Socioeconomic incidences and prognostic factors of low back pain caused by occupational injuries among the hospital personnel of Grenoble University Hospital Center

Low back pain is generally believed to be common among hospital employees. This cross-sectional, retrospective study was carried out to determine the annual incidence of low back pain ascribable to occupational injuries in hospital employees and to evaluate factors influencing the prognosis of these injuries. In 1989, 70 employees working at the Grenoble Teaching Hospital (GTH) reported an occupational injury responsible for low back pain. Each of these employees filled out an epidemiological questionnaire during a routine evaluation by a rheumatologist. Overall annual incidence of occupational injuries with subsequent low back pain was 1.9% among GTH employees. Higher incidences were seen among employees whose occupations involved patient transfer, as well as among nursing assistants. Activities associated with an increased risk of low back pain included handling of patients or objects and work requiring prolonged periods in uncomfortable positions or in the standing position. A previous history of low back disease and a longer period of time in the current work were also associated with an increased risk of low back pain. Characteristic clinical profiles of patients with low back pain subsequent to occupational injury were determined by occupation and type of hospital department. The analysis of long-duration absence from work and long-term consequences on career confirmed the significant adverse socioeconomic impact of these injuries.     

Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use

STUDY DESIGN: An international group of back pain researchers considered recommendations for standardized measures in clinical outcomes research in patients with back pain. OBJECTIVES: To promote more standardization of outcome measurement in clinical trials and other types of outcomes research, including meta-analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, and multicenter studies. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Better standardization of outcome measurement would facilitate comparison of results among studies, and more complete reporting of relevant outcomes. Because back pain is rarely fatal or completely cured, outcome assessment is complex and involves multiple dimensions. These include symptoms, function, general well-being, work disability, and satisfaction with care. METHODS: The panel considered several factors in recommending a standard battery of outcome measures. These included reliability, validity, responsiveness, and practicality of the measures. In addition, compatibility with widely used and promoted batteries such, as the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Lumbar Cluster were considered to minimize the need for changes when these instruments are used. RESULTS: First, a six-item set was proposed, which is sufficiently brief that it could be used in routine care settings for quality improvement and for research purposes. An expanded outcome set, which would provide more precise measurement for research purposes, includes measures of severity and frequency of symptoms, either the Roland or the Oswestry Disability Scale, either the SF-12 or the EuroQol measure of general health status, a question about satisfaction with symptoms, three types of "disability days," and an optional single item on overall satisfaction with medical care. CONCLUSION: Standardized measurement of outcomes would facilitate scientific advances in clinical care. A short, 6-item questionnaire and a somewhat expanded, more precise battery of questionnaires can be recommended. Although many considerations support such recommendations, more data on responsiveness and the minimally important change in scores are needed for most of the instruments.     

Natural history of low back pain. A longitudinal study in nurses

STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal study. OBJECTIVES: To assess the natural history of low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Most episodes of low back pain resolve or improve within a few weeks, but chronic or recurrent symptoms are common. Previous studies of natural history have usually relied on people's long-term recall of symptoms, or they have been limited to patients seeking clinical care. METHODS: Nurses (1,165 women) completed a baseline questionnaire and up to eight follow-up questionnaires 3 months apart. Each questionnaire asked whether they had experienced low back pain in the past month. One-month prevalences of pain at specified follow-ups were calculated according to histories of pain reported on earlier questionnaires. RESULTS: The 1-month prevalence of low back pain at individual follow-ups ranged from 16% to 19%. Of 906 women who completed the baseline questionnaire and at least three follow-up questionnaires, 38 (4.2%) reported pain every time they returned a questionnaire, and 190 (21.0%) reported pain on at least three occasions. The presence or absence of low back pain at baseline was highly predictive of future pain throughout follow-up. The longer that back pain was consistently reported, the more likely it was to be present at the next follow-up. Later risk was lowest in women who reported no back pain at baseline or either of the first two follow-ups. Back pain carried a worse prognosis if it was disabling or associated with sciatica. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the importance of back pain duration and the occurrence of associated disability and sciatica as predictors of future symptoms, and allow more reliable quantification of the natural history of back pain in women of working age. In the absence of other information, the differentials in risk associated with a person's history of back pain appear to remain constant for a period of at least 2 years.     

Community studies of the health service implications of low back pain

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study using primary care physician case notes and a self-report questionnaire on the same randomly selected population sample. OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence, management, and outcomes of low back pain in the community, comparing, in the same random sample of registered patients, self-report questionnaire data and primary care physicians' records. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The financial and resource implications of low back pain are extensive. Data on consultations, investigations, and the management of low back pain are fragmentary and there are no comparisons estimating prevalence from case notes and self-report. METHODS: A retrospective study of prevalence, management, referral, and outcome covering the previous 12 months was carried out in three general practices using case notes and a self-report postal questionnaire on a sample of 900 patients over 18 years. RESULTS: Lifetime prevalence of low back pain was 62%. Annual prevalence was 48%, with 16% reporting low back pain at the time of report. Twenty-four percent consulted their primary care physician for low back pain, of whom 17% were referred to a hospital specialist. The annual consultation rate of patients with low back pain was similar to the rate for patients with chronic conditions. The activities of daily living were restricted in less than half, with few taking sick leave. The general health status of those reporting recent low back pain was significantly lower than those not reporting low back pain. Most felt that low back pain was self-limiting and would not consult health professionals for future episodes. There were substantial discrepancies between case notes recorded at consultation with the primary care physician and self-report regarding consultation and investigations. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence rates were comparable with those reported in other studies. The significant discrepancies between data sources suggest patient recall bias or underrecording in case notes. The low consultation rate, time off, and day-to-day disability indicate that most episodes are self-limiting.     

Late morbidity after esophagectomy for cancer: is partial esophagectomy preferred?

BACKGROUND: Several studies have highlighted the problem of back pain among helicopter pilots, but few have controlled for potential confounding factors in their analyses, or sought to examine the effects of back pain on operational readiness and flying performance. There have been no previous studies of the prevalence of back pain among Australian military pilots. METHODS: The prevalence, risk factors, and consequences of low back pain were assessed in a cross-sectional survey of 200 Australian military helicopter pilots by self-completion questionnaire. RESULTS: Responses were received from 131 (66%) of available pilots. The overall prevalence of reported back pain was 64% (95% CI 56%-72%), with a further 28% of pilots describing back discomfort while flying. More than half the pilots (55%) indicated that back pain had interfered with their concentration while flying, with 16% reporting that they had hurried flying missions because of pain. A minority of pilots (7%) had refused to fly because of back problems. After adjusting for age, education, BMI, posture and numbers of hours flown, multiple logistic regression modelling indicated that a prior history of back injury was the most significant predictor of back pain among rotary wing pilots (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.11-6.23). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the prevalence of back pain in Australian military helicopter pilots is unacceptably high and may be limiting operational readiness, pilot performance, flying safety, and pilot health. Urgent attention needs to be given to improved ergonomic design in aircraft, and both back pain prevention and back injury rehabilitation programs.     

The Saskatchewan health and back pain survey. The prevalence of low back pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults

STUDY DESIGN: Population-based, cross-sectional, mailed survey. OBJECTIVES: To determine the lifetime, 6-month period, and point prevalence of low back pain and its related disability among Saskatchewan adults and to investigate the presence and strength of selective response bias. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There have been many reports of the prevalence of low back pain in different populations, and the estimates vary widely depending on case definition. However, most studies fail to differentiate between trivial and disabling back pain, which raises the issue of the usefulness of these estimates. No studies have yet documented the prevalence of graded low back pain severity and its related disability in a North American, general, population-based survey. METHODS: The Saskatchewan Health and Back Pain Survey was mailed to a probability sample of 2184 Saskatchewan adults between 20 and 69 years of age. Fifty-five percent of the eligible population responded to the survey. Respondents were compared with nonrespondents, and the presence of selective response bias by back pain status was investigated by wave analysis. The point and lifetime prevalence of low back pain was determined by simple questions, and the 6-month period prevalence of low back pain was determined by the Chronic Pain Questionnaire. All estimates were age standardized to the Saskatchewan population. RESULTS: The authors estimate that at the time of the survey 28.4% (95% confidence interval, 25.6-31.1) of the Saskatchewan adult population were experiencing low back pain, and 84.1% (95% confidence interval, 81.9-86.3) had experienced it during their lifetime. Overall, 48.9% (95% confidence interval, 45.9-52.0) of the population had experienced low intensity/low-disability low back pain in the previous 6 months, 12.3% (95% confidence interval, 10.3-14.4) had experienced high-intensity/low-disability low back pain, and an additional 10.7% (95% confidence interval, 8.8-12.5) had experienced high-disability low back pain in the previous 6 months. There was little variation in the estimates over age groups, but women experienced more high-disability back pain than men. There was no evidence of selective response bias by low back pain status in the survey. CONCLUSION: Low-intensity/low-disability low back pain is a common problem in the general population. Approximately 11% of the adult population studied had been disabled by low back pain in the previous 6 months.     

Is work status of low back pain patients best described by an automated device or by a questionnaire?

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study of patients with subacute occupational back pain. OBJECTIVES: To study the relation between a marketed opto-electric device measuring trunk kinematics, a widely used specific functional capacity questionnaire, and work status in back pain patients, and to assess the responsiveness to change in work status of the opto-electric device and the questionnaire. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several instruments have been developed to evaluate the functional capacities of patients with back pain, but the relation between these instruments and work status has rarely been studied. METHODS: The relation between the opto-electric device, the questionnaire, and work status in patients with back pain was evaluated. The study population was a prospective cohort of patients with subacute back pain who were absent from regular work for more than 4 weeks. All data were compiled blindly on the same day, at study entry (4 weeks after work accident), and at 12, 24, and 52 weeks after the work accident. The validity of the questionnaire and opto-electric device scores was assessed with partial correlation analyses, standardized response mean, logistic regression analyses, and receiver operating characteristics curves. RESULTS: The correlation between the questionnaire and opto-electric device scores was low. The questionnaire scores were significantly related to work status, but the opto-electric device scores were not. The questionnaire was responsive to change in work status, whereas the opto-electric device was not. CONCLUSIONS: The opto-electric device scores were not related to either functional capacity scores (questionnaire) or work status in patients with low back pain, and the opto-electric device was not responsive to change in work status. Conversely, the questionnaire was related to work status and was responsive to change in work status.     

Efficacy of traction for nonspecific low back pain. 12-week and 6-month results of a randomized clinical trial

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of motorized continuous traction for low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The available studies on the efficacy of lumbar traction do not allow clear conclusions because of severe methodologic flaws. The current trial aimed to overcome these shortcomings. METHODS: Patients with at least 6 weeks of nonspecific low back pain were selected. High-dose traction was compared with sham (or low-dose) traction. Sham traction was given with a specially developed brace that becomes tighter in the back during traction. This was experienced as if real traction were exerted. The patients and the outcome assessor were unaware of treatment allocation. Outcome measures were: patient's global perceived effect, severity of main complaints, functional status, pain, range of motion, work absence, and medical treatment. Results for the outcome measures at 12 weeks and 6 months after randomization are presented. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-one patients were randomly allocated to one of the two treatment methods. Intention-to-treat analysis of the 12-week and 6-month results showed no statistically significant differences between the groups on all outcome measures: all 95% confidence intervals included the value zero. The number of patients lost to follow-up study was very low. Other analyses showed the same results. CONCLUSIONS: Most common flaws of earlier studies on traction therapy could be overcome. This trial did not support the claim that traction is efficacious for patients with low back pain.     

Epidemiologic study on the prevalence of low back pain in health personnel exposed to manual handling tasks]

An epidemiological study on the prevalence rate of low back pain among health care workers exposed to manual handling tasks and physical work load was performed. A representative sample (n. 1053) of nursing staff working at the San Matteo Hospital in Pavia was studied using a questionnaire with the purpose of evaluating the prevalence rate of low back pain and related risk factors. 86.4% of the subjects admitted having suffered from back pain at some stage in their life and 71.0% complained of back pain in the 3 months prior to answering the questionnaire. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between low back pain, female gender and specific nursing activities. A significant correlation was found between smoking (> 20 cigarettes per day) and the presence of low back pain, due to intervertebral disk pathology. A statistically significant difference (p < 0.0001) was found in the average degree of disability between healthy nurses (1.3), those with low back pain taking analgesic drugs (5.9) and nurses suffering from low back pain without taking drugs (3.8).     

Patients with low back pain not returning to work. A 12-month follow-up study

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study of patients treated with a light mobilization program for long-term low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether medical, psychological, or social factors predict failure to return to work within 12 months in the Scandinavian system of compulsory workers' compensation and social insurance, after a light mobilization program administered 8-12 weeks after initial sick leave. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The relative power of predicting factors varies in previous work, and there are no previous data on prognostic factors for light mobilization programs. METHOD: Patients (n = 260) on sick leave for 8-12 weeks for low back pain were examined with a battery of psychological and medical tests, before entering a light mobilization program. The treatment was given regardless of radiographic or clinical findings. The patients were encouraged to be active participants in the management and prevention of their back pain. Their sick leave status then was checked through registers 12 months after they had entered the treatment program. RESULTS: For those not returning to work within 12 months (23%), only combined models had acceptable predictive power (77%; discriminant analyses). Dominant variables were low Internal Health Locus of Control Score, restricted lateral mobility, and reduced work ability. The predictive value of each set of variables, taken alone, was significant only for medical variables (67% correct prediction). CONCLUSIONS: The final discriminant function may have potential as a brief screening instrument for the number of patients with low back pain who do not benefit from the light mobilization program.     

Community survey of factors associated with consultation for low back pain

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the psychosocial factors associated with consultation for low back pain. DESIGN: Two phase cross sectional postal survey. SETTING: Bradford Metropolitan Health District. SUBJECTS: 1813 adults responding to the phase 1 questionnaire. 540 of the 782 with an episode of low back pain in the past 12 months completed the second questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Six psychosocial constructs. RESULTS: 406 (52%) of the respondents reporting back pain in the past 12 months had not consulted a health professional. Logistic regression showed that consultation was associated with externalised beliefs regarding pain management (odds ratio 3.6; 95% confidence interval 2.1 to 6.0). Duration of pain affected the factors associated with consultation. Consultation for episodes lasting less than two weeks (n=290) was associated with greater than median pain (3.0; 1.7 to 5.5), consultation for episodes over two weeks (n=243) was associated with increased disability (3.7; 1.5 to 9.0), and consultation for episodes over three months (n=143) with increased depression (3.9; 1.3 to 11.8). CONCLUSIONS: The results support a role for psychosocial factors in consultation for low back pain and suggest that the reasons for consultation vary with duration of pain. Duration of the episode may be a useful guide to management of non-specific low back pain.     

Prospective, multicenter study of spinal cord stimulation for relief of chronic back and extremity pain

STUDY DESIGN: This prospective, multicenter study was designed to investigate the efficacy and outcome of spinal cord stimulation using a variety of clinical and psychosocial outcome measures. Data were collected before implantation and at regular intervals after implantation. This report focuses on 70 patients who had undergone 1 year of follow-up treatment at the time of data analysis. OBJECTIVES: To provide a more generalizable assessment of long-term spinal cord stimulation outcome by comparing a variety of pain and functional/quality-of-life measures before and after management. This report details results after 1 year of stimulation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The historically diverse methods, patient selection criteria, and outcome measures reported in the spinal cord stimulation literature have made interpretation and comparison of results difficult. Although short-term outcomes are generally consistent, long-term outcomes of spinal cord stimulation, as determined by prospective studies that assess multidimensional aspects of the pain complaint among a relatively homogeneous population, are not well established. METHODS: Two hundred nineteen patients were entered at six centers throughout the United States. All patients underwent a trial of stimulation before implant of the permanent system. Most were psychologically screened. One hundred eighty-two patients were implanted with a permanent stimulating system. At the time of this report, complete 1-year follow-up data were available on 70 patients, 88% of whom reported pain in the back or lower extremities. Patient evaluation of pain and functional levels was completed before implantation and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after implantation. Complications, medication usage, and work status also were monitored. RESULTS: All pain and quality-of-life measures showed statistically significant improvement during the treatment year. These included the average pain visual analogue scale, the McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, the Sickness Impact Profile, and the Back Depression Inventory. Overall success of the therapy was defined as at least 50% pain relief and patient assessment of the procedure as fully or partially beneficial and worthwhile. Using this definition, spinal cord stimulation successfully managed pain in 55% of patients on whom 1-year follow-up is available. Complications requiring surgical intervention were reported by 17% (12 of 70) of patients. Medication usage and work status were not changed significantly. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, multicenter study confirms that spinal cord stimulation can be an effective therapy for management of chronic low back and extremity pain. Significant improvements in many aspects of the pain condition were measured, and complications were minimal.     

A randomized trial of a lay person-led self-management group intervention for back pain patients in primary care

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a four-session self-management group intervention for patients with pain in primary care, led by trained lay persons with back pain. The intervention was designed to reduce patient worries, encourage self-care, and reduce activity limitations. BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized trials of educational interventions suggest that activating interventions may improve back pain outcomes. Expert opinion increasingly regards effective self-management of back pain as important in achieving good outcomes. In this study, an educational intervention designed to activate patients and support effective self-management was evaluated. METHODS: Six to 8 weeks after a primary care visit for back pain, patients were invited to participate in an educational program to improve back pain self-management. Those showing interest by returning a brief questionnaire became eligible for the study. Participants (n = 255) randomly were assigned to either a self-management group intervention or to a usual care control group. The effect of the intervention, relative to usual care, was assessed 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization, controlling for baseline values. The intervention consisted of a four-session group applying problem-solving techniques to back pain self-management, supplemented by educational materials (book and videos) supporting active management of back pain. The groups were led by lay persons trained to implement a fully structured group protocol. The control group received usual care, supplemented by a book on back pain care. RESULTS: Participants randomly assigned to the self-management groups reported significantly less worry about back pain and expressed more confidence in self-care. Roland Disability Questionnaire Scores were significantly lower among participants in the self-management groups relative to the usual care controls at 6 months (P = 0.007), and this difference was sustained at 12 months at borderline significance levels (P = 0.09). Among self-management group participants, 48% showed a 50% or greater reduction in Roland Disability Questionnaire Score at 6 months, compared with 33% among the usual care controls. CONCLUSIONS: Self-management groups led by trained lay persons following a structured protocol were more effective than usual care in reducing worries, producing positive attitudes toward self-care, and reducing activity limitations among patients with back pain in primary care.     

Back pain and agricultural work among farmers: an analysis of the Colorado Farm Family Health and Hazard Surveillance Survey

BACKGROUND: Back pain is the most prevalent occupational health problem experienced by much of the world's workforce. However, agricultural work-related back pain occurring among US farmers working on small operations or family farms is usually not included in surveillance. With data collected by Colorado Farm Family Health and Hazard Surveillance Survey, this study reports characteristics of and risk factors for back pain among adult farmers living in eight Colorado counties. METHODS: A stratified probability sample of 500 farms was selected in proportion to the number of farms in study areas. During the 4-year period from 1993 through 1996, 458 farms were enrolled in the study and 759 farmers were interviewed using a questionnaire. Information on self-reported back pain and potential risk factors among 742 white farmers was evaluated and reported here. RESULTS: A total of 194 farmers (26.2%) reported to have had at least one episode of back pain lasting for 1 week or more. Males had a slightly higher prevalence of back pain than females (28.6% vs. 22.5%) and the lower back was the predominantly affected part of body among both males and females. In 45.4% of males and 43.9% of females back pain was brought on by repeated activities. Males' activities at work were more likely to cause back pain while females' activities at home were more likely to cause back pain. Three factors were found to be significantly associated with back pain: being depressed (odds ratio (OR) = 3.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.23-6.09), farming/ranching as main activities (OR = 1.66, CI = 1.17-2.36), and worked in agriculture for 10 to 29 years (OR = 1.62, CI = 1.14-2.30). CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses indicate that back pain is an occupational health problem among farmers on small operations or family farms and that back pain affected males and females differently. The finding of significant positive associations between depression, farming activities, and back pain warrants further attention.     

Early physician notification of patient disability risk and clinical guidelines after low back injury: a randomized, controlled trial

STUDY DESIGN: Back-injured workers with high disability risk scores on a predictive questionnaire participated in a randomized, controlled trial of physician notification, with outcomes follow-up 3 months after injury. OBJECTIVES: To test whether physician intervention improves return to work and self-assessment outcomes for people at relatively high risk for disability. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Only a small number of back-injured workers suffer significant disability. Quick identification of these people would facilitate more efficient targeting and trials of interventions. Controlling variations in practice through practice guidelines has been recommended as a promising strategy for improving care and reducing disability. METHODS: Workers filing back injury reports responded to a disability prediction questionnaire. Those with high risk scores were randomly assigned to control or intervention groups. Patient-designated physicians in the intervention group received two letters identifying the patient's risk and making recommendations for care, including the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research's algorithms for acute low back pain. Predictive accuracy of the questionnaire and efficacy of physician intervention were evaluated on the basis of work status and self-assessments 3 months after injury. RESULTS: Of the 268 workers completing the questionnaire portion of the study, 32 (12%) were out of work because of back pain 3 months after injury. The questionnaire's predictive accuracy included maximum kappa of 0.277 and a receiver operating curve area of 0.78. Fifty-three people completed the physician intervention trial. The intervention had no significant impact on return to work, self-assessed pain, or satisfaction with health care. CONCLUSIONS: Stratification of back-injured people according to disability risk can can increase intervention efficiency by identifying those who require treatment and sparing those who do not. The apparent failure of risk notification and practice guidelines to reduce disability in this study may be improved by different application methods in the future.     

Effect of blood viscosity on the function of isolated perfused porcine kidney after cold preservation

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with two age cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether women receiving hormone replacement therapy after menopause have a higher prevalence of back problems than women who do not receive such treatment. BACKGROUND: Back pain is a common medical problem throughout life and especially during pregnancy. Hormonal factors have been proposed as a possible contributor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A validated postal questionnaire was sent in early 1995 to all 1324 women of 55 years and 56 years of age residing in Link?ping, Sweden. This questionnaire included questions about current hormone replacement treatment, previous and current back problems, medical care for back problems, parity, exercise and smoking habits, and occupation. RESULTS: The questionnaire was returned by 84.7% of the women. There was a significant, albeit weak, positive association between current use of hormone replacement treatment and low back pain. Previous back problems during pregnancy was a strong risk factor for current back pain, whereas neither current smoking nor regular physical exercise was a risk factor according to multiple logistic regression analysis. The interaction of smoking and an occupation involving heavy lifting significantly affected back pain. CONCLUSIONS: Women receiving hormone replacement treatment had a slightly, but significantly, higher prevalence of current back pain than nonusers (48% vs. 42%, respectively, P < 0.05), which could not be explained by differences in occupation, smoking habits, or current physical activity. Although the association between hormone replacement therapy and back problems is weak and probably of minor clinical importance, it is speculated that hormonal effects on joints and ligaments may be involved.     

Pseudarthrosis of the lumbar spine. Outcome after circumferential fusion

STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-five patients with a pseudarthrosis after previous spinal fusion surgery were reviewed after a circumferential fusion was performed. OBJECTIVES: To determine the fusion rate and its relation to outcome, i.e., pain reduction and return to work, and associated complications. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Circumferential fusion has become a common procedure with more patients undergoing multiple operations. This operation is thought to improve the fusion rate with a low complication rate. However, the procedure has not been evaluated specifically for the management of pseudarthrosis. METHODS: Twenty-five patients were reviewed regarding age, gender, smoking status, previous back surgeries, extent of leg and back pain, occupation, levels of surgery, type of instrumentation, blood loss, and complications. A minimum follow-up period of 2 years included evaluation of radiographs, pain levels, medication, and return to work. RESULTS: Twenty percent of patients were heavy smokers. An average of 2.2 previous procedures had been performed, and the average follow-up period was 2.7 years. Eighty percent of patients underwent multiple-level fusions. A solid fusion was achieved in 100%. Complications included two painful instrumentation devices requiring removal, one retroperitoneal hematoma, one anterior abdominal wall dehiscence, and one case of pneumonia. Pain scores improved from 7.4 to 4.7 for back pain, and 5.4 to 2.8 for leg pain, respectively. Both improvements were statistically significant (P < 0.01 and 0.003, respectively). However, only 52% of patients reduced their pain by a full category. Forty-one percent were still taking narcotics intermittently or consistently, and 53% returned to work or were actively seeking employment. DISCUSSION: A fusion rate of 100% was noted in the face of factors often placing patients at high risk for developing a pseudarthrosis, namely multiple levels of previous spinal surgery, including previous pseudarthrosis, and a habit of heavy smoking. Complications were few. However, the satisfactory outcome rate was only somewhat better than 50%, based on a lack of substantial pain improvement and return to work.     

Anthropometric variables, self-efficacy beliefs, and pain and disability ratings on the isokinetic performance of low back pain patients

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated how age, sex, height, body weight, self-efficacy beliefs, pain, and subjective disability predict the performance of low back pain patients on an isokinetic trunk muscle test. METHODS: One hundred and five patients participated in the study. Dependent variables were isokinetic flexion and extension strength measured as total work done at speeds 50, 100, and 150 degrees/second. RESULTS: The anthropometric measures were poor predictors, height being the only significant one. Body weight and age were of no relevance for the performance. Subjective pain and disability had negative effects on the performance of men, but not of women. Self-efficacy beliefs, i.e., the patient's belief in his or her capability to endure physical activities, was the most powerful predictor. CONCLUSION: For the purpose of validation, standardization, and interpretation of isokinetic performance in low back pain patients, these factors should be taken into account.     

Comparison of methods to assess coronary heart disease prevalence in South Asians

BACKGROUND: Migrants from the Indian subcontinent (South Asian migrants) in the United Kingdom have high mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in comparison to the indigenous population. Few studies have assessed the prevalence of CHD in South Asians, and the applicability of conventional survey methods in this population is not known. In this pilot random population survey of South Asian men and women living in West London, the prevalence of CHD as judged by the Rose questionnaire, past cardiac history, cardiologist and resting electrocardiogram were compared. METHODS: Subjects aged 30-64 years from randomly selected households were invited for a cardiological assessment. A lay person administered the Rose questionnaire and recorded the past cardiac history. A cardiologist also made an independent assessment and a 12-lead electrocardiogram was recorded and analysed according to the Minnesota code. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-six individuals (192 men and 184 women) were assessed. The prevalence of angina in men and women, respectively, was 3.1% and 4.9% by the Rose questionnaire; 2.6% and 2.2% by past cardiac history; and 4.2% and 0.5% according to the cardiologist. The prevalence of myocardial infarction in men and women, respectively, was 5.2% and 2.2% by the Rose questionnaire, 3.6% and zero by past cardiac history and 3.6% and 0.5% by the cardiologist. Q/QS codes were present in 1.6% men and 0.5% women and ischaemic codes in 13% men and 14% women. Ischaemic changes were not associated with any cardiac history in 72% of men and 92% of women. For a diagnosis of CHD in men, there was poor agreement between the Rose questionnaire and either the past cardiac history or the cardiologist's assessment, but moderate agreement between the past cardiac history and the cardiologist. Agreement was poor between all three methods for a positive diagnosis of CHD in women. CONCLUSION: Current accepted epidemiological methods for assessing CHD prevalence may be inaccurate in South Asians, especially women. Electrocardiogram abnormalities suggestive of ischaemia are common in South Asians and are usually not associated with evidence of CHD. Thus, their value as indicators of CHD is questionable.     

Empirical evidence of the association between the presence of musculoskeletal pain and physical disability in community-dwelling senior citizens

The proportion of people 65 years of age and older who report musculoskeletal pain and physical disability is high. The main objective of this study was to determine whether physical disability was associated with the presence of musculoskeletal pain in a sample of senior citizens. Self-administered questionnaires were sent to a sample of 1306 community-dwelling senior citizens in London, Ontario, Canada between August and October 1995. The questionnaire included questions about pain, difficulty performing activities, depressive symptoms, chronic conditions, and demographic information. A total of 887 seniors completed the questionnaire (70.7% response rate, aged 65-94, 41.2% men, 58.8% women). Logistic regression analysis, without controlling for potential confounding variables, revealed that those who reported having musculoskeletal pain were seven times more likely to have some difficulty performing three or more activities listed in the questionnaire (OR = 6.91 95% CI 4.92-9.69). When significant confounding variables were controlled in the analysis, seniors who reported musculoskeletal pain were still three times more likely to have some difficulty with three or more activities (OR = 2.93, 95% CI 1.96-4.38). Although no causal relationship can be inferred, thorough pain assessment and pain management may be important in the maintenance of independent living for adults 65 years of age or older.