Thanks to Dynamic Chiropractic for access to these Key Findings from the study

• “There was a clear difference between the treatment groups: the subjects [receiving] spinal manipulation showed a faster and quantitatively more distinct reduction in the RMS” (compared to subjects receiving diclofenac therapy).

  ---

• “Subjects [also] noticed a faster and quantitatively more distinct reduction in [their] subjective estimation of pain after manipulation. … A similar observation was made when comparing the somatic part of the SF-12 inventory … indicating that the subjects experienced better quality of life after the spinal manipulation compared to diclofenac.”
  

  ---

• “The rescue medication was calculated both for the mean cumulative dose (numbers of 500 mg paracetamol tablets) and for the number of days on which rescue medication was taken. … In the diclofenac arm, the patients on average took almost 3 times as many tablets and the number of days [taking the tablets] was almost twice as high” compared to patients in the manipulation arm. While the authors note that these results were not significant due to large between-individual variations (meaning a few patients could have taken many tablets, throwing off the overall totals), it still suggests that value of spinal manipulation vs. drug therapy (because even if both patient groups had taken the same amount of rescue medication for the same number of days, it wouldn’t discount the fact that patients in the manipulation group showed significant improvement on outcome variables compared to patients in the diclofenac group).

Intervention & Implementation Research, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 13, Stockholm 171 77, Sweden

Background   Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition and has been found to be recurrent and persistent in a majority of cases. Chiropractors have a preventive strategy, maintenance care (MC), aimed towards minimizing recurrence and progression of such conditions. The indications for recommending MC have been identified in the Nordic countries from hypothetical cases. This study aims to investigate whether these indications are indeed used in the clinical encounter.

Methods   Data were collected in a multi-center observational study in which patients consulted a chiropractor for their non-specific LBP. Patient baseline information was a) previous duration of the LBP, b) the presence of previous episodes of LBP and c) early improvement with treatment. The chiropractors were asked if they deemed each individual patient an MC candidate. Logistic regression analyses (uni– and multi-level) were used to investigate the association of the patient variables with the chiropractor’s decision.

Conclusions   The study largely confirms the clinical use of the previously identified indications for recommending MC for recurrent and persistent LBP. Previous episodes of LBP was the strongest indicator.

There are many similar studies in our new

Maintenance Care, Wellness and Chiropractic Page

By Vern Saboe, DC, DACAN, DABFP, FACO
Lobbyist, Oregon Chiropractic Association

The new State of Oregon Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Low Back Pain recommends spinal manipulation as the only nonpharmacological treatment for acute lower back pain. The guidelines, which have been adopted by the Oregon Health Authority, are a collaborative effort between the Center for Evidence-Based Practice, Oregon Corporation for Health Care Quality, Oregon Health and Sciences University’s Center for Evidence-based Policy, and the new Oregon Health Evidence Review Commission.

The Oregon Chiropractic Association (OCA) repeatedly gave written and oral testimony that the original draft guidelines placed too much emphasis on drugs and surgery. A close review of the original algorithm, “Management of Low Back Pain (LBP) (Image 2), relative to “#23 Signs or symptoms of radiculopathy or spinal stenosis,” reveals this. For example, if subsequent special imaging (MRI) revealed concordant nerve root impingement or spinal stenosis (#25), the original draft algorithm led the clinician into a surgical or other invasive procedure “dead end,” meaning there was no contingency for conservative chiropractic treatment (#26).

By MIKE STOBBE

Chiropractor, Private Practice, Occoquan Family Chiropractic, PLLC, Occoquan, VA 22125

OBJECTIVE:   The purpose of this article is to present the case of a patient with an anatomical anomaly of the piriformis muscle who had a piriformis syndrome and was managed with chiropractic care.

CASE REPORT:   A 32-year-old male patient presented to a chiropractic clinic with a chief complaint of low back pain that radiated into his right buttock, right posterior thigh, and right posterior calf. The complaint began 5 years prior as a result of injuries during Airborne School in the US Army resulting in a 60% disability rating from the Veterans Administration. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a mildly decreased intradiscal T2 signal with shallow central subligamentous disk displacement and low-grade facet arthropathy at L5/S1, a hypolordotic lumbar curvature, and accessory superior bundles of the right piriformis muscle without morphologic magnetic resonance imaging evidence of piriformis syndrome.

INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME:   Chiropractic treatment included lumbar and sacral spinal manipulation with soft tissue massage to associated musculature and home exercise recommendations. Variations from routine care included proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretches, electric muscle stimulation, acupressure point stimulation, Sacro Occipital Technique pelvic blocking, CranioSacral therapy, and an ergonomic evaluation.

CONCLUSION:   A patient with a piriformis anomaly with symptoms of low back pain and piriformis syndrome responded positively to conservative chiropractic care, although the underlying cause of the piriformis syndrome remained.

You may also want to review

Post-isometric Relaxation (PIR) of the Psoas

The following article appears to be the first study to track and review the progression of back pain in the same group of children, over a prolonged period, to see how (or if) it is a contributor to those same complains in adulthood.

Of particular interest is Table 2, because it breaks down and tracks complaints of either neck, mid back, or low back pain in the same group of children at 3 different time periods: ages 9, 13 and 15 years old.

Table 2: Prevalence rates of different types of back pain in a cohort of Danish children/adolescents surveyed at three time points

The Abstract and Full Text Article:

Continue reading …

Robert M. Rowell, DC, MS, and Steven J. Rylander, DC, MS

OBJECTIVES:   The purpose of this article is to report the case of a patient who had low-back pain, leg pain, and idiopathic chronic testicular pain and who sought chiropractic care for his low-back and leg pain and received pain relief including his testicular pain.

SUBJECT:   A 36-year-old male patient had low-back pain, right leg pain, and testicular pain that was worsening. All had been present for 5 years. He had been seen by several medical physicians and had lumbar magnetic resonance imaging and x-rays performed. All were read as normal. Examination revealed tenderness of the testicles bilaterally with no masses or other abnormality of the testicles or scrotum. Orthopedic and neurological testing was unremarkable. Tenderness rated 8 out of 10 was noted at the L4 spinous process.

INTERVENTION:   The patient was treated with Cox Technic (flexion-distraction) of the lumbar spine, receiving a total of 19 treatments over an 8-week time period.

Continue reading …

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health Plan mandates conservative care before even considering surgery for chronic Low Back Pain cases.

By Peter W. Crownfield

The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Health Plan, a health maintenance organization affiliated with the university’s School of Medicine, has adopted landmark guidelines for the management of chronic low back pain.

As of Jan. 1, 2012, candidates for spine surgery must receive “prior authorization to determine medical necessity,” which includes verification that the patient has “tried and failed a 3-month course of conservative management that included physical therapy, chiropractic therapy, and medication.”

Surgery candidates also must be graduates of the plan’s LBP health coaching program. The program features a Web-based decision-making tool designed to help plan members “understand the pros and cons of surgery and high-tech radiology.” It is the first reported implementation of such a policy by a health care plan.

Putting a Clamp on the Soaring Rates of Spine Surgery

According to the December 2011 issue of the UPMC Health Plan Physician Partner Update, which informed participating providers of the new guidelines and the rationale for their implementation, “We feel strongly that this clinical initiative will improve the quality of care for members who are considering low back surgery, and that it will facilitate their involvement in the decision-making process.”

The update also noted, “Surgical procedures for low back surgery performed without prior authorization will not be reimbursed at either the specialist or the hospital level.”

Continue reading …

BY: Lewis S, Holmes P, Woby S, Hindle J, Fowler N.

Institute for Performance Research, Manchester Metropolitan University, Crewe CW1 5DU, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT:

Individuals with low back pain (LBP) often exhibit elevated paraspinal muscle activity compared to asymptomatic controls during static postures such as standing. This hyperactivity has been associated with a delayed rate of stature recovery in individuals with mild LBP. This study aimed to explore this association further in a more clinically relevant population of NHS patients with LBP and to investigate if relationships exist with a number of psychological factors. Forty seven patients were recruited from waiting lists for physiotherapist-led rehabilitation programmes. Paraspinal muscle activity while standing was assessed via surface electromyogram (EMG) and stature recovery over a 40-min unloading period was measured on a precision stadiometer. Self-report of pain, disability, anxiety, depression, pain-related anxiety, fear of movement, self-efficacy and catastrophising were recorded. Correlations were found between muscle activity and both pain (r=0.48) and disability (r=0.43). Muscle activity was also correlated with self-efficacy (r=-0.45), depression (r=0.33), anxiety (r=0.31), pain-related anxiety (r=0.29) and catastrophising (r=0.29) and was a mediator between self-efficacy and pain. Pain was a mediator in the relationship between muscle activity and disability. Stature recovery was not found to be related to pain, disability, muscle activity or any of the psychological factors. The findings confirm the importance of muscle activity within LBP, in particular as a pathway by which psychological factors may impact on clinical outcome. The mediating role of muscle activity between psychological factors and pain suggests that interventions that are able to reduce muscle tension may be of particular benefit to patients demonstrating such characteristics, which may help in the targeting of treatment for LBP.

Background: Back pain is a common problem and a major cause of disability and health care utilization.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy, harms, and costs of the most common CAM treatments (acupuncture, massage, spinal manipulation, and mobilization) for neck/low-back pain.

Data Sources: Records without language restriction from various databases up to February 2010.

Data Extraction: The efficacy outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability.

Data Synthesis: Reports of 147 randomized trials and 5 non-randomized studies were included. CAM treatments were more effective in reducing pain and disability compared to no treatment, physical therapy (exercise and/or electrotherapy) or usual care immediately or at short-term follow-up. Trials that applied sham-acupuncture tended towards statistically non-significant results. In several studies, acupuncture caused bleeding on the site of application, and manipulation and massage caused pain episodes of mild and transient nature.

Conclusions: CAM treatments were significantly more efficacious than no treatment, placebo, physical therapy, or usual care in reducing pain immediately or at short-term after treatment. CAM therapies did not significantly reduce disability compared to sham. None of the CAM treatments was shown systematically as superior to one another. More efforts are needed to improve the conduct and reporting of studies of CAM treatments.

Introduction:

Back pain is a general term that includes neck, thoracic, and lower-back spinal pain. In the majority of cases, the aetiology of back pain is unknown and therefore is considered as “nonspecific back pain”. Back pain is considered “specific” if its aetiology is known (e.g., radiculopathy, discogenic disease). Although back pain is usually self-limited and resolves within a few weeks, approximately 10% of the subjects develop chronic pain, which imposes large burden to the health-care system, absence from work, and lost productivity [1]. In a recent study, the direct costs of back pain related to physician services, medical devices, medications, hospital services, and diagnostic tests were estimated to be US$ 91 billion or US$ 46 per capita [2]. Indirect costs related to employment and household activities were estimated to be between US$ 7 billion and US$ 20 billion, or between US$25 and US$ 71 per capita, respectively [3–5]. One study published in 2007 showed that the 3-month prevalence of back and/or neck pain in USA was 31% (low-back pain: 34 million, neck pain: nine million, both back and neck pain: 19 million) [6].

Continue reading …

By Donald R Murphy, DC, DACAN, and Eric L Hurwitz, DC, PhD

Rhode Island Spine Center, 600 Pawtucket Avenue, Pawtucket, RI 02860 USA

BACKGROUND

By Donald M. Petersen Jr., BS, HCD(hc), FICC(h), Publisher

“[C]hiropractors might be preventing some of their patients from receiving procedures of unproven cost utility value or dubious efficacy.” This quote comes from the latest study revealing chiropractic’s superiority to “traditional medical approaches.” Titled “Health Maintenance Care in Work-Related Low Back Pain and Its Association With Disability Recurrence,” the study was published in the April 2011 issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. [1]

The study compares “physical therapy, chiropractic and (medical) physician services” as they relate to disability and health maintenance. As our front-page article underscores, investigators found that “the likelihood of recurrent disability due to LBP (low back pain) for recipients of services during the health maintenance care period by all other provider groups was consistently worse when compared with recipients of health maintenance care by chiropractors.”

The authors state that “by visiting only or mostly a chiropractor or becoming a chiropractic loyalist, the patients do not receive other traditional medical approaches.” While this is obvious, it is no less significant because those who do receive traditional medical care experienced a greater likelihood of recurrent disability.

Continue reading …

This study is unique in that it was conducted by the Center for Disability Research at the Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety and the University of Massachusetts Lowell, Hopkinton, Mass; and the Center for Health Economics & Science Policy at United BioSource Corporation, London, United Kingdom.

Their objective was to compare the occurrences of repeated disability episodes between types of health care providers, who treat claimants with new episodes of work-related low back pain (LBP). They followed 894 patients over 1-year, using workers’ compensation claims data.

By controlling for demographics and severity, they determined the hazard ratio (HR) for disability recurrence between 3 types of providers:
Physical Therapists (PT),
Physicians (MD), and
Chiropractors (DC).

The results are quite interesting:

Continue reading …

This hospital-based study is interesting for several reasons:

• First, they utilized an evidence-based program for treating low back pain (LBP)
• Based on that evidence, they assigned 83% of those who sought care to chiropractic management.
• Results for the patients treated by doctors of chiropractic were mean of 5.2 visits, mean cost per case of $302, and
• 95% of those patients rated their care as “excellent.”

The Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: A health care facility (Jordan Hospital) implemented a multidimensional spine care pathway (SCP) using the National Center for Quality Assurance (NCQA) Back Pain Recognition Program (BPRP) as its foundation. The purpose of this report is to describe the implementation and results of a multidisciplinary, evidence-based, standardized process to improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs associated with treatment and diagnostic testing.

METHODS: A standardized SCP was developed to improve the quality of back pain care. The NCQA BPRP provided the framework for the SCP to determine the standard of quality care delivered. Patients were triaged, and suitable patients were categorized into 1 of 5 classifications based upon history and examination, directional exercise flexion or “extension biases,” spinal manipulation, traction, or spinal stabilization exercises.

RESULTS: The findings for 518 consecutive patients were included. One hundred sixteen patients (10%) were seen once and triaged to specialty care; 7% of patients received magnetic resonance imagings. Four hundred thirty-two patients (83%) were classified and treated by doctors of chiropractic and/or physical therapists. Results for the patients treated by doctors of chiropractic were mean of 5.2 visits, mean cost per case of $302, mean intake pain rating score of 6.2 of 10, and mean discharge score of 1.9 of 10; 95% of patients rated their care as “excellent.”

Continue reading …

SOURCE:   MGT of America, Austin, Texas

This new, single blinded placebo controlled study, conducted by the Faculty of Medicine at Mansoura University, conclusively demonstrates that maintenance care provides significant benefits for those with chronic low back pain. [1]

The authors concluded that spinal manipulation is effective for the treatment of chronic nonspecific LBP and that to obtain long-term benefit for the patient, this study suggests maintenance spinal manipulations after the initial intensive manipulative therapy can provide that additional benefit.

SOURCE: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011 (Aug 15); 36 (18): 1427-37

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulation (SMT) is a common treatment option for low back pain. Numerous clinical trials have attempted to evaluate its effectiveness for different subgroups of acute and chronic LBP previously, but the efficacy of maintenance SMT in chronic non-specific LBP has never been studied.

Continue reading …

Abstract

Mechanical low back pain is a common indication for Nuclear Medicine imaging. Whole-body bone scan is a very sensitive but poorly specific study for the detection of metabolic bone abnormalities. The accurate localisation of metabolically active bone disease is often difficult in 2D imaging but single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) allows accurate diagnosis and anatomic localisation of osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions in 3D imaging. We present a clinical case of a patient referred for evaluation of chronic lower back pain with no history of trauma, spinal surgery, or cancer. Planar whole-body scan showed heterogeneous tracer uptake in the lumbar spine with intense localization to the right lateral aspect of L3. Integrated SPECT/CT of the lumbar spine detected active bone metabolism in the right L3/L4 facet joint in the presence of minimal signs of degenerative osteoarthrosis on CT images, while a segment demonstrating more gross degenerative changes was quiescent with only mild tracer uptake. The usefulness of integrated SPECT/CT for anatomical and functional assessment of back pain opens promising opportunities both for multi-disciplinary clinical assessment and treatment for manual therapists and for research into the effectiveness of manual therapies.

Background

The concept of lumbar facet joints causing or contributing to mechanical low back pain syndromes has been debated in the health care literature for decades [1]. Practitioners of the various manual therapies commonly treat patients presenting with low back pain but are faced with the diagnostic challenge of trying to identify a tissue source of low back pain. While this complaint may be the result of any of a number of pathologies, the vast majority of low back pain falls under the diagnostic umbrella of ‘‘ mechanical low back pain ’’ [2]. We present here the case of a patient with radiological signs of marked lumbosacral junction facet joint osteoarthrosis and clinical symptoms supportive of pathology in this region but with SPECT/CT findings suggestive of an active bony lesion at a more remote spinal segment.

Continue reading …

This newly published (Oct 2) study in Spine Journal compared family physician-directed usual care with evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) (which includes reassurance and avoidance of passive treatments, acetaminophen, 4 weeks of lumbar chiropractic spinal manipulative care, and return to work within 8 weeks) on patients with acute low back pain. [1]

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of patients with acute mechanical low back pain (AM-LBP) have been defined on an international scale. Multicenter clinical trials have demonstrated that most AM-LBP patients do not receive CPG-based treatments. To date, the value of implementing full and exclusively CPG-based treatment remains unclear. To determine if full CPGs-based study care (SC) results in greater improvement in functional outcomes than family physician-directed usual care (UC), a two-arm, parallel design, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial using blinded outcome assessment was designed. Treatment was administered in a hospital-based spine program outpatient clinic. Patients were assessed by a spine physician, then randomized to SC (reassurance and avoidance of passive treatments, acetaminophen, 4 weeks of lumbar CSMT, and return to work within 8 weeks), or family physician-directed UC, the components of which were recorded.

Continue reading …