Positional changes in lumbar disc herniation during standing or lumbar extension: a cross-sectional weight-bearing MRI study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate biomechanical changes in lumbar disc herniations. METHODS: Patients with lumbar disc herniation verified on a 1.5-3-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner were imaged in a weight-bearing 0.25-T MRI scanner in (1) standing position, (2) conventional supine position with relative lumbar flexion, and (3) supine position with a forced lumbar extension by adding a lumbar pillow. The L2-S1 lordosis angle, the disc cross-sectional area, the disc cross-sectional diameter, and the spinal canal cross-sectional diameter were measured for each position. Disc degeneration and nerve root compression were graded, and the pain intensity was reported during each scan position. RESULTS: Forty-three herniated discs in 37 patients (36.7 ± 11.9 years) were analyzed in each position. The L2-S1 lumbar angle increased in the standing position (mean difference [MD]: 5.61°, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 3.44 to 7.78) and with the lumbar pillow in the supine position (MD: 14.63°, 95% CI: 11.71 to 17.57), both compared with the conventional supine position. The herniated disc cross-sectional area and diameter increased during standing compared with during conventional supine position. No changes were found in the spinal canal cross-sectional diameter between positions. Higher nerve root compression grades for paracentral herniations were found during standing compared with during conventional supine position. This was neither found with a lumbar pillow nor for central herniations in any position compared with conventional supine. CONCLUSION: Disc herniations displayed dynamic behavior with morphological changes in the standing position, leading to higher nerve root compression grades for paracentral herniated discs. KEY POINTS: • Lumbar herniated discs increased in size in the axial plane during standing. • Increased nerve root compression grades for paracentral herniated discs were found during standing. • Weight-bearing MRI may increase the diagnostic sensitivity of nerve root compression in lumbar disc herniations.

Early Occupational Intervention for People with Low Back Pain in Physically Demanding Jobs: 1-year Follow-up Results of the Randomized Controlled GOBACK Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow up. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess whether people with low back pain (LBP) and self-reported physically demanding jobs, benefit from an occupational medicine intervention, in addition to a single hospital consultation and a magnetic resonance imaging, at 1 year of follow-up. Secondly, to examine whether the positive health effects, found in both groups at 6 months, persist at 1-year follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The prevalence of LBP is high in the working population, resulting in a substantial social and economic burden. Although there are many guidelines available on the management of LBP, including multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation, they provide limited guidance on the occupational medicine aspects. METHODS: As reported previously, 305 participants with LBP and self-reported physically demanding jobs were enrolled in the randomized controlled study and randomly allocated to clinical care with additional occupational medicine intervention or clinical care alone. Data were collected at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year. Outcomes included in the present 1-year follow-up study are changes in neuropathic pain (painDETECT questionnaire), severity of pain (0-10 numerical rating scale), disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), fear-avoidance beliefs (FABQ), physical, and mental quality of life (short-form 36). RESULTS: The study showed no effect of an occupational intervention on neuropathic pain, fear-avoidance beliefs, physical and mental quality of life nor disability measured after 1 year. The positive effects found at 6 months in both groups, remained at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that a thorough clinical consultation, with focus on explaining the cause of pain and instructions to stay active, can promote long-lasting physical and mental health in individuals with LBP. Therefore, additional occupational interventions could focus on altering occupational obstacles on a structural level.Level of Evidence: 2.

Weight-bearing MRI of the Lumbar Spine: Technical Aspects.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has an established role in the assessment of degenerative musculoskeletal conditions. However, conventional supine MRI findings often correlate poorly with clinical findings. Some patients experience accentuated back pain in the weight-bearing position. Therefore, supine MRI may underestimate the severity of degenerative spine findings. To try and improve the clinical validity of spine imaging, axial loading devices have been used with conventional supine MR imaging to simulate loading of the upright spine. More recently, upright weight-bearing MRI systems (0.25-0.6 T) were introduced, allowing images to be obtained in the standing or seated weight-bearing position and even during upright flexion or extension, rotation, or bending. Some scanners even enable capturing of real-time spinal movement. This review addresses the technical aspects and potential challenges of weight-bearing MRI, both in clinical practice and research.

Weight-bearing MRI of the Lumbar Spine: Spinal Stenosis and Spondylolisthesis.

Symptoms of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis include back pain, radiculopathy, claudication, and muscular fatigue that tend to be predominant in the standing position or during walking. Lumbar spondylolisthesis is also a well-known cause of spinal stenosis, lateral recess, and neural foraminal narrowing that tends to become more severe in the upright position. This indicates a functional positional component of both spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. Lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis are typically evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed in the supine position with a pillow under the patient's lower limbs that slightly flexes the lumbar spine and ameliorates symptoms. Because these two entities tend to be aggravated in the upright position, it seems rational to also consider performing diagnostic imaging in these patients in the upright position. This article reviews the use of weight-bearing MRI for lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis.

Early occupational intervention for people with low back pain in physically demanding jobs: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Occupational medicine seeks to reduce sick leave; however, evidence for an add-on effect to usual care is sparse. The objective of the GOBACK trial was to test whether people with low back pain (LBP) in physically demanding jobs and at risk of sick leave gain additional benefit from a 3-month complex intervention that involves occupational medicine consultations, a work-related evaluation and workplace intervention plan, an optional workplace visit, and a physical activity program, over a single hospital consultation and an MRI. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We enrolled people from the capital region of Denmark to an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with a superiority design from March 2014 through December 2015. In a hospital setting 305 participants (99 women) with LBP and in physically demanding jobs were randomized to occupational intervention (n = 153) or no additional intervention (control group; n = 152) added to a single hospital consultation giving a thorough explanation of the pain (i.e., clinical examination and MRI) and instructions to stay active and continue working. Primary outcome was accumulated sick leave days due to LBP during 6 months. Secondary outcomes were changes in neuropathic pain (painDETECT questionnaire [PDQ]), pain 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) for physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and self-assessed ability to continue working (range 0-10). An intention-to-treat analysis of sick leave at 6 months showed no significant difference between groups (mean difference in days suggestively in favor of no additional intervention: 3.50 [95% CI -5.08 to 12.07], P = 0.42). Both groups showed significant improvements in average pain score (NRS), disability (RMDQ), fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activities and work (FABQ), and physical HRQoL (SF-36 physical component summary); there were no significant differences between the groups in any secondary outcome. There was no statistically significant improvement in neuropathic pain (PDQ score), mental HRQoL (SF-36 mental component summary), and self-assessed ability to stay in job. Four participants could not complete the MRI or the intervention due to a claustrophobic attack or accentuated back pain. Workplace visits may be an important element in the occupational intervention, although not always needed. A per-protocol analysis that included the 40 participants in the intervention arm who received a workplace visit as part of the additional occupational intervention did not show an add-on benefit in terms of sick leave (available cases after 6 months, mean difference: -0.43 days [95% CI -12.8 to 11.94], P = 0.945). The main limitations were the small number of sick leave days taken and that the comprehensive use of MRI may limit generalization of the findings to other settings, for example, general practice. CONCLUSIONS: When given a single hospital consultation and MRI, people in physically demanding jobs at risk of sick leave due to LBP did not benefit from a complex additional occupational intervention. Occupational interventions aimed at limiting biopsychological obstacles (e.g., fear-avoidance beliefs and behaviors), barriers in the workplace, and system barriers seem essential to reduce sick leave in patients with LBP. This study indicates that these obstacles and barriers may be addressed by thorough usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov: NCT02015572.

Physical demand at work and sick leave due to low back pain: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate if self-reported high physical demand at work, objective physical workload using a job exposure matrix (JEM) and fear-avoidance beliefs are associated with reported sick leave in the previous year in persons with low back pain (LBP). Second, to investigate if the effects of fear-avoidance and self-reported high physical demand at work on sick leave are modified by the objective physical workloads. SETTINGS: Participants were recruited from general practice and by advertisement in a local newspaper. PARTICIPANTS: 305participants with a current period of 2-4 weeks LBP and self-reported difficulty in maintaining physically demanding jobs due to LBP were interviewed, clinically examined and had an MRI at baseline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Independent variables were high fear-avoidance, self-reported high physical demand at work and objective measures of physical workloads (JEM). Outcome was self-reported sick leave due to LBP in the previous year. Logistic regression and tests for interaction were used to identify risk factors and modifiers for the association with self-reported sick leave. RESULTS: Self-reported physically demanding work and high fear-avoidance were significantly associated with prior sick leave due to LBP in the previous year with OR 1.75 95% CI (1.10 to 2.75) and 2.75 95% CI (1.61to 4.84), respectively. No objective physical workloads had significant associations. There was no modifying effect of objective physical workloads on the association between self-reported physical demand at work/high fear-avoidance and sick leave. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational interventions to reduce sick leave due to LBP may have to focus more on those with high self-reported physical demands and high fear-avoidance, and less on individuals with the objectively highest physical workload. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02015572; Post-results.

Introducing Standing Weight-bearing MRI in the Di-agnostics of Low Back Pain and Degenerative Spinal Disorders.

This PhD thesis is based on three scientific papers. In 2011 the Parker Institute the department of rheumatology introduced standing weight-bearing MRI (G-Scan, ESAOTE, Genova, Italy) in the diagnostic of low back pain patients. Unfortunately, we experienced a substantial risk of fainting (orthostatic syncope) during standing pMRI. In paper 1 we present in an observational study that the risk of fainting (19%) during standing pMRI could almost be eliminated by the use of an external pneumatic compression device (2%). The lumbar lordosis in the standing position is a significant contributor to positional changes in the morphology in the lumbar spine. In paper 2, we present in an observational study that changes in lumbar lordosis angle (ΔLA) between the conventional supine and standing position were independent of pain and the degenerative disc score. Before a full introduction of standing pMRI in clinical practice, it is important to know if the interpretation of positional changes in common degenerative findings has a sufficient reproducibility. In paper 3, we present in a reliability study that the pMRI evaluation has a fair to substantial reliability, although positional changes in the lumbar spine's morphology from the supine to the standing seems a less reliable outcome. There are currently no international evidence-based recommendations for the use of standing pMRI, and we have limited knowledge about how to interpret these positional changes in the lumbar spine into a clinical context. Therefore, further research is warranted to test the precision (sensitivity and specificity) in prospective longitudinal studies or RCTs. However, from a clinical perspective it seems logical to scan patients with low back pain in the position worsening their symptoms - typically the upright position. Therefore, standing pMRI may provide a higher diagnostic specificity and additional benefit to low back pain patients in the future.

Conventional Supine MRI With a Lumbar Pillow-An Alternative to Weight-bearing MRI for Diagnosing Spinal Stenosis?: A Cross-sectional Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if adding a lumbar pillow in supine position during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is superior to standing positional MRI for diagnosing lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The upright standing position and especially extension of the lumbar spine seem to worsening symptoms of LSS. However, it is unclear whether a forced lumbar extension by a pillow in the lower back during conventional supine MRI may improve the diagnostics of LSS compared with standing MRI. METHODS: Patients suspected for LSS and referred to conventional MRI were included to an additional positional MRI scan (0.25T G-Scan) performed in: (1) conventional supine, (2) standing, (3) supine with a lumbar pillow in the lower back. LSS was evaluated for each position in consensus on a 0 to 3 semi-quantitative grading scale. Independently, L2-S1 lordosis angle, spinal cross-sectional diameter (SCSD), dural cross-sectional diameter (DCSD), and dural cross-sectional diameter (DCSA) were measured. The smallest dural diameter was defined as stenosis level and the largest control level for comparison. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (60.6 years; ±9.4) were included. The lordosis angle increased significantly from supine to standing (3.2° CI: 1.2-5.2) and with the lumbar pillow (12.8° CI: 10.3-15.3). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences between positions (P < 0.001). When compared with the supine position, pairwise comparisons showed decreased SCSD, DCSD, DCSA, and increasing semi-quantitative grading, during both standing and supine with the lumbar pillow. A difference in the semi-quantitative grades was only found between standing and supine with a lumbar pillow, and the scan with a lumbar pillow was significantly more painful. CONCLUSION: Standing MRI and supine MRI with a lumbar pillow resulted in equal changes in the lumbar spine, although standing MRI may be more sensitive in the assessment of patients suspected for LSS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Imaging in mechanical back pain: Anything new?

Low back pain is common and relates to a variety of overlapping pathologies. Within the last few decades, almost every medical imaging modality has been applied in the evaluation of low back pain. Imaging of the spine has a high priority in the assessment of patients with low back pain, who seem to expect such procedures to be undertaken. However, the majority of conventional imaging techniques do not have adequate precision to identify the primary source of pain. Not only can this be frustrating to both clinicians and patients, but importantly, inadequate correlation between imaging findings and symptoms hampers the ability of clinicians to devise a specific treatment plan for the patient. Therefore, there is mounting interest in new imaging techniques of the lumbar spine that may increase the clinical correlation in low back pain. In this review, we will discuss the value and limitations of various lumbar spine imaging techniques with focus on new emerging technologies.

Synovitis assessed on static and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and its association with pain in knee osteoarthritis: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between pain and peripatellar-synovitis on static and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: In a cross-sectional setting, knee synovitis was assessed using 3-Tesla MRI and correlated with pain using the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS). Synovitis was assessed in the peripatellar recesses with: (i) dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI, using both pharmacokinetic and heuristic models, (ii) contrast-enhanced (CE)-MRI, and (iii) non-CE-MRI. The DCE-MRI variable IRExNvoxel was chosen as the primary variable in the analyses. RESULTS: Valid data were available in 94 persons with a mean age of 65 years, a BMI of 32.3kg/m(2) and a mean Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2.5. IRExNvoxel showed a statically significant correlation with KOOS-Pain (r=-0.34; p=0.001), as was the case with all DCE-variables but one. Correlations between static MRI-variables and KOOS-Pain ranged between -0.21

[Body position dependable nerve root compression in a patient with leg pain in standing position]. / Stillingsbetinget rodtryk hos en rygpatient med bensmerter i stående stilling.

Six months after L5 hemilaminectomy and discectomy a patient experienced diffuse radiating symptoms to the right leg, especially in the standing position. Conventional supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed some scar tissue in the L5 spinal recess but no signs of nerve root compression to neurogenic claudication. Subsequently, an MRI with the patient in standing position displayed lateral recess stenosis and nerve root compression. This supports the notion that spinal stenosis should be regarded as a dynamic phenomenon also in the diagnostic workup setting.

Retention in physically demanding jobs of individuals with low back pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is prevalent and is a frequent cause of disability and sick leave among working adults. Individuals with low back pain often consult general practice or other health care providers which often results in a unilateral intervention focussed on their symptoms. Employment is associated with physical and mental well-being, so, patients may benefit from an early additional occupational medicine intervention. For individuals with physically demanding jobs it can be especially challenging to retain their jobs. The aim of the 'GoBack trial' is to develop and evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of an occupational medicine intervention for individuals with low back pain in physically demanding jobs. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a randomised controlled trial enrolling 300 participants with difficulty in maintaining physically demanding jobs due to low back pain for a current period of 2 to 4 weeks. Participants will be randomised and stratified according to their age and gender before being allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either control or additional occupational medicine intervention. Both groups will receive conventional treatment for their low back pain during the study. All participants will be thoroughly assessed for causes of low back pain and potential prognostic factors by questionnaires, clinical specialist assessments and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the lumbar spine. Primary outcome is the accumulated duration of self-assessed sick leave (in days) due to low back pain during 6 months from baseline. Secondary outcomes include general self-rated back pain, disability and screening for potential prognostic factors: fear avoidance behaviour, disability, health status and degenerative MRI findings. For tertiary purposes selected outcomes will also be assessed after 1 and 2 years from baseline. DISCUSSION: Many guidelines exist for the management of low back pain, but they provide limited guidance on occupational aspects. The findings from this randomised trial will provide high-quality evidence for the efficacy and feasibility of an occupational medicine intervention model for individuals with low back pain in physically demanding jobs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02015572 ) on 29 November 2013.