Effect of Motor Skill Training in Functional Activities vs Strength and Flexibility Exercise on Function in People With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic low back pain (LBP) is the most prevalent chronic pain in adults, and there is no optimal nonpharmacologic management. Exercise is recommended, but no specific exercise-based treatment has been found to be most effective. Objective: To determine whether an exercise-based treatment of person-specific motor skill training (MST) in performance of functional activities is more effective in improving function than strength and flexibility exercise (SFE) immediately, 6 months, and 12 months following treatment. The effect of booster treatments 6 months following treatment also was examined. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this single-blind, randomized clinical trial of people with chronic, nonspecific LBP with 12-month follow-up, recruitment spanned December 2013 to August 2016 (final follow-up, November 2017), and testing and treatment were performed at an academic medical center. Recruitment was conducted by way of flyers, physician and physical therapy offices, advertisements, and media interviews at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. Of 1595 adults screened for eligibility, 1301 did not meet the inclusion criteria and 140 could not be scheduled for the first visit. A total of 154 people with at least 12 months of chronic, nonspecific LBP, aged 18 to 60 years, with modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (MODQ) score of at least 20% were randomized to either MST or SFE. Data were analyzed between December 1, 2017, and October 6, 2020. Interventions: Participants received 6 weekly 1-hour sessions of MST in functional activity performance or SFE of the trunk and lower limbs. Half of the participants in each group received up to 3 booster treatments 6 months following treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (MODQ) score (0%-100%) evaluated immediately, 6 months, and 12 months following treatment. Results: A total of 149 participants (91 women; mean [SD] age, 42.5 [11.7] years) received some treatment and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Following treatment, MODQ scores were lower for MST than SFE by 7.9 (95% CI, 4.7 to 11.0; P < .001). During the follow-up phase, the MST group maintained lower MODQ scores than the SFE group, 5.6 lower at 6 months (95% CI, 2.1 to 9.1) and 5.7 lower at 12 months (95% CI, 2.2 to 9.1). Booster sessions did not change MODQ scores in either treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: People with chronic LBP who received MST had greater short-term and long-term improvements in function than those who received SFE. Person-specific MST in functional activities limited owing to LBP should be considered in the treatment of people with chronic LBP. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02027623.

DIAGNOSIS DIALOG: RECAP AND RELEVANCE TO RECENT APTA ACTIONS.

For at least 40 years, physical therapists have been contemplating the issue of diagnosis. After the profession chose to require completion of doctoral-level training for entry into the profession, making some decisions about diagnosis became essential. In the 2004 Maley Lecture, Cynthia Coffin-Zadai called the profession to action on the question of diagnosis. One response to her call was the formation of a group of physical therapists from across the country to engage in an extended conversation about diagnosis. The Diagnosis Dialog group first met in St. Louis in 2006 and at the end of the meeting they decided to continue the discussion at another meeting. In fact, they met a total of 13 times over 10 years. The purposes of this article are to a) summarize briefly some of the topics that were discussed and b) demonstrate the relevance of those discussions to recent APTA actions regarding the adoption of the movement system as the core of physical therapist practice, education, and research.

Asymmetry of lumbopelvic movement patterns during active hip abduction is a risk factor for low back pain development during standing.

An induced-pain paradigm has been used in back-healthy people to understand risk factors for developing low back pain (LBP) during prolonged standing. We examined asymmetry of lumbopelvic movement timing during a clinical test of active hip abduction in back-healthy people who developed LBP symptoms during standing (Pain Developers; PDs) compared to back-healthy people who did not develop LBP symptoms during standing (Non Pain Developers, NPDs). Participants completed the hip abduction test while movement was recorded with a motion capture system. Difference in time between start of hip and lumbopelvic movement was calculated (startdiff). PDs moved the lumbopelvic region earlier during left hip abduction than right hip abduction. There was no difference between sides in NPDs. In PDs, the amount of asymmetry was related to average symptom intensity during standing. Asymmetric lumbopelvic movement patterns may be a risk factor for LBP development during prolonged standing.

Efficacy of classification-specific treatment and adherence on outcomes in people with chronic low back pain. A one-year follow-up, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown if low back pain (LBP) outcomes are enhanced by classification-specific treatment based on the Movement System Impairment classification system. The moderating effect of adherence to treatment also is unknown. OBJECTIVES: Compare the efficacy of a classification-specific treatment (CS) and a non classification-specific (NCs) treatment and examine the moderating effect of adherence on outcomes. DESIGN: 2 center, 2 parallel group, prospective, randomized, clinical trial. METHOD: Participants with chronic LBP were classified and randomized. Self-report data was obtained at baseline, post-treatment, and 6 and 12 months post-treatment. The primary outcome was the modified Oswestry Disability Index (mODI; 0-100%). Treatment effect modifiers were exercise adherence and performance training adherence. An intention to treat approach and hierarchical linear modeling were used. RESULTS: 47 people received CS treatment, 54 people received NCs treatment. Treatment groups did not differ in mODI scores (p > 0.05). For both groups, scores improved with treatment (p < 0.05), plateaued at 6 months (p > 0.05), and minimally regressed at 12 months (p < 0.05). Performance training adherence had a unique, independent effect on mODI scores above and beyond the effect of exercise adherence (p < 0.05). There were no treatment group effects on the relationship between mODI scores and the two types of adherence (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in function between the two treatment groups (CS and NCs). In both treatment groups, people with chronic LBP displayed clinically important long-term improvements in function. When both forms of adherence were considered, the improvements were uniquely related to adherence to performance training.

What is backward disequilibrium and how do i treat it? A complex patient case study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Postural vertical refers to a component of an individual's perception of verticality that is derived from information about the direction of gravitational forces. Backward disequilibrium (BD) is a postural disorder observed in some older adults who have a distortion in their perception of postural vertical. Individuals with BD sustain their center of mass (COM) posterior to their base of support and resist correction of COM alignment. The purposes of this case study are to describe a patient with BD and propose a physical therapy management program for this condition. CASE DESCRIPTION AND INTERVENTION: The patient was an 83-year-old woman admitted for home care services 4 months after falling and sustaining a displaced right femoral neck fracture and subsequent hemiarthroplasty. Details of the clinical examination, diagnosis, and intervention are provided and a treatment protocol for physical therapy management is suggested. OUTCOMES: During the episode of care, the patient (1) decreased her dependence on caregivers, (2) surpassed minimal detectable change or minimal clinically important improvements in gait speed and on the Short Physical Performance Battery and Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment, and (3) achieved her primary goal of staying in her own apartment at an assisted living facility. DISCUSSION: Knowledge of BD coupled with a thorough clinical examination may assist physical therapists in identifying this condition and employing the specific intervention we have proposed. We believe that failure to recognize and manage our patient's condition appropriately would have led to nursing home placement.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A94).

Is lumbar lordosis related to low back pain development during prolonged standing?

BACKGROUND: An induced-pain paradigm has been used in back-healthy people to understand risk factors for developing low back pain during prolonged standing. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to (1) compare baseline lumbar lordosis in back-healthy participants who do (Pain Developers) and do not (Non-Pain Developers) develop low back pain during 2 h of standing, and (2) examine the relationship between lumbar lordosis and low back pain intensity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHOD: First, participants stood while positions of markers placed superficial to the lumbar vertebrae were recorded using a motion capture system. Following collection of marker positions, participants stood for 2 h while performing light work tasks. At baseline and every 15 min during standing, participants rated their low back pain intensity on a visual analog scale. Lumbar lordosis was calculated using marker positions collected prior to the 2 h standing period. Lumbar lordosis was compared between pain developers and non-pain developers. In pain developers, the relationship between lumbar lordosis and maximum pain was examined. RESULTS/FINDINGS: There were 24 (42%) pain developers and 33 (58%) non-pain developers. Lumbar lordosis was significantly larger in pain developers compared to non-pain developers (Mean difference = 4.4°; 95% Confidence Interval = 0.9° to 7.8°, Cohen's d = 0.7). The correlation coefficient between lumbar lordosis and maximum pain was 0.46 (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that standing in more lumbar lordosis may be a risk factor for low back pain development during prolonged periods of standing. Identifying risk factors for low back pain development can inform preventative and early intervention strategies.

Variables associated with performance of an active limb movement following within-session instruction in people with and people without low back pain.

Modification of a movement pattern can be beneficial in decreasing low back pain (LBP) symptoms. There is variability, however, in how well people are able to modify performance of a movement. What has not been identified is the factors that may affect a person's ability to modify performance of a movement. We examined factors related to performance of active hip lateral rotation (HLR) following standardized instructions in people with and people without LBP. Data were collected during performance of HLR under 3 conditions: passive, active, and active instructed. In people with LBP, motion demonstrated during the passive condition (r = 0.873, P < 0.001), motion demonstrated during the active condition (r = 0.654, P = 0.008), and gender (r = 0.570, P = 0.027) were related to motion demonstrated during the active-instructed condition. Motion demonstrated during the passive condition explained 76% (P < 0.001) of the variance in motion demonstrated during the active-instructed condition. A similar relationship did not exist in people without LBP. The findings of the study suggest that it may be important to assess motion demonstrated during passive HLR to determine how difficult it will be for someone with LBP to modify the performance of HLR. Prognosis should be worst for those who display similar movement patterns during passive HLR and active-instructed HLR.

Factors contributing to lumbar region passive tissue characteristics in people with and people without low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Previously, we demonstrated that people in the Rotation with Extension low back pain subgroup display greater asymmetry of passive tissue characteristics during trunk lateral bending than people without low back pain. The purpose of this secondary analysis is to examine factors that explain the group differences. METHODS: Twenty-two people in the Rotation with Extension subgroup, and 19 people without low back pain were examined. Torque, lumbar region kinematics, and trunk muscle activity were measured during passive and isometric resisted trunk lateral bending. The dependent variables were lumbar region passive elastic energy to each side; the independent variables included group, gender, anthropometrics, trunk muscle characteristics, and an interaction factor of group and trunk muscle characteristics. Multiple linear regression was used for the analysis. FINDINGS: Anthropometrics explained passive measures to the left (P=.03). Anthropometrics (P<.01), trunk muscle characteristics (P<.01), and the interaction of group and trunk muscle characteristics (P=.01) explained passive measures to the right. After accounting for gender and anthropometrics, 43.7% of the variance in passive measures to the right was uniquely accounted for by trunk muscle characteristics for the Rotation with Extension subgroup, compared to 0.5% for the group without low back pain. INTERPRETATION: Anthropometrics explained passive measures with trunk lateral bending to both sides, in both groups. For people in the Rotation with Extension subgroup, there was a direct relationship between trunk muscle performance and passive measures to the right. Muscle is an important contributing factor to asymmetry in this subgroup and should be considered in treatment.

The effect of within-session instruction on lumbopelvic motion during a lower limb movement in people with and people without low back pain.

The purpose of the current study was to examine how effectively people with and people without low back pain (LBP) modify lumbopelvic motion during a limb movement test. Nineteen subjects with LBP and 20 subjects without LBP participated. Kinematic data were collected while subjects performed active hip lateral rotation (HLR) in prone. Subjects completed trials (1) using their natural method (Natural condition) of performing HLR, and (2) following standardized instructions to modify lumbopelvic motion while performing HLR (Modified condition). Variables of interest included (1) the amount of HLR completed prior to the start of lumbopelvic motion, and (2) the maximum amount of lumbopelvic motion demonstrated during HLR. Compared to the Natural Condition, all subjects improved their performance during the Modified condition by (1) completing a greater amount of HLR prior to the start of lumbopelvic motion, and (2) demonstrating less lumbopelvic motion (P < 0.01 for all comparisons). There was a tendency for people without LBP to demonstrate a greater difference in maximal lumbopelvic rotation between the Natural and Modified conditions (P = 0.07). In conclusion, people are able to modify lumbopelvic motion following instruction. Further study is needed to determine if people without LBP improve lumbopelvic motion following instruction to a greater extent than people with LBP.

Differences in symmetry of lumbar region passive tissue characteristics between people with and people without low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Several investigators have suggested that passive tissue characteristics of the lumbar region may be altered in people with low back pain. Passive stiffness of the lumbar region has been examined during physiological movements in healthy individuals and intersegmental spine mobility and stiffness have been examined in people with and people without low back pain. However, no investigators have examined differences in passive tissue characteristics of the lumbar region during a physiological movement between people with and people without low back pain. METHODS: Subjects were moved passively through a trunk lateral bending motion on a passive movement device. Lumbar region kinematics were measured with a motion capture system and force required to move the subject was measured with a force transducer. Lumbar region extensibility was defined as the maximum excursion of the lumbar region. Passive elastic energy was defined as the area under the torque-lumbar region angle curve. Differences in lumbar region extensibility and passive elastic energy between sides were examined in people with and people without low back pain (n=41). FINDINGS: People in the Rotation with Extension low back pain subgroup demonstrated greater asymmetry of passive elastic energy than people without low back pain (P=0.04). There were no differences between groups in symmetry of lumbar region extensibility (P=0.37). INTERPRETATION: Asymmetry in passive elastic energy of the lumbar region may be related to the low back pain problem in the Rotation with Extension subgroup. The asymmetry in passive elastic energy may be associated with asymmetry of loading on the spine, which has been reported to be a risk factor for low back pain. Thus, it may be important to consider the asymmetry when planning an intervention strategy for people in the Rotation with Extension subgroup.

Diagnosis and management of a patient with knee pain using the movement system impairment classification system.

STUDY DESIGN: Case report. BACKGROUND: Selecting the most effective conservative treatment for knee pain continues to be a challenge. An understanding of the underlying movement system impairment that is thought to contribute to the knee pain may assist in determining the most effective treatment. Our case report describes the treatment and outcomes of a patient with the proposed movement system impairment (MSI) diagnosis of tibiofemoral rotation. CASE DESCRIPTION: The patient was a 50-year-old female with a 3-month history of left anteromedial knee pain. Her knee pain was aggravated with sitting, standing, and descending stairs. A standardized clinical examination was performed and the MSI diagnosis of tibiofemoral rotation was determined. The patient consistently reported an increase in pain with activities that produced abnormal motions or alignments of the lower extremity in the frontal and transverse planes. The patient was educated to modify symptom-provoking functional activities by restricting the abnormal motions and alignments of the lower extremity. Exercises were prescribed to address impairments of muscle length, muscle strength, and motor control proposed to contribute to the tibiofemoral rotation. Tape also was applied to the knee in an attempt to restrict tibiofemoral rotation. OUTCOMES: The patient reported a cessation of pain and an improvement in her functional activities that occurred with correction of her knee alignment and movement pattern. Pain intensity was 2/10 at 1 week. At 10 weeks, pain intensity was 0/10 and the patient reported no limitations in sitting, standing, or descending stairs. The patient's score on the activities of daily living scale increased from 73% at the initial visit to 86% at 10 weeks and 96% at 1 year after therapy was discontinued. DISCUSSION: This case report presented a patient with knee pain and an MSI diagnosis of tibiofemoral rotation. Diagnosis-specific treatment resulted in a cessation of the patient's pain and an improved ability to perform functional activities.

Validity and reliability of a system to measure passive tissue characteristics of the lumbar region during trunk lateral bending in people with and people without low back pain.

The current study examined the validity and reliability of a new system that was developed to measure lumbar region passive stiffness and end range of motion during a trunk lateral bending movement in vivo. Variables measured included force, end range lumbar region motion, torque, lumbar region stiffness, and passive elastic energy. Validity of the force measurements was examined using standard weights. Validity of lumbar region angle measurements was examined using an instrumented trunk with an electrogoniometer. Reliability of the measurements between trials within a session was examined in a sample of 50 people (25 men, 25 women; mean +/- standard deviation age = 30.7 +/- 8.9 yr); 31 people reported a history of chronic or recurrent low back pain (LBP) and 19 reported no prior history of LBP. The end range lumbar region motion and force measurements demonstrated an excellent linear relationship with the criterion standard measures. Average error between the criterion standard and observed measurements was minimal for all measurements. For reliability testing, the majority of intraclass correlation coefficient values were >0.75. The validity and reliability of the current system are sufficient to examine lumbar region stiffness and end range of motion in people with and people without LBP.

Use of movement system diagnoses in the management of patients with neuromuscular conditions: a multiple-patient case report.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Medical diagnoses are not sufficient to guide physical therapy intervention. To provide a rational basis for treatment selection by physical therapists, we developed a set of diagnoses at the level of impairment that are relevant to the human movement system. The diagnoses describe the primary human movement system problem and provide a basis for matching a specific problem with appropriate treatment. The purposes of this 3-patient case report are to illustrate an updated version of the diagnostic system and to show how treatment decisions can be made relative to both the movement system diagnosis and the patient's prognosis. CASE DESCRIPTION AND OUTCOMES: We diagnosed 3 patients with hemiplegia due to stroke as having 3 different movement system problems: force production deficit, fractionated movement deficit, and perceptual deficit. Specific intervention and actual patient outcomes for each case are outlined. DISCUSSION: Use of movement system diagnoses may have multiple benefits for patient care. The possible benefits include decreasing the variability in management of patients with neuromuscular conditions, minimizing the trial-and-error approach to treatment selection, improving communication among health care professionals, and advancing research by enabling creation of homogenous patient groupings.

Trunk rotation-related impairments in people with low back pain who participated in 2 different types of leisure activities: a secondary analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, secondary analysis. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether there were differences in the numbers and types of impairments on examination between 2 groups of people with low back pain (LBP), those who participated in symmetric leisure activities and those who participated in asymmetric leisure activities. BACKGROUND: It has been proposed that people who repeatedly perform an activity that involves trunk movements and alignments in the same direction will develop strategies that are generalized to many activities. The repeated use of these strategies is proposed to contribute to impairments identifiable on examination and to LBP. METHODS AND MEASURES: Forty males and 40 females (mean +/- SD age, 41.4 +/- 13.9 years) with LBP who reported participation in either a symmetric or an asymmetric leisure activity participated in a standardized examination. Responses from 10 trunk-rotation-related impairment tests were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U and chi-square statistics. RESULTS: Thirty people participated in asymmetric leisure activities and 50 people participated in symmetric leisure activities. The total number of rotation-related impairments was different for the 2 groups (U = 1112, P < .01). The asymmetric group displayed more total rotation-related impairments (median, 4.0; range, 7) than the symmetric group (median, 2.0; range, 6). A greater percentage of the asymmetric group displayed more impairments on 5 out of 10 individual tests, as compared to the symmetric group ( < or = .05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide preliminary data to suggest that trunk-rotation-related impairments, identified on examination, may be related to the general type of movements and alignments used repeatedly by patients with LBP.

Differences in measurements of lumbar curvature related to gender and low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. OBJECTIVES: To test the assumption that postural alignment and gender have a bearing on the specific type of low back pain (LBP) a person manifests. BACKGROUND: Measurements of static sagittal lumbar curvature are used by clinicians in the management of patients with LBP, but no investigator has reported differences in curvature related to specific categories of LBP. METHODS AND MEASURES: We used a computer-interfaced, 3-D, electromechanical digitizer to derive curvature angles for the region of the spine between T12-L1 and S2. Trained clinicians examined the subjects and determined their LBP diagnoses. We used t tests to examine differences in curvature between women and men, those with and those without LBP, and those in 4 different categories of LBP. We used chi2 to examine the relationship between gender and LBP category. RESULTS: Lumbar curvature angle (lordosis) was 13.2 degrees larger for women than for men (t = 6.74; P<.01). There was no difference in lumbar curvature between people with undifferentiated LBP and people without LBP. There were differences in lumbar curvature between people in various categories of LBP, for example, subjects in the lumbar-rotation-with-extension category had 8.4 degrees more lumbar curvature than subjects in the lumbar-rotation-with-flexion category (t = 2.16; P<.05). Based on the frequency distributions, there was a significant relationship between gender and LBP category (chi2 = 10.19; P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of lumbar curvature should be expected to differ between men and women and may be related to different types of low back pain.

Movement system impairment-based categories for low back pain: stage 1 validation.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of patients with mechanical low back pain (MLBP). OBJECTIVE: To test the construct validity of 3 categories of a movement system impairment-based classification proposed for use with patients with MLBP. BACKGROUND: A pathoanatomic basis for directing treatment has not proven useful in a wide variety of patients with MLBP. In addition, there is a paucity of data describing the movement system impairments that characterize many of the pathoanatomically based MLBP diagnoses. Because of the mechanical nature of MLBP, a system based on groups of signs and symptoms relevant to conservative management needs to be developed. METHODS AND MEASURES: A movement system impairment-based classification was proposed that defined 5 categories of MLBP based on the findings from a standardized examination. Using the examination, 5 physical therapists examined a total of 188 patients with MLBP. A principal components analysis with an oblique rotation was conducted. Eigenvalues were plotted and a scree test was used to determine the number of factors to retain. A split-sample cross-validation procedure was conducted to verify the factor structure. RESULTS: Three factors were identified in both samples: 2 factors related to symptoms with lumbar rotation and lumbar extension alignments or movements, and 1 factor related to signs of lumbar rotation with different alignments and movements. CONCLUSION: Our results provide support for 3 factors related to 3 of the 5 proposed categories: lumbar rotation with extension, lumbar rotation, and lumbar extension. The existence of these 3 factors provides preliminary evidence for specific clusters of tests of alignment and movement impairments that could be used in classifying patients with MLBP into movement-system-related categories.