Dataset Information

The effectiveness of motorised lumbar traction in the management of LBP with lumbo sacral nerve root involvement: a feasibility study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Traction is commonly used for the treatment of low back pain (LBP), predominately with nerve root involvement; however its benefits remain to be established. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to compare the difference between two treatment protocols (manual therapy, exercise and advice, with or without traction) in the management of acute/sub acute LBP with 'nerve root' involvement.

Methods

30 LBP patients with nerve root pain were recruited and randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups. Primary outcome measures were the: McGill pain questionnaire, Roland Morris disability questionnaire, and the SF36 Questionnaire; recorded at baseline, discharge, 3 and 6 months post-discharge.

Results

27 patients completed treatment with a loss of another four patients at follow up. Intention to treat analysis demonstrated an improvement in all outcomes at follow up points but there appeared to be little difference between the groups.

Conclusion

This study has shown that a trial recruiting patients with 'nerve root' problems is feasible. Further research based upon a fully powered trial is required to ascertain if the addition of traction has any benefit in the management of these patients.

Trial registration

Registration number

ISRCTN78417198.

SUBMITTER: Harte AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2217540 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effectiveness of motorised lumbar traction in the management of LBP with lumbo sacral nerve root involvement: a feasibility study.

Harte Annette A AA Baxter George D GD Gracey Jacqueline H JH

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20071129

<h4>Background</h4>Traction is commonly used for the treatment of low back pain (LBP), predominately with nerve root involvement; however its benefits remain to be established. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to compare the difference between two treatment protocols (manual therapy, exercise and advice, with or without traction) in the management of acute/sub acute LBP with 'nerve root' involvement.<h4>Methods</h4>30 LBP patients with ...[more]

PMID: 18047650

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMRI is the gold standard for evaluating the relationship of disc material to soft tissue and neural structures. However, terminologies used to describe lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression have always been a source of confusion. A clear understanding of lumbar disc terminology among clinicians, radiologists, and researchers is vital for patient care and future research.Questions/purposesThrough a systematic review of the literature, the purpose of this article is to describe lumbar disc terminology and comment on the reliability of various nomenclature systems and their application to clinical practice.MethodsPubMed was used for our literature search using the following MeSH headings: "Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Intervertebral Disc Displacement" and "Lumbar Vertebrae" and terms "nomenclature" or "grading" or "classification". Ten papers evaluating lumbar disc herniation/nerve root compression using different grading criteria and providing information regarding intraobserver and interobserver agreement were identified.ResultsTo date, the Combined Task Force (CTF) and van Rijn classification systems are the most reliable methods for describing lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression, respectively. van Rijn dichotomized nerve roots from "definitely no root compression, possibly no root compression, indeterminate root compression, possible root compression, and definite root compression" into no root compression (first three categories) and root compression (last two categories). The CTF classification defines lumbar discs as normal, focal protrusion, broad-based protrusion, or extrusion. The CTF classification system excludes "disc bulges," which is a source of confusion and disagreement among many practitioners. This potentially accounts for its improved reliability compared with other proposed nomenclature systems.ConclusionsThe main issue in the management of patients with lumbar disc disease and nerve root compression is correlation of imaging findings with clinical presentation and symptomatology to guide treatment and intervention. Although it appears that the most commonly supported nomenclatures have strong interobserver reliability, the classification term "disc bulges" is a source of confusion and disagreement among many practitioners. Additional research should focus on the clinical application of the various nomenclatures.

Project description:BackgroundDetection of nerve involvement originating in the spine is a primary concern in the assessment of spine symptoms. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become the diagnostic method of choice for this detection. However, the agreement between MRI and other diagnostic methods for detecting nerve involvement has not been fully evaluated. The aim of this diagnostic study was to evaluate the agreement between nerve involvement visible in MRI and findings of nerve involvement detected in a structured physical examination and a simplified pain drawing.MethodsSixty-one consecutive patients referred for MRI of the lumbar spine were - without knowledge of MRI findings - assessed for nerve involvement with a simplified pain drawing and a structured physical examination. Agreement between findings was calculated as overall agreement, the p value for McNemar's exact test, specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values.ResultsMRI-visible nerve involvement was significantly less common than, and showed weak agreement with, physical examination and pain drawing findings of nerve involvement in corresponding body segments. In spine segment L4-5, where most findings of nerve involvement were detected, the mean sensitivity of MRI-visible nerve involvement to a positive neurological test in the physical examination ranged from 16-37%. The mean specificity of MRI-visible nerve involvement in the same segment ranged from 61-77%. Positive and negative predictive values of MRI-visible nerve involvement in segment L4-5 ranged from 22-78% and 28-56% respectively.ConclusionIn patients with long-standing nerve root symptoms referred for lumbar MRI, MRI-visible nerve involvement significantly underestimates the presence of nerve involvement detected by a physical examination and a pain drawing. A structured physical examination and a simplified pain drawing may reveal that many patients with "MRI-invisible" lumbar symptoms need treatment aimed at nerve involvement. Factors other than present MRI-visible nerve involvement may be responsible for findings of nerve involvement in the physical examination and the pain drawing.

Dataset Information

The effectiveness of motorised lumbar traction in the management of LBP with lumbo sacral nerve root involvement: a feasibility study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Registration number

Publications

The effectiveness of motorised lumbar traction in the management of LBP with lumbo sacral nerve root involvement: a feasibility study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets