Search

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide and has an excessive societal burden. Accumulating evidence has shown that some medical approaches such as imaging in absence of clear indications, medication and some invasive treatments may contribute to the problem rather than alleviating it., Objectives: To determine the extent of de-implementation of non-evidence-based hospital treatments for LBP care in the Netherlands in the last three decades., Methods: Using a register-based population-level observational study with Dutch hospital data, providing a nearly complete coverage of hospital admissions in the Netherlands in 1991-2018, we assessed five frequently applied non-evidence-based hospital treatments for LBP. Time trends in treatment use (absolute and per 100,000 inhabitants) were plotted and analysed using Poisson regression., Results: The use of bed rest for non-specific LBP and hernia nuclei pulposi, and discectomy for spinal stenosis decreased 91%, 81% and 86% since the availability of evidence/guidelines, respectively. De-implementation, beyond 84%, was reached after 18 and 17 years for bed rest for non-specific LBP and discectomy respectively, while it was not reached after 28 years for bed rest for hernia nuclei pulposi. For spinal fusion and invasive pain treatment, there was an initial increase followed by a reduction. Overall, these treatments reduced by 85% and 75%, respectively., Conclusions: In the Netherlands, de-implementation of five non-recommended hospital LBP treatments, if at all, took several decades. Although de-implementation was substantial, slow de-implementation has likely resulted in considerable waste of resources and avoidable harm to many patients in Dutch hospitals., Significance: Medically intensive approaches to low-back pain care contribute to the high societal burden of this disease. There have been calls to avoid such care. Using Dutch hospital data, we showed that de-implementation of five non-recommended hospital low-back pain treatments, if at all, took several decades (i.e. ≥17 years) after availability of evidence and guidelines. Slow de-implementation has likely resulted in considerable waste of resources and avoidable harm to hospital patients; better ways for de-implementation of non-evidence-based care are needed., (© 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation - EFIC ®.)

Purpose: Perceived discomfort could indicate an early sign of pain, for example, as a result of a biomechanical load on the musculoskeletal system. Assessing discomfort can, therefore, help to identify workers at increased risk of musculoskeletal disorders for targeted intervention development. We aimed: (1) to identify the optimal cut-off value of neck and low back discomfort among office workers and (2) to evaluate its predictive validity with future neck and low back pain, respectively., Methods: At baseline healthy participants (n = 100) completed questionnaires, including the Borg CR-10 discomfort scale (on a 0-10 scale), and were followed for six months, during which musculoskeletal pain was assessed monthly. Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the associations of baseline discomfort with the onset of future neck or low back pain. Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve were estimated to identify the optimal discomfort cut-off value predicting future pain., Results: Borg CR-10 scores ≥ 3.5 for perceived neck and low back discomfort had acceptable sensitivity and specificity to predict future neck and low back pain, respectively. Perceived discomfort at baseline as a dichotomous measure (using the ≥ 3.5 cut-off) was a statistically significant predictor of future neck pain (OR = 10.33) and low back pain (OR = 11.81)., Conclusion: We identified the optimal cut-off value of the Borg CR-10 discomfort scale to identify office workers at increased risk of developing neck and low back pain. These findings might benefit ergonomists, primary health care providers, and occupational health researchers in developing targeted interventions., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Study Design: Case-control study., Objective: Investigate the association between lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings and 5-year trajectories of low back pain (LBP) in young Australian adults., Summary of Background Data: The association between lumbar spine imaging findings and LBP remains unclear due to important limitations of previous research, such as a lack of clearly defined LBP phenotypes and inadequate controlling for age, which may substantially affect the association., Methods: Seventy-eight "case" participants with a previously identified "consistent high disabling LBP" trajectory from age 17 to 22 years and 78 "control" participants from a trajectory with consistently low LBP over the same time period, matched for sex, body mass index, physical activity levels, and work physical demands, were identified from Gen2 Raine Study participants. At age 27, participants underwent a standardized lumbar MRI scan, from which 14 specific MRI phenotypes were identified. Primary analyses used unconditional logistic regression, adjusting for covariates used in the matching process, to investigate the relationship between presence of each imaging finding and being a case or control. Secondary analyses explored those relationships based on the number of spinal levels with each MRI finding., Results: The odds for being a case compared with a control were higher in those with disc degeneration (Pfirrmann grade ≥ 3; OR = 3.21, 95% CI: 1.60-6.44; P = 0.001) or those with a herniation (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 0.96-3.74; P - 0.065). We also found that the association became substantially stronger when either disc degeneration or herniation was present at two or more spinal levels (OR = 5.56, 95% CI: 1.97-15.70; P = 0.001, and OR = 5.85, 95% CI: 1.54-22.25; P = 0.009, respectively). The other investigated MRI findings were not associated with greater odds of being a case., Conclusion: Lumbar disc degeneration and herniation may be important contributors to disabling LBP in young adults. Further investigation of their potential prognostic and causal roles is indicated.Level of Evidence: 4., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To investigate the costs of low-back pain associated sick leave of workers in the Netherlands from 2015 to 2017., Methods: We used longitudinal data form a large occupational health service regarding sick leave (registered by occupational physicians). Costs of sick leave due to low-back pain were estimated using the human capital approach, considering society and company perspectives., Results: A total of 7901 low-back pain episodes from 7161 unique workers were analyzed. We estimated an average episode of low-back pain sick leave was 129.42 days in duration and costed €16,191. The total extrapolated sick leave costs were estimated to be €244.7 million in 2017., Conclusions: Low-back pain remains to be a persistent problem in the working population, as it causes workers to take sick leave for considerable periods of time with considerable associated economic consequences., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: Author E.S. is an employee of Arbo Unie OHS (that has provided the data for this study) and participated in the study during working hours. There were no other conflicts of interest reported by the authors., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.)

Prolonged standing is common in many occupations and has been associated with low back discomfort (LBD). No recent studies have investigated a footrest as an intervention to reduce LBD associated with prolonged standing. This study investigated the effect of a footrest on LBD and sought to determine if LBD changes were accompanied by changes in muscle fatigue and low back end-range posture and movement. Twenty participants stood for two 2-h trials, one with and one without a footrest. LBD, lumbar erector spinae electromyography, upper lumbar (UL) and lower lumbar (LL) angles were measured. A significant increase in LBD occurred in both conditions but the footrest did not significantly decrease LBD. The only significant finding between conditions was that UL lordosis became more similar to usual standing over time with footrest use. These findings suggest that footrest use may not reduce LBD development and that development of LBD with prolonged standing is unlikely to be due to muscle fatigue or end-range posture mechanisms., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

While prolonged standing has shown to be detrimentally associated with musculoskeletal symptoms, exposure limits and underlying mechanisms are not well understood. We systematically reviewed evidence from laboratory studies on musculoskeletal symptom development during prolonged (≥20min) uninterrupted standing, quantified acute dose-response associations and described underlying mechanisms. Peer-reviewed articles were systematically searched for. Data from included articles were tabulated, and dose-response associations were statistically pooled. A linear interpolation of pooled dose-response associations was performed to estimate the duration of prolonged standing associated with musculoskeletal symptoms with a clinically relevant intensity of ≥9 (out of 100). We included 26 articles (from 25 studies with 591 participants), of which the majority examined associations of prolonged standing with low back and lower extremity symptoms. Evidence on other (e.g., upper limb) symptoms was limited and inconsistent. Pooled dose-response associations showed that clinically relevant levels of low back symptoms were reached after 71min of prolonged standing, with this shortened to 42min in those considered pain developers. Regarding standing-related low back symptoms, consistent evidence was found for postural mechanisms (i.e., trunk flexion and lumbar curvature), but not for mechanisms of muscle fatigue and/or variation in movement. Blood pooling was the most consistently reported mechanism for standing-related lower extremity symptoms. Evidence suggests a detrimental association of prolonged standing with low back and lower extremity symptoms. To avoid musculoskeletal symptoms (without having a-priori knowledge on whether someone will develop symptoms or not), dose-response evidence from this study suggests a recommendation to refrain from standing for prolonged periods >40min. Interventions should also focus on underlying pain mechanisms., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Despite the high prevalence and burden of low back pain (LBP), understanding of its course during the transition from adolescence to adulthood is limited. The aim of this study was to identify and describe trajectories of LBP and its impact among a general population sample followed from adolescence to young adulthood., Methods: Data from followup assessments at years 17, 20, and 22 of the Western Australian Pregnancy Cohort (Raine) Study were used (n = 1,249). Self-reported LBP and its impact on daily life were assessed, and latent class analysis was used to identify clusters. Resultant clusters were profiled on sex, waist circumference, diagnosed comorbid pain, and health-related quality of life., Results: Four clusters were identified: a cluster of participants with a consistently low prevalence of LBP and its impact (53%) during the period from adolescence to young adulthood, a cluster with an increase in the prevalence of LBP and its impact (22%), a cluster with a decrease in the prevalence of LBP and its impact (15%), and a cluster with a consistently high prevalence of LBP and its impact (10%). These clusters differed markedly on the profiling variables., Conclusion: The identified clusters provide unique information on LBP and its impact during the transition from adolescence to young adulthood. Consideration of these trajectories could be important in the design of early prevention and management strategies., (© 2016, American College of Rheumatology.)

The trade-off between feasibility and accuracy of measurements of physical exposure at the workplace has often been discussed, but is unsufficiently understood. We therefore explored the effect of two low-back loading measurement tools with different accuracies on exposure estimates and their associations with low-back pain (LBP). Low-back moments of 93 workers were obtained using two methods: a moderately accurate observation-based method and a relatively more accurate video-analysis method. Group-based exposure metrics were assigned to a total of 1131 workers who reported on their LBP status during three follow-up years. The two methods were compared regarding individual and group-based moments and their predictive value for LBP. Differences between the two methods for peak moments were high at the individual level and remained substantial at group level. For cumulative moments, differences between the two methods were attenuated as random inaccuracies cancelled out. Peak moments were not predictive for LBP in any method while cumulative moments were, suggesting comparable predictive values of the two methods. While assessment of low-back load improves from investing in collecting relatively more accurate individual-based data, this does not necessarily lead to better predictive values on a group level, especially not for cumulative loads., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Exposure-outcome studies, for instance on work-related low-back pain (LBP), often classify workers into groups for which exposures are estimated from measurements on a sample of workers within or outside the specific study. The present study investigated the influence on bias and power in exposure-outcome associations of the sizes of the total study population and the sample used to estimate exposures., Methods: At baseline, lifting, trunk flexion, and trunk rotation were observed for 371 of 1131 workers allocated to 19 a-priori defined occupational groups. LBP (dichotomous) was reported by all workers during 3 years of follow-up. All three exposures were associated with LBP in this parent study (P < 0.01). All 21 combinations of n = 10, 20, 30 workers per group with an outcome, and k = 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 workers actually being observed were investigated using bootstrapping, repeating each combination 10000 times. Odds ratios (OR) with P values were determined for each of these virtual studies. Average OR and statistical power (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01) was determined from the bootstrap distributions at each (n, k) combination., Results: For lifting and flexed trunk, studies including n ≥ 20 workers, with k ≥ 5 observed, led to an almost unbiased OR and a power >0.80 (P level = 0.05). A similar performance required n ≥ 30 workers for rotated trunk. Small numbers of observed workers (k) resulted in biased OR, while power was, in general, more sensitive to the total number of workers (n)., Conclusions: In epidemiologic studies using a group-based exposure assessment strategy, statistical performance may be sufficient if outcome is obtained from a reasonably large number of workers, even if exposure is estimated from only few workers per group., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society.)

Objectives: Physical exposures (eg, lifting or bending) are believed to be risk factors for low-back pain (LBP), but the literature is inconsistent. Exposure and LBP prevalence differ considerably between occupations, and exposure-outcome associations could be severely modified by the presence of particular occupational groups. We aimed to investigate the influence of such outlying groups on the properties of associations between exposure and LBP., Methods: Lifting and trunk flexion were observed for 371 of 1131 workers within 19 groups. LBP was obtained from all workers during three follow-up years. Both exposure variables were associated with LBP (P<0.01) in this parent dataset. By removing the 19 groups one-by-one and performing logistic regressions analysis on the 18 remaining groups, we demonstrated that one group, mainly road workers, with outlying exposures and LBP prevalence substantially affected the exposure-outcome association in the total population. In order to further examine this phenomenon, we assessed, by simulation, the influence of realistic sizes (n=4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128), mean exposures (e=2000, 3000, 4000 lifts and e=30, 40, 50% trunk flexion time) and LBP prevalences (p=70, 80, 90, 100%) of the outlying group on the strength and certainty of the eventual relationship between exposure and LBP. For each combination of n, e and p, 3000 virtual studies were constructed, including the simulated group together with the other 18 original groups from the parent data-set. Average odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence limits, and power (P<0.05) were calculated across these 3000 studies as measures of the properties of each virtual study design., Results: OR were attenuated more towards 1 and power decreased with smaller values of n, e, and p in the outlying group. Changes in group size and prevalence had a larger influence on OR and power than changes in mean exposure., Conclusions: The size and characteristics of a single group with high exposure and outcome prevalence can strongly influence both the OR point estimate and the likelihood of obtaining significant exposure-outcome associations in studies of large populations. These findings can guide interpretations of prior epidemiological studies and support informed design of future studies.

Lifting at work is considered an important risk factor for low back pain (LBP). However, contradictory findings have been reported, partly because frequency, duration and intensity (ie, the weight of the load) of lifting have not been systematically considered. This has hampered developments of threshold values for lifting. The aims of this study were: to assess the effect of lifting during work (quantified in duration, frequency or intensity) on the incidence of LBP and to quantify the impact of these relationships on the occurrence of LBP in occupational populations exposed to lifting. We searched in PubMed and EMBASE.com for longitudinal studies assessing the effect of occupational lifting on LBP incidence. For each study, the exposure-response slope of the association was estimated by loglinear regression analysis. When possible, a meta-analysis on these slopes was conducted. In a health impact assessment, the effects of the pooled exposure-response relationships on LBP incidence was assessed. Eight longitudinal studies were included. Pooled estimates resulted in ORs of 1.11 (1.05 to 1.18) per 10 kg lifted and 1.09 (1.03 to 1.15) per 10 lifts/day. Duration of lifting could not be pooled. Using these ORs, we estimated that lifting loads over 25 kg and lifting at a frequency of over 25 lifts/day will increase the annual incidence of LBP by 4.32% and 3.50%, respectively, compared to the incidence of not being exposed to lifting. Intensity and frequency of lifting significantly predict the occurrence of LBP. Exposure-response relationships show that lifting heavy loads may have a substantial impact on musculoskeletal health of the working population. This information may direct the development of occupational lifting guidelines and workplace design for LBP prevention., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objectives: Reported associations of physical exposures during work (eg, lifting, trunk flexion or rotation) and low-back pain (LBP) are rather inconsistent. Mechanical back loads (eg, moments on the low back) as a result of exposure to abovementioned risk factors have been suggested to be important as such loads provide a more direct relationship with tissue failure and thus LBP. Since information on the effect of such load metrics with LBP is lacking yet, we aimed to assess this effect in a prospective study., Methods: Of 1131 workers, categorised into 19 groups, LBP was prospectively assessed over 3 years. Video and hand force recordings of 4-5 workers per group (93 in total) were used to estimate mechanical low-back loads (peak load and three cumulative load metrics, ie, linear weighted load, squared weighted load and load weighted to the tenth power) during manual materials handling (MMH) tasks using a video analysis method. These data were combined with static mechanical load estimates based on structured observation of non-MMH tasks. Associations of mechanical loads and LBP were tested using generalised estimating equations., Results: Significant effects on LBP were found for cumulative low-back moments (linear and squared weighted; both p<0.01 and ORs of 3.01 and 3.50, respectively) but not for peak and cumulative moments weighted to the tenth power., Conclusions: Results of this first prospective study on the effect of mechanical low-back load on LBP support a LBP aetiology model of cumulative loads, potentially due to accumulation of microdamage or fatigue. Therefore, prevention of LBP should focus on reducing cumulative low-back loads, especially in highly exposed occupational groups, for example, by reducing handling of heavy loads and working in awkward body postures.

Purpose: Much research has been performed on physical exposures during work (e.g. lifting, trunk flexion or body vibrations) as risk factors for low back pain (LBP), however results are inconsistent. Information on the effect of doses (e.g. spinal force or low back moments) on LBP may be more reliable but is lacking yet. The aim of the present study was to investigate the prospective relationship of cumulative low back loads (CLBL) with LBP and to compare the association of this mechanical load measure to exposure measures used previously., Methods: The current study was part of the Study on Musculoskeletal disorders, Absenteeism and Health (SMASH) study in which 1,745 workers completed questionnaires. Physical load at the workplace was assessed by video-observations and force measurements. These measures were used to calculate CLBL. Furthermore, a 3-year follow-up was conducted to assess the occurrence of LBP. Logistic regressions were performed to assess associations of CLBL and physical risk factors established earlier (i.e. lifting and working in a flexed posture) with LBP. Furthermore, CLBL and the risk factors combined were assessed as predictors in logistic regression analyses to assess the association with LBP., Results: Results showed that CLBL is a significant risk factor for LBP (OR: 2.06 (1.32-3.20)). Furthermore, CLBL had a more consistent association with LBP than two of the three risk factors reported earlier., Conclusions: From these results it can be concluded that CLBL is a risk factor for the occurrence of LBP, having a more consistent association with LBP compared to most risk factors reported earlier.

A previous review concluded that postural sway is increased in patients with low back pain (LBP). However, more detailed analysis of the literature shows that postural deficit may be dependent on experimental conditions in which patients with LBP have been assessed. The research question to be answered in this review was: "Is there any difference in postural sway between subjects with and without LBP across several sensory manipulation conditions?". A literature search in Pubmed, Scopus, Embase and PsychInfo was performed followed by hand search and contact with authors. Studies investigating postural sway during bipedal stance without applying external forces in patients with specific and non-specific LBP compared to healthy controls were included. Twenty three articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Most studies reported an increased postural sway in LBP, or no effect of LBP on postural sway. In a minority of studies, a decreased sway was found in LBP patients. There were no systematic differences between studies finding an effect and those reporting no effect of LBP. The proportion of studies finding between-group differences did not increase with increased complexity of sensory manipulations. Potential factors that may have caused inconsistencies in the literature are discussed in this systematic review., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: This study aimed to develop, compare and validate two versions of a video analysis method for assessment of low back moments during occupational lifting tasks since for epidemiological studies and ergonomic practice relatively cheap and easily applicable methods to assess low back loads are needed. Ten healthy subjects participated in a protocol comprising 12 lifting conditions. Low back moments were assessed using two variants of a video analysis method and a lab-based reference method. Repeated measures ANOVAs showed no overall differences in peak moments between the two versions of the video analysis method and the reference method. However, two conditions showed a minor overestimation of one of the video analysis method moments. Standard deviations were considerable suggesting that errors in the video analysis were random. Furthermore, there was a small underestimation of dynamic components and overestimation of the static components of the moments. Intraclass correlations coefficients for peak moments showed high correspondence (>0.85) of the video analyses with the reference method. It is concluded that, when a sufficient number of measurements can be taken, the video analysis method for assessment of low back loads during lifting tasks provides valid estimates of low back moments in ergonomic practice and epidemiological studies for lifts up to a moderate level of asymmetry. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]