParticipantsAdult patients referred by their GP to the specialist clinics with non-specific low back pain of at least 3 months’ duration despite NICE-recommended best non-invasive care (education and one of a physical exercise programme, acupuncture or manual therapy). Patients who had already received lumbar facet-joint injections or who had had previous back surgery were excluded.InterventionsParticipants who had a positive result following a diagnostic test (single medial branch nerve blocks) were randomised and blinded to receive either intra-articular lumbar facet-joint injections with steroids (intervention group) or a sham procedure (control group). All participants were invited to attend a group-based combined physical and psychological (CPP) programme.Main outcome measuresIn addition to the primary outcome of feasibility, questionnaires were used to assess a range of pain-related (including the Brief Pain Inventory and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire version 2) and disability-related (including the EuroQol-5 Dimensions five-level version and Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire) issues. Health-care utilisation and cost data were also assessed. The questionnaire visits took place at baseline and at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months post randomisation. The outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation groups.ResultsOf 628 participants screened for eligibility, nine were randomised to receive the study intervention (intervention group,n = 5; sham group,n = 4), six completed the CPP programme and eight completed the study.LimitationsFailure to achieve our expected recruitment targets led to early closure of the study by the funder.ConclusionsBecause of the small number of participants recruited to the study, we were unable to draw any conclusions about the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of intra-articular lumbar facet-joint injections in the management of non-specific low back pain. Although we did not achieve the target recruitment rate from the pain clinics, we demonstrated our ability to develop a robust study protocol and deliver the intended interventions safely to all nine randomised participants, thus addressing many of the feasibility objectives.Future workStronger collaborations with primary care may improve the recruitment of patients earlier in their pain trajectory who are suitable for inclusion in a future trial.Trial registrationEudraCT 2014-003187-20 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12191542.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document