Literature DB >> 22543413

Resistive straight leg raise test, resistive forward bend test and heel compression test: novel techniques in identifying secondary gain motives in low back pain cases.

Naresh Kumar1, Sujith Indeewara Wijerathne, Wen Wei Julian Lim, Tan Wei Loong Barry, Chinmay Nath, Shen Liang.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: 'Low back pain' (LBP) is a prevalent condition with a majority showing no specific organic pathology. Distinguishing 'secondary gain motives (SGM)' from organic causes is imperative in clinical practice. We describe here, three new tests-resistive straight leg raise test (rSLRT), resistive forward bend test (rFBT) and heel compression test (HCT) to help differentiate patients with 'SGM' from those without. We conducted a prospective study to validate the above tests in predicting non-organic causes as a reason for LBP.
METHODS: 200 patients presenting with low back pain at the senior author's outpatient orthopaedic clinic from Jan 2009 to Nov 2010 were studied. Patients were separated into two groups-'SGM group' (n = 100) and 'non-SGM group' (n = 100). 'SGM group' patients had a history of work-related accidents, road traffic accidents or assault, with a background of ongoing litigation issues or compensation benefits. rSLRT, rFBT, HCT, Schober's test and Waddell's five signs were performed on them. Statistical analysis was done to identify correlations between test results, MRI findings and 'SGM' status.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed between the SGM and non-SGM group (p < 0.0005) for all tests studied. In predicting SGM status, rSLRT showed highest specificity (0.94) and highest positive predictive value (0.925) while HCT showed the highest negative predictive value (0.859). Positive rSLRT was found to be strongly correlated with ≥3 positive Waddell's signs. SGM patients with positive rSLRT tended to show resistance ≤45°.
CONCLUSIONS: rSLRT, rFBT and HCT (NK triad) are highly practical tests which strongly predict SGM status in patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22543413      PMCID: PMC3481110          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2318-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  21 in total

Review 1.  Clinical inquiries. What physical exam techniques are useful to detect malingering?

Authors:  Steven Greer; Lee Chambliss; Leslier Mackler; Tim Huber
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 0.493

2.  Nonorganic signs of significance in low back pain.

Authors:  B M Kummel
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Money matters: A meta-analytic review of the association between financial compensation and the experience and treatment of chronic pain.

Authors:  M L Rohling; L M Binder; J Langhinrichsen-Rohling
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 4.267

4.  Nonorganic physical signs in low-back pain.

Authors:  G Waddell; J A McCulloch; E Kummel; R M Venner
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1980 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Waddell's nonorganic signs and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory profiles in patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  T Maruta; S Goldman; C W Chan; D M Ilstrup; A R Kunselman; R C Colligan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Effectiveness of Waddell's nonorganic signs in predicting a delayed return to regular work in patients experiencing acute occupational low back pain.

Authors:  W G Gaines; K T Hegmann
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Behavioral responses to examination. A reappraisal of the interpretation of "nonorganic signs".

Authors:  C J Main; G Waddell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Predicting return to work for lower back pain patients receiving worker's compensation.

Authors:  J Lancourt; M Kettelhut
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Back injuries in industry: a retrospective study. I. Overview and cost analysis.

Authors:  D M Spengler; S J Bigos; N A Martin; J Zeh; L Fisher; A Nachemson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Relationship between performance on lumbar dynamometry and Waddell score in a population with low-back pain.

Authors:  G Hirsch; G Beach; C Cooke; M Menard; S Locke
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  3 in total

1.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2012.

Authors:  Michel Benoist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal 2012.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-01-12       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Outcomes indicators and a risk classification system for spinal manipulation under anesthesia: a narrative review and proposal.

Authors:  Dennis DiGiorgi; John L Cerf; Daniel S Bowerman
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2018-03-08
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.