Do Occupational Risks for Low Back Pain Differ From Risks for Specific Lumbar Disc Diseases?: Results of the German Lumbar Spine Study (EPILIFT).

STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter, population based, case-control study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present analysis is to clarify potential differences in the "occupational risk profiles" of structural lumbar disc diseases on the one hand, and low back pain (LBP) on the other hand. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Physical workplace factors seem to play an important etiological role. METHODS: We recruited 901 patients with structural lumbar disc diseases (disc herniation or severe disc space narrowing) and 233 control subjects with "low-back-pain." Both groups were compared with 422 "low-back pain free" control subjects. Case history, pain data, neurological deficits, and movement restrictions were documented. LBP was recorded by the Nordic questionnaire on musculoskeletal symptoms. All magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and X-rays were inspected by an independent study radiologist. The calculation of cumulative physical workload was based on a computer-assisted interview and a biomechanical analysis by 3-D-dynamic simulation tool. Occupational exposures were documented for the whole working life. RESULTS: We found a positive dose-response relationship between cumulative lumbar load and LBP among men, but not among women. Physical occupational risks for structural lumbar disc diseases [odds ratio (OR) 3.7; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.3-6.0] are higher than for LBP (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.0-3.5). CONCLUSION: Our finding points to potentially different etiological pathways in the heterogeneous disease group of LBP. Results suggest that not all of the structural disc damage arising from physical workload leads to LBP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Cumulative occupational lumbar load and lumbar disc disease--results of a German multi-center case-control study (EPILIFT).

BACKGROUND: The to date evidence for a dose-response relationship between physical workload and the development of lumbar disc diseases is limited. We therefore investigated the possible etiologic relevance of cumulative occupational lumbar load to lumbar disc diseases in a multi-center case-control study. METHODS: In four study regions in Germany (Frankfurt/Main, Freiburg, Halle/Saale, Regensburg), patients seeking medical care for pain associated with clinically and radiologically verified lumbar disc herniation (286 males, 278 females) or symptomatic lumbar disc narrowing (145 males, 206 females) were prospectively recruited. Population control subjects (453 males and 448 females) were drawn from the regional population registers. Cases and control subjects were between 25 and 70 years of age. In a structured personal interview, a complete occupational history was elicited to identify subjects with certain minimum workloads. On the basis of job task-specific supplementary surveys performed by technical experts, the situational lumbar load represented by the compressive force at the lumbosacral disc was determined via biomechanical model calculations for any working situation with object handling and load-intensive postures during the total working life. For this analysis, all manual handling of objects of about 5 kilograms or more and postures with trunk inclination of 20 degrees or more are included in the calculation of cumulative lumbar load. Confounder selection was based on biologic plausibility and on the change-in-estimate criterion. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated separately for men and women using unconditional logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age, region, and unemployment as major life event (in males) or psychosocial strain at work (in females), respectively. To further elucidate the contribution of past physical workload to the development of lumbar disc diseases, we performed lag-time analyses. RESULTS: We found a positive dose-response relationship between cumulative occupational lumbar load and lumbar disc herniation as well as lumbar disc narrowing among men and women. Even past lumbar load seems to contribute to the risk of lumbar disc disease. CONCLUSION: According to our study, cumulative physical workload is related to lumbar disc diseases among men and women.

Leg axis correction with ConforMIS iForma (interpositional device) in unicompartmental arthritis of the knee.

Degeneration of the meniscus and the articular cartilage in unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee results in progressive deformity of the leg axis. It is the aim of this study to evaluate if a leg axis correction can be achieved by implanting a customised metallic interpositional device for the knee (ConforMIS iForma). Before and after implanting a ConforMIS iForma knee implant, a radiological analysis of the leg axis deviation in the frontal plane was performed prospectively in 27 patients by evaluating anteroposterior single-leg stance radiographs. We achieved a sufficient leg axis correction with an average correction of 3.8 degrees and an averaged small under-adjustment of 0.9 degrees by inserting the ConforMIS iForma interpositional knee implant. Apart from the primary treatment objective of articular surface restitution the ConforMIS iForma knee implant can be reliably used to correct axis deformity occurring with unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee.

Stability of pedicle screws after kyphoplasty augmentation: an experimental study to compare transpedicular screw fixation in soft and cured kyphoplasty cement.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this cadaver study was to compare the stability of pedicle screws after implantation in soft or cured kyphoplasty cement. METHODS: Pedicle screws were inserted in a total of 30 thoracolumbar vertebrae of 10 different human specimens: 10 screws were implanted in nonaugmented vertebrae (group 1), each 10 screws were placed in soft (group 2) and cured (group 3) cement. Pedicle screws were than evaluated for biomechanical axial pullout resistance. RESULTS: Mean axial pullout strength was 232 N (range 60-600 N) in group 1, 452 N (range 60-1125 N) in group 2 and 367 N (range 112-840 N) in group 3. The paired Student t-test demonstrated a significant difference between pullout strength of groups 1 and 2 (P = 0.0300). Between pullout strength of groups 1 and 3 and between groups 2 and 3 no significant difference was seen. CONCLUSION: We achieved a 1.9 times higher pullout strength with kyphoplasty augmentation of osteoporotic vertebrae compared with the pullout strength of nonaugmented vertebrae. Implantation of pedicle screws in cured cement is a sufficient method. With this method we found a 1.6 times higher pullout strength then in nonaugmented vertebrae.