Lumbar segmental mobility disorders: comparison of two methods of defining abnormal displacement kinematics in a cohort of patients with non-specific mechanical low back pain.
BACKGROUND
Lumbar segmental rigidity (LSR) and lumbar segmental instability (LSI) are believed to be associated with low back pain (LBP), and identification of these disorders is believed to be useful for directing intervention choices. Previous studies have focussed on lumbar segmental rotation and translation, but have used widely varying methodologies. Cut-off points for the diagnosis of LSR & LSI are largely arbitrary. Prevalence of these lumbar segmental mobility disorders (LSMDs) in a non-surgical, primary care LBP population has not been established.


METHODS
A cohort of 138 consecutive patients with recurrent or chronic low back pain (RCLBP) were recruited in this prospective, pragmatic, multi-centre study. Consenting patients completed pain and disability rating instruments, and were referred for flexion-extension radiographs. Sagittal angular rotation and sagittal translation of each lumbar spinal motion segment was measured from the radiographs, and compared to a reference range derived from a study of 30 asymptomatic volunteers. In order to define reference intervals for normal motion, and define LSR and LSI, we approached the kinematic data using two different models. The first model used a conventional Gaussian definition, with motion beyond two standard deviations (2sd) from the reference mean at each segment considered diagnostic of rotational LSMD and translational LSMD. The second model used a novel normalised within-subjects approach, based on mean normalised contribution-to-total-lumbar-motion. An LSMD was then defined as present in any segment that contributed motion beyond 2sd from the reference mean contribution-to-normalised-total-lumbar-motion. We described reference intervals for normal segmental mobility, prevalence of LSMDs under each model, and the association of LSMDs with pain and disability.


RESULTS
With the exception of the conventional Gaussian definition of rotational LSI, LSMDs were found in statistically significant prevalences in patients with RCLBP. Prevalences at both the segmental and patient level were generally higher using the normalised within-subjects model (2.8 to 16.8% of segments; 23.3 to 35.5% of individuals) compared to the conventional Gaussian model (0 to 15.8%; 4.7 to 19.6%). LSMDs are associated with presence of LBP, however LSMDs do not appear to be strongly associated with higher levels of pain or disability compared to other forms of non-specific LBP.


CONCLUSIONS
LSMDs are a valid means of defining sub-groups within non-specific LBP, in a conservative care population of patients with RCLBP. Prevalence was higher using the normalised within-subjects contribution-to-total-lumbar-motion approach.
Abbott
J Haxby
JH
Clarity Clinical Research Consultants, Dunedin, New Zealand. haxby@claritygroup.co.nz
Fritz
Julie M
JM
McCane
Brendan
B
Shultz
Barry
B
Herbison
Peter
P
Lyons
Brett
B
Stefanko
Georgia
G
Walsh
Richard M
RM
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena / Q000379:methods*; D015331:Cohort Studies; D004185:Disability Evaluation; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D017116:Low Back Pain / Q000145:classification / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000503:physiopathology*; D008159:Lumbar Vertebrae / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000503:physiopathology*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D016011:Normal Distribution; D010147:Pain Measurement; D015995:Prevalence; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011859:Radiography; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular / Q000502:physiology*; D012016:Reference Values