FRI0570-HPR Lumbar Repositioning is Influenced by Nonspecific Low Back Pain, Test Setup and Body Mass Index

Background Low back pain (LBP) affects up to 84% of people in industrialized countries [1]. In 2005 the total direct costs of LBP in Switzerland amounted €2.6 billion [2]. Several studies have investigated deficits in proprioception in non specific LBP (NSLBP) patients by investigating lumbar spine...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of the rheumatic diseases 2014-06, Vol.73 (Suppl 2), p.1201
Hauptverfasser: Bauer, C., Ernst, M., Rast, F., Schelldorfer, S., Meichtry, A., Kool, J., Suni, J., Kankaanpää, M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue Suppl 2
container_start_page 1201
container_title Annals of the rheumatic diseases
container_volume 73
creator Bauer, C.
Ernst, M.
Rast, F.
Schelldorfer, S.
Meichtry, A.
Kool, J.
Suni, J.
Kankaanpää, M.
description Background Low back pain (LBP) affects up to 84% of people in industrialized countries [1]. In 2005 the total direct costs of LBP in Switzerland amounted €2.6 billion [2]. Several studies have investigated deficits in proprioception in non specific LBP (NSLBP) patients by investigating lumbar spine position sense. These studies measured lumbar repositioning error (RE), with conflicting results regarding the association of LBP and RE [3-5]. Comparison between these studies is difficult as there are large differences in the measurement procedure. Objectives The aim of this study therfore was to analyse if RE is influenced by sub-acute nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP), the test setup and individual factors and to propose a good test setup. Methods We measured lumbar RE (absolute, constant, variable & mean squared) with three test setups in a cross-sectional, laboratory study. 60 patients with NSLBP and 31 healthy participants were included. All participants were instructed to move from neutral position through half of their maximal lumbar range of motion and to reproduce the neutral position. We analysed Group, Test & GroupXTest effects on RE and adjusted for individual factors such as body mass index (BMI), by fitting a linear mixed model for every main outcome measure. Results NSLBP patients produced a greater absolute (38% difference between groups), constant (60%) and mean squared error (70%) compared to controls. There was no group effect on variable error (8%). NSLBP patients were less accurate but not less consistent. The test setup influenced the magnitude and direction of RE. BMI influenced absolute and mean squared error. The magnitude and direction of RE depended on the test setup. Conclusions Tests for lumbar RE discriminate NSLBP patients from healthy participants but should be viewed with caution as their outcome depends on the test setup and BMI. We recommend two test setups and normalization for BMI for further use in clinical studies. References Walker BF. J Spinal Disord. 2000;13:205-17. Wieser S. et. al. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12:455-67. Asell M. et. al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 257 2006;87:1170-6. Brumagne S. et.al. Spine. 267 2000;25:989-94. O'Sullivan K. et. al. Manual Therapy. 2013;18:526-32. Acknowledgements The Swiss Commission of Technical Innovation (CTI) funded this study. We thank Hocoma AG, (CH) for providing hardware and software. Disclosure of Interest None declared DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.5032
doi_str_mv 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.5032
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1777975978</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4008700161</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b1278-894b1b38a8b97b2bd3555c6f0d66ae727d7a4d1ee53fae6b7f789f2ae8d54fa33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkM1OwzAQhC0EEqXwDpZ6JcXOj-2IE60orVSgKuVs2bENLo0T7EbQGxdelCchoRy4clrtamZ29AEwwGiIcUIuhHP-WTelsiGKEU4j3WyEH2YoiQ9AD6eEtWeCDkEPIZREaU7oMTgJYd2uiGHWA-VkOUMZRdF0sfz6-Jw3pRQeLnVdBbu1lbPuCdoAZ85sGu0KraDcwbvKhVoX1tgCzqs3OBLFC1wI687hSoctfNDbpobCKTiq1A7eitAlKP1-Co6M2AR99jv74HFyvRpPo_n9zWx8NY8kjimLWJ5KLBMmmMypjKVKsiwriEGKEKFpTBUVqcJaZ4kRmkhqKMtNLDRTWWpEkvTBYJ9b--q1aSvxddV4177kmFKa0yynrFVd7lWFr0Lw2vDa21L4HceId3z5H76848t_-PKOb-sme7cs1_8yfgM-zIcD</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1777975978</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>FRI0570-HPR Lumbar Repositioning is Influenced by Nonspecific Low Back Pain, Test Setup and Body Mass Index</title><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><creator>Bauer, C. ; Ernst, M. ; Rast, F. ; Schelldorfer, S. ; Meichtry, A. ; Kool, J. ; Suni, J. ; Kankaanpää, M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bauer, C. ; Ernst, M. ; Rast, F. ; Schelldorfer, S. ; Meichtry, A. ; Kool, J. ; Suni, J. ; Kankaanpää, M.</creatorcontrib><description>Background Low back pain (LBP) affects up to 84% of people in industrialized countries [1]. In 2005 the total direct costs of LBP in Switzerland amounted €2.6 billion [2]. Several studies have investigated deficits in proprioception in non specific LBP (NSLBP) patients by investigating lumbar spine position sense. These studies measured lumbar repositioning error (RE), with conflicting results regarding the association of LBP and RE [3-5]. Comparison between these studies is difficult as there are large differences in the measurement procedure. Objectives The aim of this study therfore was to analyse if RE is influenced by sub-acute nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP), the test setup and individual factors and to propose a good test setup. Methods We measured lumbar RE (absolute, constant, variable &amp; mean squared) with three test setups in a cross-sectional, laboratory study. 60 patients with NSLBP and 31 healthy participants were included. All participants were instructed to move from neutral position through half of their maximal lumbar range of motion and to reproduce the neutral position. We analysed Group, Test &amp; GroupXTest effects on RE and adjusted for individual factors such as body mass index (BMI), by fitting a linear mixed model for every main outcome measure. Results NSLBP patients produced a greater absolute (38% difference between groups), constant (60%) and mean squared error (70%) compared to controls. There was no group effect on variable error (8%). NSLBP patients were less accurate but not less consistent. The test setup influenced the magnitude and direction of RE. BMI influenced absolute and mean squared error. The magnitude and direction of RE depended on the test setup. Conclusions Tests for lumbar RE discriminate NSLBP patients from healthy participants but should be viewed with caution as their outcome depends on the test setup and BMI. We recommend two test setups and normalization for BMI for further use in clinical studies. References Walker BF. J Spinal Disord. 2000;13:205-17. Wieser S. et. al. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12:455-67. Asell M. et. al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 257 2006;87:1170-6. Brumagne S. et.al. Spine. 267 2000;25:989-94. O'Sullivan K. et. al. Manual Therapy. 2013;18:526-32. Acknowledgements The Swiss Commission of Technical Innovation (CTI) funded this study. We thank Hocoma AG, (CH) for providing hardware and software. Disclosure of Interest None declared DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.5032</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-4967</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-2060</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.5032</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ARDIAO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Limited</publisher><ispartof>Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2014-06, Vol.73 (Suppl 2), p.1201</ispartof><rights>2014, 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</rights><rights>Copyright: 2014 (c) 2014, 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</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttp://ard.bmj.com/content/73/Suppl_2/1201.2.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://ard.bmj.com/content/73/Suppl_2/1201.2.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,314,776,780,3182,23551,27903,27904,77347,77378</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bauer, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ernst, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rast, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schelldorfer, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meichtry, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kool, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suni, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kankaanpää, M.</creatorcontrib><title>FRI0570-HPR Lumbar Repositioning is Influenced by Nonspecific Low Back Pain, Test Setup and Body Mass Index</title><title>Annals of the rheumatic diseases</title><description>Background Low back pain (LBP) affects up to 84% of people in industrialized countries [1]. In 2005 the total direct costs of LBP in Switzerland amounted €2.6 billion [2]. Several studies have investigated deficits in proprioception in non specific LBP (NSLBP) patients by investigating lumbar spine position sense. These studies measured lumbar repositioning error (RE), with conflicting results regarding the association of LBP and RE [3-5]. Comparison between these studies is difficult as there are large differences in the measurement procedure. Objectives The aim of this study therfore was to analyse if RE is influenced by sub-acute nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP), the test setup and individual factors and to propose a good test setup. Methods We measured lumbar RE (absolute, constant, variable &amp; mean squared) with three test setups in a cross-sectional, laboratory study. 60 patients with NSLBP and 31 healthy participants were included. All participants were instructed to move from neutral position through half of their maximal lumbar range of motion and to reproduce the neutral position. We analysed Group, Test &amp; GroupXTest effects on RE and adjusted for individual factors such as body mass index (BMI), by fitting a linear mixed model for every main outcome measure. Results NSLBP patients produced a greater absolute (38% difference between groups), constant (60%) and mean squared error (70%) compared to controls. There was no group effect on variable error (8%). NSLBP patients were less accurate but not less consistent. The test setup influenced the magnitude and direction of RE. BMI influenced absolute and mean squared error. The magnitude and direction of RE depended on the test setup. Conclusions Tests for lumbar RE discriminate NSLBP patients from healthy participants but should be viewed with caution as their outcome depends on the test setup and BMI. We recommend two test setups and normalization for BMI for further use in clinical studies. References Walker BF. J Spinal Disord. 2000;13:205-17. Wieser S. et. al. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12:455-67. Asell M. et. al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 257 2006;87:1170-6. Brumagne S. et.al. Spine. 267 2000;25:989-94. O'Sullivan K. et. al. Manual Therapy. 2013;18:526-32. Acknowledgements The Swiss Commission of Technical Innovation (CTI) funded this study. We thank Hocoma AG, (CH) for providing hardware and software. Disclosure of Interest None declared DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.5032</description><issn>0003-4967</issn><issn>1468-2060</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkM1OwzAQhC0EEqXwDpZ6JcXOj-2IE60orVSgKuVs2bENLo0T7EbQGxdelCchoRy4clrtamZ29AEwwGiIcUIuhHP-WTelsiGKEU4j3WyEH2YoiQ9AD6eEtWeCDkEPIZREaU7oMTgJYd2uiGHWA-VkOUMZRdF0sfz6-Jw3pRQeLnVdBbu1lbPuCdoAZ85sGu0KraDcwbvKhVoX1tgCzqs3OBLFC1wI687hSoctfNDbpobCKTiq1A7eitAlKP1-Co6M2AR99jv74HFyvRpPo_n9zWx8NY8kjimLWJ5KLBMmmMypjKVKsiwriEGKEKFpTBUVqcJaZ4kRmkhqKMtNLDRTWWpEkvTBYJ9b--q1aSvxddV4177kmFKa0yynrFVd7lWFr0Lw2vDa21L4HceId3z5H76848t_-PKOb-sme7cs1_8yfgM-zIcD</recordid><startdate>201406</startdate><enddate>201406</enddate><creator>Bauer, C.</creator><creator>Ernst, M.</creator><creator>Rast, F.</creator><creator>Schelldorfer, S.</creator><creator>Meichtry, A.</creator><creator>Kool, J.</creator><creator>Suni, J.</creator><creator>Kankaanpää, M.</creator><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201406</creationdate><title>FRI0570-HPR Lumbar Repositioning is Influenced by Nonspecific Low Back Pain, Test Setup and Body Mass Index</title><author>Bauer, C. ; Ernst, M. ; Rast, F. ; Schelldorfer, S. ; Meichtry, A. ; Kool, J. ; Suni, J. ; Kankaanpää, M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b1278-894b1b38a8b97b2bd3555c6f0d66ae727d7a4d1ee53fae6b7f789f2ae8d54fa33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bauer, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ernst, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rast, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schelldorfer, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meichtry, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kool, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suni, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kankaanpää, M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Annals of the rheumatic diseases</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bauer, C.</au><au>Ernst, M.</au><au>Rast, F.</au><au>Schelldorfer, S.</au><au>Meichtry, A.</au><au>Kool, J.</au><au>Suni, J.</au><au>Kankaanpää, M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>FRI0570-HPR Lumbar Repositioning is Influenced by Nonspecific Low Back Pain, Test Setup and Body Mass Index</atitle><jtitle>Annals of the rheumatic diseases</jtitle><date>2014-06</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>73</volume><issue>Suppl 2</issue><spage>1201</spage><pages>1201-</pages><issn>0003-4967</issn><eissn>1468-2060</eissn><coden>ARDIAO</coden><abstract>Background Low back pain (LBP) affects up to 84% of people in industrialized countries [1]. In 2005 the total direct costs of LBP in Switzerland amounted €2.6 billion [2]. Several studies have investigated deficits in proprioception in non specific LBP (NSLBP) patients by investigating lumbar spine position sense. These studies measured lumbar repositioning error (RE), with conflicting results regarding the association of LBP and RE [3-5]. Comparison between these studies is difficult as there are large differences in the measurement procedure. Objectives The aim of this study therfore was to analyse if RE is influenced by sub-acute nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP), the test setup and individual factors and to propose a good test setup. Methods We measured lumbar RE (absolute, constant, variable &amp; mean squared) with three test setups in a cross-sectional, laboratory study. 60 patients with NSLBP and 31 healthy participants were included. All participants were instructed to move from neutral position through half of their maximal lumbar range of motion and to reproduce the neutral position. We analysed Group, Test &amp; GroupXTest effects on RE and adjusted for individual factors such as body mass index (BMI), by fitting a linear mixed model for every main outcome measure. Results NSLBP patients produced a greater absolute (38% difference between groups), constant (60%) and mean squared error (70%) compared to controls. There was no group effect on variable error (8%). NSLBP patients were less accurate but not less consistent. The test setup influenced the magnitude and direction of RE. BMI influenced absolute and mean squared error. The magnitude and direction of RE depended on the test setup. Conclusions Tests for lumbar RE discriminate NSLBP patients from healthy participants but should be viewed with caution as their outcome depends on the test setup and BMI. We recommend two test setups and normalization for BMI for further use in clinical studies. References Walker BF. J Spinal Disord. 2000;13:205-17. Wieser S. et. al. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12:455-67. Asell M. et. al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 257 2006;87:1170-6. Brumagne S. et.al. Spine. 267 2000;25:989-94. O'Sullivan K. et. al. Manual Therapy. 2013;18:526-32. Acknowledgements The Swiss Commission of Technical Innovation (CTI) funded this study. We thank Hocoma AG, (CH) for providing hardware and software. Disclosure of Interest None declared DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.5032</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Limited</pub><doi>10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.5032</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-4967
ispartof Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2014-06, Vol.73 (Suppl 2), p.1201
issn 0003-4967
1468-2060
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1777975978
source BMJ Journals - NESLi2
title FRI0570-HPR Lumbar Repositioning is Influenced by Nonspecific Low Back Pain, Test Setup and Body Mass Index
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T10%3A37%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=FRI0570-HPR%E2%80%85Lumbar%20Repositioning%20is%20Influenced%20by%20Nonspecific%20Low%20Back%20Pain,%20Test%20Setup%20and%20Body%20Mass%20Index&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20the%20rheumatic%20diseases&rft.au=Bauer,%20C.&rft.date=2014-06&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=Suppl%202&rft.spage=1201&rft.pages=1201-&rft.issn=0003-4967&rft.eissn=1468-2060&rft.coden=ARDIAO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.5032&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4008700161%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1777975978&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true