Literature DB >> 24676852

Proportional lumbar spine inter-vertebral motion patterns: a comparison of patients with chronic, non-specific low back pain and healthy controls.

Fiona E Mellor1, Peter W Thomas, Paul Thompson, Alan C Breen.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Identifying biomechanical subgroups in chronic, non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) populations from inter-vertebral displacements has proven elusive. Quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) has excellent repeatability and provides continuous standardised inter-vertebral kinematic data from fluoroscopic sequences allowing assessment of mid-range motion. The aim of this study was to determine whether proportional continuous IV rotational patterns were different in patients and controls. A secondary aim was to update the repeatability of QF measurement of range of motion (RoM) for inter-vertebral (IV) rotation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fluoroscopic sequences were recorded of passive, recumbent coronal and sagittal motion, which was controlled for range and velocity. Segments L2-5 in 40 primary care CNSLBP patients and 40 matched controls were compared. Patients also completed the von Korff Chronic Pain Grade and Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire. Sequences were processed using automated image tracking algorithms to extract continuous inter-vertebral rotation data. These were converted to continuous proportional ranges of rotation (PR). The continuous proportional range variances were calculated for each direction and combined to produce a single variable representing their fluctuation (CPRV). Inter- and intra-rater repeatability were also calculated for the maximum IV-RoM measurements obtained during controlled trunk motion to provide an updated indication of the reliability and agreement of QF for measuring spine kinematics.
RESULTS: CPRV was significantly higher in patients (0.011 vs. 0.008, Mann-Whitney two-sided p = 0.008), implying a mechanical subgroup. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis found its sensitivity and specificity to be 0.78 % (60-90) and 0.55 % (37-73), respectively (area under the curve 0.672). CPRV was not correlated with pain severity or disability. The repeatability of maximum inter-vertebral range was excellent, but range was only significantly greater in patients at L4-5 in right side bending (p = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: The variation in proportional motion between lumbar vertebrae during passive recumbent trunk motion was greater in patients with CNSLBP than in matched healthy controls, indicating that biomechanical factors in passive structures play a part.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24676852     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3273-3

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


  31 in total

1.  The validity of vertebral translation and rotation in differentiating patients with lumbar segmental instability.

Authors:  Mohammad Taghipour-Darzi; Esmail Ebrahimi Takamjani; Mahyar Salavati; Bahram Mobini; Hajar Zekavat
Journal:  Physiother Res Int       Date:  2012-04-10

Review 2.  Can we predict poor recovery from recent-onset nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review.

Authors:  Peter M Kent; Jennifer L Keating
Journal:  Man Ther       Date:  2007-07-19

3.  Kinematic analysis of dynamic lumbar motion in patients with lumbar segmental instability using digital videofluoroscopy.

Authors:  Amir Ahmadi; Nader Maroufi; Hamid Behtash; Hajar Zekavat; Mohamad Parnianpour
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Personal risk factors for first-time low back pain.

Authors:  M A Adams; A F Mannion; P Dolan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Psychological questionnaires: do "abnormal" scores precede or follow first-time low back pain?

Authors:  A F Mannion; P Dolan; M A Adams
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.

Authors:  M Roland; R Morris
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Reliability of computer-assisted lumbar intervertebral measurements using a novel vertebral motion analysis system.

Authors:  Matthew S Yeager; Daniel J Cook; Boyle C Cheng
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 8.  Modifying patterns of movement in people with low back pain -does it help? A systematic review.

Authors:  Robert A Laird; Peter Kent; Jennifer L Keating
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2012-09-07       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  An objective spinal motion imaging assessment (OSMIA): reliability, accuracy and exposure data.

Authors:  Alan C Breen; Jennifer M Muggleton; Fiona E Mellor
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2006-01-04       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Segmental lumbar mobility in individuals with low back pain: in vivo assessment during manual and self-imposed motion using dynamic MRI.

Authors:  Kornelia Kulig; Christopher M Powers; Robert F Landel; Hungwen Chen; Michael Fredericson; Marc Guillet; Kim Butts
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2007-01-29       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  13 in total

1.  Intrasubject repeatability of in vivo intervertebral motion parameters using quantitative fluoroscopy.

Authors:  Alexander Breen; Rebecca Hemming; Fiona Mellor; Alan Breen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-12-08       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Uneven intervertebral motion sharing is related to disc degeneration and is greater in patients with chronic, non-specific low back pain: an in vivo, cross-sectional cohort comparison of intervertebral dynamics using quantitative fluoroscopy.

Authors:  Alan Breen; Alexander Breen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-05-29       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Aberrant intervertebral motion in patients with treatment-resistant nonspecific low back pain: a retrospective cohort study and control comparison.

Authors:  Alexander Breen; Fiona Mellor; Alan Breen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  INVESTIGATION OF OPTIMAL LUMBAR SPINE POSTURE DURING A SIMULATED LANDING TASK IN ELITE GYMNASTS.

Authors:  Lawrence Sonvico; Simon M Spencer; Louise Fawcett; Jonathan Bucke; Nicola R Heneghan; Alison Rushton
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2019-02

5.  Lumbar intervertebral disc diurnal deformations and T2 and T1rho relaxation times vary by spinal level and disc region.

Authors:  John T Martin; Alexander B Oldweiler; Andrzej S Kosinski; Charles E Spritzer; Brian J Soher; Melissa M Erickson; Adam P Goode; Louis E DeFrate
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 2.721

6.  Relationships between Paraspinal Muscle Activity and Lumbar Inter-Vertebral Range of Motion.

Authors:  Alister du Rose; Alan Breen
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2016-01-05

7.  Relationships between lumbar inter-vertebral motion and lordosis in healthy adult males: a cross sectional cohort study.

Authors:  Alister du Rose; Alan Breen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Assessment of In Vivo Lumbar Inter-Vertebral Motion: Reliability of a Novel Dynamic Weight-Bearing Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technique Using a Side-Bending Task.

Authors:  Niladri Kumar Mahato; Stephane Montuelle; Brian C Clark
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2019-01-30

9.  Does inter-vertebral range of motion increase after spinal manipulation? A prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Jonathan Branney; Alan C Breen
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2014-07-01

Review 10.  Have Studies that Measure Lumbar Kinematics and Muscle Activity Concurrently during Sagittal Bending Improved Understanding of Spinal Stability and Sub-System Interactions? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Alister du Rose
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2018-09-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.