J Rainville1, J B Sobel, C Hartigan. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tufts University Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: This study investigated the interrelationship between total lumbosacral flexion and true lumbar flexion in a population of chronic low back pain sufferers, measured with a dual inclinometer technique. Correlations with self-reported disability also were assessed. Self-reported disability was measured with the Million Visual Analog Scale. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether total lumbosacral flexion could be substituted for true lumbar flexion in the clinical evaluation of trunk mobility. To determine which measure of flexion is a better predictor of self-reported disability after an intensive rehabilitation program for chronic spinal disorders. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Eighty-nine consecutive patients with chronic low back pain were evaluated. Fourteen subjects were excluded because of previous surgery. Seventy-five meet inclusion criteria and underwent quantification of lumbar mobility. Sixty-four met literacy criteria and were administered the Million Visual Analog Scale. Thirty-six patients completed rehabilitation and were re-evaluated at program completion for lumbar mobility. Thirty-three were re-evaluated with the Million Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS: Pearson's correlation coefficients for lumbar versus total flexion were r = 0.88 for initial evaluation and r = 0.84 after treatment. Correlation coefficients also were calculated for lumbar flexion and total flexion with disability scores. Before treatment, both measurements accounted for similar amounts of the variance in disability scores. However, after treatment, total flexion correlated higher with self-reported disability (r = -0.62 versus r = -0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that total lumbosacral flexion may be as equally relevant as true lumbar flexion in the measurement of trunk mobility in the clinical examination of patients with chronic low back pain. Regarding their relationship to self-reported disability, total flexion seems to be more relevant to outcome after intensive rehabilitation.
STUDY DESIGN: This study investigated the interrelationship between total lumbosacral flexion and true lumbar flexion in a population of chronic low back pain sufferers, measured with a dual inclinometer technique. Correlations with self-reported disability also were assessed. Self-reported disability was measured with the Million Visual Analog Scale. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether total lumbosacral flexion could be substituted for true lumbar flexion in the clinical evaluation of trunk mobility. To determine which measure of flexion is a better predictor of self-reported disability after an intensive rehabilitation program for chronic spinal disorders. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Eighty-nine consecutive patients with chronic low back pain were evaluated. Fourteen subjects were excluded because of previous surgery. Seventy-five meet inclusion criteria and underwent quantification of lumbar mobility. Sixty-four met literacy criteria and were administered the Million Visual Analog Scale. Thirty-six patients completed rehabilitation and were re-evaluated at program completion for lumbar mobility. Thirty-three were re-evaluated with the Million Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS: Pearson's correlation coefficients for lumbar versus total flexion were r = 0.88 for initial evaluation and r = 0.84 after treatment. Correlation coefficients also were calculated for lumbar flexion and total flexion with disability scores. Before treatment, both measurements accounted for similar amounts of the variance in disability scores. However, after treatment, total flexion correlated higher with self-reported disability (r = -0.62 versus r = -0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that total lumbosacral flexion may be as equally relevant as true lumbar flexion in the measurement of trunk mobility in the clinical examination of patients with chronic low back pain. Regarding their relationship to self-reported disability, total flexion seems to be more relevant to outcome after intensive rehabilitation.
Authors: Joy C MacDermid; Vanitha Arumugam; Joshua I Vincent; Kimberly L Payne; Aubrey K So Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 2.362