Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
The purpose of this study is:
Patients (n = 100 to 150) :
Recruited from emergency department of Saint-Luc hospital by medical doctors
Inclusion criteria:
A. Non-specific (No red flags) acute low back with mobility deficit (limitation in bending) and a pain duration < 16 days and no symptoms distal to the knees, male and female patients aged 19-55 years.
Exclusion criteria:
Intervention:
comparison:
Co-intervention similar in both group:
= traditional medical care (TMC)
Outcomes:
Use of effect sizes by standardized mean of difference. ANOVA one and Two Way, number needed to treat (NNT) analysis and intention to treat analysis on all outcome variables:
Study design:
Evaluators:
Christine Detrembleur (PT-PhD-UCL), Maxime Gilliaux (PT-PhD-student-UCL)
Responsible for the study: Henri Nielens (MD-PhD-UCL)
Practitioner and investigator:
Benjamin Hidalgo PE, PT-MT, DO, PhD-student Certificate in Orthopedic Manual Therapy (Manual Concepts, Curtin University) Assistant-Professor Faculty of Physical therapy (FSM-UCL) Belgium
International collaborator:
Timothy Flynn (PT-PhD), Regis University, Denver, USA
Full description
INTRODUCTION:
Non-specific low back pain is a high prevalence within musculoskeletal disorders in industrialized countries (Waddell 2004). Many treatments are available with different degrees of effectiveness (Delitto et al. 2012). Many experts agree that sub-groups exist within the large category of patients diagnosed with non-specific LBP. The difficulty in identifying pathoanatomical causes in most patients combined with the high false positive rates of imaging studies have led many to further conclude that meaningful sub-groups should be based on patient's symptoms and clinical presentation (Fritz et al; 2005; Hidalgo et al. 2012, 2013a,b). The identification of subgroups could improve the outcomes of clinical care by establishing more accurate prognoses, efficiently directing patients to therapies most likely to benefit their particular sub-group (Fritz et al. 2005; Delitto et al. 2012).
Orthopaedic Manual Therapy (OMT) plays an increasingly important role in the treatment of back pain, especially in patients with factors predicting a favorable response to the TMO (Delitto et al. 2012, Fritz et al. 2005).
One proposed subgroup among non-specific LBP people that has been identified is patients who respond rapidly to spinal manipulation when positive on clinical predictive rule (4-5/ 5 criteria) (Flynn et al. 2002, Child et al. 2004, Fritz et al. 2005). However common sense, as well as research evidence recognizes that not all patients with LBP should expected to respond to a manipulation intervention. The efficiency of primary care management of patients with LBP could be improved if a pragmatic tool could help to identify those patients with LBP who are likely to respond to this hands on approach.
In the study of Fritz et al. 2005, authors demonstrated that 2 easy clinical criteria are sufficient to identify this subgroup among non-specific LBP (duration of symptom <16 days and distribution of symptoms : not having symptoms distal to the knees).
However, the methodological quality of studies in physical therapy is often not good that is to say, there is only sparse good level 1 A or B (double blind: in terms of patients and evaluators blinded).
As there is no Level 1 A study to validate the pragmatic application of a clinical prediction rule in primary care to identify patients with LBP with a good prognosis following a brief spinal manipulation intervention. We would like to realize this validation study.
Moreover, in the previously studies, the assessment tools were mainly questionnaires assessing pain, disability and function. We have developed a quantitative tool to assess the kinematics of the lumbar spine during trunk movements in different directions. This tool is validated and is enabled to give quantitative evaluation of the variables of ROM and speed for different segments of the spine, before, during and after treatment with TMO (Hidalgo et al. 2012; 2013c).
Standard disability questionnaires will also be used as secondary outcome measures, because we believe that the kinematics of the spine should be the variable most sensitive to change.
The purpose of this study is:
Method:
Subjects:
Patients will be recruited from primary car by medical doctors when they present to the emergency department clinics University St-Luc (Prof. Frederic Thys, Dr. Christophe Bastin, Dr. Virginie Fraselle).
They will receive a clinical examination by emergency department physicians to ensure that they correspond to the primary criteria for inclusion:
Baseline examination:
If patients meet the criteria for inclusion, then they will receive a baseline examination:
Treatment:
Consistent with the current evidence regarding the classification of low back pain patient, clinical reasoning and OMT (Delitto et al., 2012) will be done as follows:
The spinal manipulative intervention A or B will be choose according to the patient and practitioner comfort and expectation of a good biomechanical action (supposed by a pop or cavitation sound) who will generate neurophysiological effects.
If for example the position A is the best for both patient-practitioner but after a maximum of two trials doesn't produce a pop sound then the practitioner will move to the B position for a maximum of two trials as well.
Examples of lumbopelvic manipulation :
A. Patient supine : side bending to one side and rotation to the other side. E.g. side bending right and rotation left for a pain on the right side.
B. Patient side lying : e.g. side lying left for a pain on the right side :
Patients will be randomized in an intervention group and a control group (placebo/sham spinal manipulation).
The sham SM will realize to mimic (i) the same time, (ii) interaction and (iii) action with the manual therapist but without any efficacy in the way that the patient think that he receive an effective SM. For that the MT will use the position B using the upper body of the patient to target the thoraco-lumbar hinge and not the lumbopelvic region and take the time of handling the patient like in a true SM and mimic a high velocity and short ROM action moving fast his body but with a minimal action on the patient's body.
Data analysis :
Primary outcome :
The analysis of the pathological motion requires the acquisition of kinematic variables during movement of body segments (kinematic variables). They are recorded using 8 infrared cameras at various trunk movements (Hidalgo et al. 2012).
• Recording of segmental kinematic variables Nine reflective markers placed at different anatomical landmarks chosen. These markers are attached either by means of double-sided stickers or using extensible ribbon. Using eight infrared cameras, the coordinates of each of these nine markers are recorded. This allows us to determine the evolution of the angular displacement of the segments in three planes of space.
Secondary outcomes :
All the primary and secondary outcomes will be treated in an intention to treat analysis.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
100 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal