Passive intervertebral restraint is different in patients with treatment-resistant chronic nonspecific low back pain: a retrospective cohort study and control comparison.

PURPOSE: In vivo studies of continuous lumbar sagittal plane motion have found passive intervertebral motion to be more uneven in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP) than healthy controls, but the mechanisms are unclear. This study aimed to compare patients with CNSLBP with a matched group of pain-free controls for intervertebral restraint during passive recumbent bending. METHODS: Seventeen patients with CNSLBP and minimal disc degeneration who had quantitative fluoroscopy investigations were matched to 17 healthy controls from a database acquired using the same imaging protocol. The entire database (n = 136) was examined for clustering of peaking times, magnitudes and ROM of the first derivatives of the intervertebral angle/motion curves (PTFD, PMFD and ROM) during flexion and return that might introduce confounding. The groups were then compared for differences in these variables. RESULTS: There were significant segmental ROM differences among clusters in the database when PMFD and ROM were used as clustering variables, indicating heterogeneity. However, in the patient-control study, it was PTFD (velocity) that differentiated the groups. At L5-S1, this was at 10.82% of the motion path compared with 25.06% in the controls (p = 0.0002). For L4-5, PTFD was at 23.42% of the motion path in patients and 16.33% in controls (p = 0.0694) suggesting a reduced initial bending moment there. There were no significant differences for PMFD or ROM. CONCLUSION: Peaking time of passive intervertebral velocity occurs early at L5-S1 in patients with CNSLBP; however, these findings should be treated with caution pending their replication. Future studies should explore relationships with altered disc pressures and biochemistry. Usefulness for monitoring regenerative disc therapies should be considered.

Spatio-temporal clustering of lumbar intervertebral flexion interactions in 127 asymptomatic individuals.

The purpose of this study was to categorize asymptomatic participants based on the clustering of spatial and temporal intervertebral kinematic variables during lumbar flexion. Lumbar segmental interactions (L2-S1) were evaluated in 127 asymptomatic participants during flexion using fluoroscopy. First, four variables were identified consisting of: 1. Range of motion (ROMC), 2. Peaking time of the first derivative for separate segmentation (PTFDs), 3. Peaking magnitude of the first derivative (PMFD), and 4. Peaking time of the first derivative for stepwise (grouped) segmentation (PTFDss). These variables were used to cluster and order the lumbar levels. The number of participants required to constitute a cluster was chosen as 7. Participants formed eight (ROMC), four (PTFDs), eight (PMFD), and four (PTFDss) clusters, which included 85%, 80%, 77%, and 60% of them, respectively, according to the above features. For all clustering variables, angle time series of some lumbar levels showed significant differences between clusters. However, in general, all clusters could be categorized based on the segmental mobility contexts into three main groups as incidental macro clusters: the upper (L2-L4 > L4-S1), middle (L2-L3 < L3-L5 > L5-S1) and lower (L2-L4 < L4-S1) domains. There are spatial and temporal segmental interactions and between-subject variability in asymptomatic participants. In addition, the differences in angle time series among the clusters have provided evidence of feedback control strategies, while the stepwise segmentation facilitates consideration of the lumbar spine as a system and provides supplementary information about segmental interactions. Clinically, these facts could be taken into account when considering any intervention, but especially fusion surgery.

The effect of head movement restriction on the kinematics of the spine during lifting and lowering tasks.

This study aimed to examine the effects of head movement restriction on relative angles and their derivatives using the stepwise segmentation approach during lifting and lowering tasks. Ten healthy men lifted and lowered a box using two styles (stoop and squat), with two loads (i.e. 10% and 20% of body weight); they performed these tasks with two instructed head postures [(1) Flexing the neck to keep contact between chin and chest over the task cycle; (2) No instruction, free head posture]. The neck flexion significantly affected the flexion angle of all segments of the spine and specifically the lumbar part. Additionally, this posture significantly affected the derivatives of the relative angles and manifested latency in spine segments movement, that is, cephalad-to-caudad or caudad-to-cephalad patterns. Conclusively, neck flexion as an awkward posture could increase the risk of low back pain during lifting and lowering tasks in occupational environments. Practitioner summary: Little information is available about the effects of neck flexion on other spine segments' kinematics and movement patterns, specifically about the lumbar spine. The result of this experimental study shows that neck flexion can increase the risk of low back pain by increasing lumbar flexion angle and spine awkward posture.

Real-time feedback to reduce low-back load in lifting and lowering.

Low-back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Literature indicates an exposure-response relation between work-related lifting and LBP. Therefore, this study investigated effects of three kinds of real-time feedback on low-back load, quantified as lumbar moments, during lifting. We recruited 97 healthy male and female participants without a recent history of LBP and without prior biomechanical knowledge on lifting. Participants were assigned to groups based on the time of enrollment, filling the four groups in the following order: moment feedback, trunk inclination angle feedback, lumbar flexion feedback, and a control group not receiving feedback. Feedback was given by a sound when a threshold level of the input variable was exceeded. Participants were unaware of the input variable for the feedback, but were instructed to try to avoid the audio feedback by changing their lifting strategy. The groups with feedback were able to reduce the audio feedback and thus changed the input variable towards a more desired level. Lumbar moments significantly decreased over trials in the inclination and moment feedback groups, remained similar in the lumbar flexion group and increased in the control group. Between group comparisons revealed that low-back load was significantly lower in the moment and inclination groups compared to the control group. Additionally, moments were lower in the inclination group than in the lumbar flexion group. Real-time feedback on moments or trunk inclination is a promising tool to reduce low-back load during lifting and lowering.