The approach of physiatrists to low back pain across Europe.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the most common type of musculoskeletal pain, thus it is one of the most commonly encountered conditions in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. The physicians who are primarily responsible for the nonsurgical management of LBP are physiatrists. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to investigate the approaches of physiatrists to low back pain across Europe. Preferences, tendencies, and priorities in the diagnosis, management, and treatment of LBP, as well as the epidemiological data pertaining to LBP in PRM practice were evaluated in this Europe-wide study. METHODS: The study was conducted under the control of the European Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ESPRM) Musculoskeletal Disorders Research Committee. A total of 576 physiatrists from most European countries participated in the survey. RESULTS: The results show that physiatrists frequently deal with patients with LBP in their daily practice. Most patients are not referred to other departments and are treated with various conservative methods. Less than one-fifth of patients are primarily referred for surgery. The physiatrists believe that a clear diagnosis to account for cases of low back pain is rarely established. The most common diagnosis is discopathy. History and physical examination remain the most valuable clinical evaluation tools for low back pain according to physiatrists. Less than half the patients require a magnetic resonance imaging. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the most commonly prescribed drugs for low back pain. Exercise, back care information, and physical therapy are the preferred conservative treatments. More than half of the physiatrists offer interventional treatments to patients with low back pain. CONCLUSION: The present study is a preliminary report that presents the attitudes of European physiatrists in the management of low back pain. Further researches are warranted to standardize the conservative management of LBP.

Evidence based position paper on physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) practice for people with spinal deformities during growth. The European PRM position (UEMS PRM Section).

INTRODUCTION: Scoliosis and other spinal deformities involve 3-4% of the population during growth. Their so-called conservative treatment is in the field of competence of physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) physicians. This evidence based position paper represents the official position of the European Union through the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) - PRM Section. The aim of the paper was to improve PRM specialists' professional practice for patients with spinal deformities during growth. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature and a Consensus procedure with 26 recommendations by means of a Delphi method process has been performed involving the delegates of all European countries represented in the UEMS-PRM Section. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: the systematic literature review is reported together with 26 recommendations coming from the Consensus Delphi procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The professional role of PRM physicians in spinal deformities during growth is to propose a complete PRM treatment for the patients considering all the concurring diseases and pathologies, impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions. The PRM physician's role is to coordinate the individual PRM project developed in team with other health professionals and medical specialists, in agreement with the patient and his family, according to the specific medical diagnoses.

Health-related quality of life and socioeconomic situation among diastrophic dysplasia patients in Finland.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to gain a comprehensive view of the quality of life and socio-economic conditions in a more representative sample of patients with diastrophic dysplasia than previously presented. METHODS: The study sample comprised 115 patients with diastrophic dysplasia, aged over 18 years. The patients were contacted, and 68 patients (59%) agreed to participate in the study. They answered a structured questionnaire, which included the items of RAND-36 and Finn-Health Assessment Questionnaire (Finn-HAQ) questionnaires. The Finn-HAQ items were linked to the categories of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Population controls for matching the participating patients for age and sex were identified in the Finnish population registry. Demographic and social factors (educational status, employment status and household income) were collected in separated questions. RESULTS: RAND-36 showed significantly lower physical functioning in the group of diastrophic dysplasia patients than in the control group. Also, the differences in scores for energy and social functioning were significant. In the mental component scales, no significant difference was found between the groups. When compared with the controls, we found significantly lower levels in all 3 ICF components of functioning in the group of patients when Finn-MDHAQ items linked to ICF were used. Almost 75% of patients with diastrophic dysplasia belonged to the group of people with minor/low income. Some or clear worsening of economic situation due to diastrophic dysplasia was reported by 25 (58%) female and 17 (68%) male patients. CONCLUSION: In their daily living, patients with diastrophic dysplasia have marked physical difficulties, which affect their quality of life, participation in society and their financial situation. It seems that the mental situation is not greatly affected, but a more detailed study is needed to evaluate and illuminate the psychological consequences of this severe skeletal dysplasia. Overall, the pieces of information in the present study are of high importance when designing and reorganizing rehabilitation and in supportive therapy and treatment of patients with diastrophic dysplasia.