Elsevier

Manual Therapy

Volume 12, Issue 2, May 2007, Pages 181-191
Manual Therapy

Case report
The use of a mechanism-based classification system to evaluate and direct management of a patient with non-specific chronic low back pain and motor control impairment—A case report

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2006.05.004Get rights and content

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal pain syndromes, affecting up to 80% of people at some point during their lifetime (Katz, 2002; van Tulder et al., 2002; Ehrlich, 2003; Woolf and Pfleger, 2003). It is reported that in spite of the large number of pathological conditions that can give rise to LBP, 85% of these are without a detected patho-anatomical/radiological abnormality. This population is classified as having ‘non-specific’ (NS) LBP (Waddell, 1987, Waddell, 2004; Dillingham, 1995) which often develops into a chronic fluctuating problem with intermittent flares (Croft et al., 1998; Burton et al., 2004).

Optimal treatment for patients with NS-CLBP remains largely enigmatic. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) have failed to find consistent evidence for improved outcomes (Goldby et al., 2000; Cairns et al., 2002; Assendelft et al., 2004; Frost et al., 2004). One explanation offered for the inability to identify effective treatments is the lack of success in defining sub-groups of patients who are most likely to respond to a specific treatment approach (Leboeuf-Yde et al., 1997; Borkan et al., 1998; Bouter et al., 1998). Indeed, it has been proposed that the ‘LBP-group’ conceals a large heterogeneous group of patients (McKenzie, 1981; Spitzer, 1987; Borkan et al., 1998; Bouter et al., 1998; Leboeuf-Yde and Manniche, 2001). Any specific treatment applied to a falsely assumed homogenous sample may result in improvement, failure to respond or aggravation of the disorder (Binkley et al., 1993; Fritz et al., 2000; Leboeuf-Yde and Manniche, 2001; Fritz et al., 2003).

The shift from thinking about LBP as a patho-anatomical disorder, to viewing LBP as a multi-factorial bio-psycho-social disorder is now well accepted (Borkan et al., 2002; McCarthy et al., 2004; Waddell, 2004). Consequently, the different dimensions relevant to classifying the domain of LBP include patho-anatomical, signs and symptoms, psychological and social (Waddell, 1987; Ford et al., 2003). For LBP, several classification systems (CSs) from a multitude of perspectives have been proposed. A recent review highlights that the multi-dimensional nature of LBP is not reflected in most CSs (Ford et al., 2003; McCarthy et al., 2004).

While it is well recognized that altered motor control exists with LBP disorders, the changes in motor control in this population are highly variable (O’Sullivan et al., 1997; Hodges and Moseley, 2003; van Dieen et al., 2003). O’Sullivan reported that in general all disorders involving pain in the lumbar region are associated with movement or control impairment. The mere presence of these impairments does not imply that they represent the underlying basis for the disorder, or that correcting these impairments will result in resolving the disorder (O’Sullivan, 2004, O’Sullivan, 2005).

O’Sullivan's approach to classification is based on a process of ‘diagnostics’ (Elvey and O’Sullivan, 2004) to make a clinical determination as to whether the patient presents with a classification of motor control impairment (MCI) or whether the MCI is simply a secondary effect of another process. This process of diagnostics places a strong emphasis on the correlation between the subjective history, radiology, pain behaviour, physical examination findings and screens for serious pathology (‘red flags’) and psycho-social factors (‘yellow flags’).

According to O’Sullivan motor responses present with LBP can be classified into three distinct broad groups (O’Sullivan, 2005). The first group consists of subjects whose motor response is secondary (and adaptive) to an underlying pathological process. The second group consists of subjects where the motor response is secondary to a dominance of psychological and/or social (non-organic) factors. O’Sullivan (2005) proposed that a third group exists where maladaptive motor responses result in chronic abnormal tissue loading leading to ongoing pain and distress.

Five distinct (direction based) patterns of MCI have been previously described in detail (O’Sullivan, 2000, O’Sullivan, 2004). These sub-groups of MCI consist of the; flexion pattern, active extension pattern, passive extension pattern, lateral shifting pattern and a multi-directional pattern (Table 1).

Recently, Dankaerts et al. (2006a) showed that these sub-groups could be reliably identified by trained clinicians (physiotherapists and medical doctors). There is also growing support for the validity of these sub-groups with recent studies revealing altered spinal repositioning sense (O’Sullivan et al., 2003), different spinal posture, kinematics and muscle activation patterns among sub-groups consistent with the CS (Burnett et al., 2004; Dankaerts et al., 2006b, Dankaerts et al., 2006c; O’Sullivan et al., 2006). Despite this growing evidence, there is a lack of longitudinal studies documenting outcome on these specific sub-groups following a targeted intervention.

Synchronized recording of surface electromyography (sEMG) and spinal kinematics have been reported frequently in the literature as objective measurement methods in non-outcome LBP research (McGill et al., 1997; Callaghan et al., 1998; Peach et al., 1998; Callaghan and McGill, 2001; Green et al., 2002). This methodological approach has been shown to be sensitive to quantify parameters of motor control and to sub-classify NS-CLBP patients with MCI during sitting (Dankaerts et al., 2006b, Dankaerts et al., 2006c). An advantage of this form of measurement is that unlike simple range of motion (ROM), measures of sEMG and spinal kinematics have the capacity to quantify the quality and pattern of movement of the spinal-pelvic region through ROM.

The aim of this case report is to investigate the use of O’Sullivan's CS to evaluate and direct management of a patient with NS-CLBP and MCI. An objective laboratory-based assessment (using sEMG and spinal kinematics) was performed on a LBP patient and a matched pain-free control subject. The aim of the laboratory testing was to evaluate its capacity to lend support to the classification of MCI and to quantify the clinical changes in motor control secondary to a specific motor learning intervention.

Section snippets

Subjective and physical examination

A comprehensive subjective and physical examination was first performed on the patient in order to classify her disorder. This information is summarized in Table 2, Table 3, respectively.

Classification based on history and physical examination

It is acknowledged that rather than relying on one test, classification of a disorder should be based on information of the history taking examination and a ‘cluster of tests’ in combination with a reasoning process (Elvey and O’Sullivan, 2004). In this way, several key features of the physical examination findings (not one single test) consistent with the history, helped to formulate the hypothesis of a classification of multi-directional pattern of MCI disorder (O’Sullivan, 2004). The

Laboratory testing

An objective laboratory-based assessment (surface EMG and spinal kinematics) was performed on the patient and a matched control subject. The method of this laboratory testing has been described in detail elsewhere (Dankaerts et al., 2006b, Dankaerts et al., 2006c). This case study reports on the lumbo-sacral kinematics and the sEMG activity of superficial Lumbar Multifidus (sLM) and transverse fibres of Internal Oblique (trIO) during forward bending. This test was selected since it is

Intervention

The patient's management consisted of a motor learning intervention based on a cognitive behavioural model. It was progressed over a 14-week period (total of 8 visits, the first 3 were spaced 1 week apart, with subsequent sessions once every 2–3 weeks) to address the impairments in motor control of this patient in a functionally specific manner. The choice of this treatment approach was based on the diagnosis and classification assigned to this patient. Each session included re-evaluation and

Clinical outcome

The patient progressed well during the intervention with a gradual decrease in pain and an increase in functional ability. At 14 weeks (end of intervention) she reported to be pain-free with an ability to perform work and household-related tasks. This was associated with a normalization of her movement patterns and absence of pain, improved spinal proprioception, adoption of neutral zone postures and reduced tissue sensitivity. The Revised-Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (Hudson-Cook et al.,

Forward bending: range of motion

The patient's lumbar spine ROM into forward bending was 48° at the intake examination and 47° at 6-month follow-up. This confirms the clinically observed absence of any movement impairment into forward bending being related to her LBP. This is consistent with the CS.

Forward bending: kinematic pattern

Fig. 1 shows the lumbar curvature (L×C) in degrees as measured by the Fastrak™ in standing and per quartile as the subject bends forward. Negative values represent a lordotic posture. Fig. 1a represents a matched (age and parity)

Discussion

The patient described in this case report would be ‘classically’ diagnosed as having NS-CLBP based on the absence of any abnormal radiological findings linked to the clinical presentation (Waddell, 1987, Waddell, 2004; Dillingham, 1995). Based on the CS (O’Sullivan, 2004) this patient was classified as having a multi-directional pattern of MCI.

The use of a CS to guide management of patients with LBP and MCI has been reported previously (Maluf et al., 2000; Van Dillen et al., 2003). There are

Conclusion

This case study illustrates the use of O’Sullivan's CS to guide physiotherapy intervention for a patient with a classification of multi-directional MCI. The kinematic and EMG data support the classification and demonstrated pre-intervention an impairment in the control of the spine during functional movement tasks. Following a motor learning intervention the altered motor control was normalized and was associated with reductions in pain disability and movement-based fear. Ultimately, further

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (74)

  • C. Leboeuf-Yde et al.

    Low back pain: time to get off the treadmill

    Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

    (2001)
  • S.M. McGill et al.

    Methodological considerations for using inductive sensors (3SPACE ISOTRACK) to monitor 3-D orthopaedic joint motion

    Clinical Biomechanics

    (1997)
  • P.B. O’Sullivan

    Lumbar segmental ‘instability’: clinical presentation and specific stabilizing exercise management

    Manual Therapy

    (2000)
  • P. O’Sullivan

    Diagnosis and classification of chronic low back pain disorders: maladaptive movement and motor control impairments as underlying mechanism

    Manual Therapy

    (2005)
  • P. O’Sullivan et al.

    Altered patterns of abdominal muscle activation in patients with chronic low back pain

    Australian Journal of Physiotherapy

    (1997)
  • J.P. Peach et al.

    Three-dimensional kinematics and trunk muscle myoelectric activity in the young lumbar spine: a database

    Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

    (1998)
  • C. Perret et al.

    Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the fingertip-to-floor test

    Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

    (2001)
  • J.H. van Dieen et al.

    Trunk muscle activation in low-back pain patients, an analysis of the literature

    Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

    (2003)
  • L.R. Van Dillen et al.

    The effect of modifying patient-preferred spinal movement and alignment during symptom testing in patients with low back pain: a preliminary report

    Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

    (2003)
  • M. van Tulder et al.

    Low back pain

    Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology

    (2002)
  • P.J. Watson et al.

    Surface electromyography in the identification of chronic low back pain patients: the development of the flexion relaxation ratio

    Clinical Biomechanics

    (1997)
  • D.K. Ahern et al.

    Correlation of chronic low-back pain behavior and muscle function examination of the flexion-relaxation response

    Spine

    (1990)
  • W.J. Assendelft et al.

    Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain

    Cochrane Database Systems Review

    (2004)
  • J. Binkley et al.

    Diagnostic classification of patients with low back pain: report on a survey of physical therapy experts

    Physical Therapy

    (1993)
  • J. Borkan et al.

    Advances in the field of low back pain in primary care: a report from the fourth international forum

    Spine

    (2002)
  • J.M. Borkan et al.

    A report from the second international forum for primary care research on low back pain. Re-examining priorities

    Spine

    (1998)
  • L.M. Bouter et al.

    Methodologic issues in low back pain research in primary care

    Spine

    (1998)
  • Cairns M, Foster N, Wright C. Prospective, pragmatic RCT examining the effectiveness of spinal stabilisation exercises...
  • J.P. Callaghan et al.

    The relationship between lumbar spine load and muscle activity during extensor exercises

    Physical Therapy

    (1998)
  • J.P. Callaghan et al.

    Low back joint loading and kinematics during standing and unsupported sitting

    Ergonomics

    (2001)
  • A.G. Cresswell et al.

    Observations on intra-abdominal pressure and patterns of abdominal intra-muscular activity in man

    Acta Physiologica Scandinavica

    (1992)
  • P.R. Croft et al.

    Outcome of low back pain in general practice: a prospective study

    British Medical Journal

    (1998)
  • W. Dankaerts et al.

    Differences in sitting posture are associated with non-specific chronic low back pain disorders when patients are sub-classified

    Spine

    (2006)
  • Dankaerts W, O’Sullivan PB, Burnett A, Straker L. Altered patterns of superficial trunk muscle activation during...
  • T. Dillingham

    Evaluation and management of low back pain: an overview

    State Art Review

    (1995)
  • G.E. Ehrlich

    Low back pain

    Bulletin of the World Health Organization

    (2003)
  • R. Elvey et al.

    A contemporary approach to manual therapy: Grieve's modern manual therapy

  • Cited by (0)

    View full text