10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Chronic low back pain and postural rehabilitation exercise: a literature review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Chronic low back represents one of the major causes of disability worldwide. Our narrative review has the purpose of highlighting the evidence supporting the different rehabilitative techniques described for its management. In total, 26 studies were found suitable to be included in the review (14 articles about pilates, six about McKenzie (MK), one article about Feldenkrais, three about Global Postural Rehabilitation (GPR) and two about Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation). The effect of exercise therapy was examined for each single study through changes in the main clinical outcomes (pain, disability,) quality of life (QoL) and psychological aspects and the targeted aspects of physical function (muscle strength, mobility, muscular activity and flexibility). All the techniques are effective for the study groups with respect to the control groups in reducing pain and disability and improving the QoL and maintaining benefits at follow-up; pilates, Back School, MK and Feldenkrais methods reduce pain and are more efficient than a pharmacological or instrumental approach in reducing disability and improving all psychological aspects also. GPR shows long lasting results for the last outcome. To date, it is difficult to affirm the superiority of one approach over another. Further high quality research is needed to confirm the effect of these techniques, together with the use of more appropriate evaluation measures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pain-related fear is more disabling than pain itself: evidence on the role of pain-related fear in chronic back pain disability.

          There is growing evidence for the idea that in back pain patients, pain-related fear (fear of pain/physical activity/(re)injury) may be more disabling than pain itself. A number of questionnaires have been developed to quantify pain-related fears, including the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale (PASS). A total of 104 patients, presenting to a rehabilitation center or a comprehensive pain clinic with chronic low back pain were studied in three independent studies aimed at (1) replicating that pain-related fear is more disabling than pain itself (2) investigating the association between pain-related fear and poor behavioral performance and (3) investigating whether pain-related fear measures are better predictors of disability and behavioral performance than measures of general negative affect or general negative pain beliefs (e.g. pain catastrophizing). All three studies showed similar results. Highest correlations were found among the pain-related fear measures and measures of self-reported disability and behavioral performance. Even when controlling for sociodemographics, multiple regression analyses revealed that the subscales of the FABQ and the TSK were superior in predicting self-reported disability and poor behavioral performance. The PASS appeared more strongly associated with pain catastrophizing and negative affect, and was less predictive of pain disability and behavioral performance. Implications for chronic back pain assessment, prevention and treatment are discussed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical practice guidelines for the noninvasive management of low back pain: A systematic review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

            We conducted a systematic review of guidelines on the management of low back pain (LBP) to assess their methodological quality and guide care. We synthesized guidelines on the management of LBP published from 2005 to 2014 following best evidence synthesis principles. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, DARE, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, Index to Chiropractic Literature and grey literature. Independent reviewers critically appraised eligible guidelines using AGREE II criteria. We screened 2504 citations; 13 guidelines were eligible for critical appraisal, and 10 had a low risk of bias. According to high-quality guidelines: (1) all patients with acute or chronic LBP should receive education, reassurance and instruction on self-management options; (2) patients with acute LBP should be encouraged to return to activity and may benefit from paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or spinal manipulation; (3) the management of chronic LBP may include exercise, paracetamol or NSAIDs, manual therapy, acupuncture, and multimodal rehabilitation (combined physical and psychological treatment); and (4) patients with lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy may benefit from spinal manipulation. Ten guidelines were of high methodological quality, but updating and some methodological improvements are needed. Overall, most guidelines target nonspecific LBP and recommend education, staying active/exercise, manual therapy, and paracetamol or NSAIDs as first-line treatments. The recommendation to use paracetamol for acute LBP is challenged by recent evidence and needs to be revisited.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              What is the prognosis of back pain?

              Understanding prognosis is important in managing low back pain. In this article, we discuss the available evidence on low back pain prognosis and describe how prognostic evidence can be used to inform clinical decision making. We describe three main types of related prognosis questions: 'What is the most likely course?' (Course studies); 'What factors are associated with, or determine, outcome?' (Prognostic factor or explanatory studies); and 'Can we identify risk groups who are likely to have different outcomes?' (Risk group or outcome prediction studies). Most low back pain episodes are mild and rarely disabling, with only a small proportion of individuals seeking care. Among those presenting for care, there is variability in outcome according to patient characteristics. Most new episodes recover within a few weeks. However, recurrences are common and individuals with chronic, long-standing low back pain tend to show a more persistent course. Studies of mixed primary care populations indicate 60-80% of health-care consulters will continue to have pain after a year. Important low back pain prognostic factors are related to the back pain episode, the individual and psychological characteristics, as well as the work and social environment. Although numerous studies have developed prediction models in the field, most models/tools explain less than 50% of outcome variability and few have been tested in independent samples. We discuss limitations and future directions for research in the area of low back pain prognosis. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove Medical Press
                1178-7090
                2019
                20 December 2018
                : 12
                : 95-107
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Policlinico Universitario Umberto I, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy, carmine.attanasi@ 123456gmail.com
                [2 ]Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Unit, S. Filippo Neri Hospital, Rome, Italy
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Carmine Attanasi, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Policlinico Universitario Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, Rome, 00185, Italy, Tel +39 6 4997 5912, Email carmine.attanasi@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                jpr-12-095
                10.2147/JPR.S171729
                6305160
                © 2019 Paolucci et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Review

                Comments

                Comment on this article