Dataset Information

Relationship of joint hypermobility with low Back pain and lumbar spine osteoarthritis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) affects millions of Americans and costs billions. Studies suggest a link between cLBP and joint hypermobility.

Methods

We conducted cross-sectional primary analyses of joint hypermobility and cLBP, lumbar spine osteoarthritis (OA), and lumbar facet joint OA (FOA) in 3 large studies-the Generalized Osteoarthritis Study, Genetics of Generalized Osteoarthritis Study, and Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project (total n = 5072). Associations of joint hypermobility and Beighton trunk flexion with cLBP and lumbar OA were estimated using separate adjusted logistic regression models. Adjusted pooled odds ratios (pORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were then summarized-using random effect univariate, multivariate crude, and adjusted models-and heterogeneity was determined (I² statistic).

Results

In univariate models, hypermobility was associated with symptomatic FOA (pOR = 0.64 [95% CI 0.44, 0.93]) but this result was not found in the multivariate models. In multivariate adjusted models, hypermobility was not significantly associated with cLBP and lumbar OA, but trunk flexion was inversely associated with cLBP (pOR = 0.40 [95% 0.26, 0.62]), spine OA (pOR = 0.66 [95% CI 0.50, 0.87]), symptomatic spine OA (pOR = 0.39 [95% CI 0.28, 0.53]), and symptomatic FOA (pOR = 0.53 [95% CI 0.37, 0.77]). Generally, between-study heterogeneity was moderate-high.

Conclusions

Hypermobility was not associated with cLBP or lumbar OA. The inverse association of trunk flexion with cLBP and lumbar OA may indicate a role for a flexible spine in avoiding or managing these conditions.

SUBMITTER: Goode AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6456963 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical practice guidelines suggest that magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine (LS-MRI) is unneeded during the first 6 weeks of acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Unneeded LS-MRIs do not improve patient outcomes, lead to unnecessary surgeries and procedures, and cost the US healthcare system about $300 million dollars per year. However, why primary care providers (PCPs) order unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE:To characterize and explain the factors contributing to PCPs ordering unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. DESIGN:Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS:Veterans Affairs PCPs identified from administrative data as having high or low rates of guideline-concordant LS-MRI ordering in 2016. APPROACH:Providers were interviewed about their use of LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain and factors contributing to their decision-making. Directed content analysis of transcripts was conducted to identify and compare environmental-, patient-, and provider-level factors contributing to unneeded LS-MRI. KEY RESULTS:Fifty-five PCPs participated (8.6% response rate). Both low (n = 33) and high (n = 22) guideline-concordant providers reported that LS-MRIs were required for specialty care referrals, but they differed in how other environmental factors (stringency of radiology utilization review, management of patient travel burden, and time constraints) contributed to LS-MRI ordering patterns. Low- and high-guideline-concordant providers reported similar patient factors (beliefs in value of imaging and pressure on providers). However, provider groups differed in how provider-level factors (guideline familiarity and agreement, the extent to which they acquiesced to patients, and belief in the value of LS-MRI) contributed to LS-MRI ordering patterns. CONCLUSIONS:Results describe how diverse environmental, patient, and provider factors contribute to unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Prior research using a single intervention to reduce unneeded LS-MRI has been ineffective. Results suggest that multifaceted de-implementation strategies may be required to reduce unneeded LS-MRI.

Project description:BACKGROUND:According to the American Physical Therapy Association, there is strong evidence to show that vertebral mobilization and manipulation procedures can be used to improve spinal and hip mobility and reduce pain and incapacity in low back pain patients that fit the clinical prediction rule. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the immediate effects of high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation on pain and postural control parameters in individuals with nonspecific low back pain. METHODS:This study used a participant-blinded and assessor-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial involving a single session, in which 24 participants were randomly distributed into control (simulated manipulation) and intervention (HVLA lumbar manipulation) groups. The primary (pain: subjective pain intensity and pressure pain threshold) and secondary outcomes (postural control: ellipse area, center of pressure [COP] excursion, COP RMS velocity, and differences between the COP and center of projected gravity) were evaluated before and after the session using a numerical pain scale, algometer, and a force platform. For all outcomes, multiple mixed 2 (group) × 2 (time) ANOVAs were performed. RESULTS:For the subjective pain intensity, only time was significant as a main effect, where pre-intervention presented a greater value then post-intervention (F [1.44]?=?4.377; p =?0.042; r =?0.30). For the pressure pain threshold no significant effect was found. For the postural control parameters, as a main effect, only the ellipse area was significantly greater in the control group (F [1.44]?=?6.760; p =?0.013; effect size?=?0.36). CONCLUSIONS:There was a reduction in subjective pain intensity, evaluated using a numerical scale, in both the intervention and control groups immediately after the intervention, suggesting that the spinal manipulation had a similar effect to the placebo procedure. No effect of HVLA lumbar manipulation was identified for postural control variables in either the intervention or control groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT02312778, registered at 14 September 2014.