Archive for category: KDT Blog

Inheritability of back pain may be as high as 68% with inheritable factors including disc degeneration (statistically accounting for up to 75%) and tendency toward psychological distress.  Four studies draw the conclusion muscle strength and general fitness appear to be of little significance and there is no persuasive evidence flexibility, gender or leg length inequality play a meaningful role. Taller men do have a higher prevalence of certain disc problems presumable due to the fact tall people lift weights at the end of longer lever arms. Several studies have concluded there is “moderate evidence” that lumbar flexibility, bodyweight and straight leg raise have no predictive value for future LBP. Additionally recent studies also show moderate evidence that general cardiorespiratory fitness has no predictive value for future LBP.  And has been mentioned in other blogs MRI and radiographs hold NO value in predicting future LBP.

A relatively recent systematic review (Pincus et al Spine 2002) of psychological factors as predictors of “unfavorable outcomes” concluded there is “good evidence” to implicate distress/depressive mood and somatization in development of chronicity.

And there is also “strong evidence” psychological factors play an important role in persisting symptoms. A workers’ belief regarding their work having caused their pain and their expectations of inability to return (‘yellow flags’) are of particular importance.

I came upon 2 studies recently which really piqued my interest immediately. The suggestion by many patients that the mobile “lump”/nodule in their lower back is “causing” their trouble is VERY common in my experience. These two commentaries point out that in fact the patient may not just be imagining that the proximity of the lump to their pain isn’t coincidence…the nodule may well be the source.  I have encountered several notable cases of this over the last 28 years, but recently had a post-surgical patient absolutely convinced that “the damn lump in my back is giving me the pain!”…”but no one will believe me”. After probing the area it became apparent that it wasn’t just an “overlaying” lump (common with many lipomas which are not a pain source), this lump appeared to be the actual source of the pain. the pain interestingly enough was a “discal” like pain but with nebulous motion-findings. The lump was injected, pain relief was dramatic and it was removed. And the patient was extremely satisfied with the outcome.

Aqri 2013;25(2):83-6. doi: 10.5505/agri.2013.63626.

[Episacral lipoma: a treatable cause of low back pain].

[Article in Turkish]

Erdem HR¹, Nacır B, Özeri Z, Karagöz A.

 

Abstract

Episacral lipoma is a small, tender subcutaneous nodule primarily occurring over the posterior iliac crest. Episacral lipoma is a significant and treatable cause of acute and chronic low back pain. Episacral lipoma occurs as a result of tears in the thoracodorsal fascia and subsequent herniation of a portion of the underlying dorsal fat pad through the tear. This clinical entity is common, and recognition is simple. The presence of a painful nodule with disappearance of pain after injection with anaesthetic, is diagnostic. Medication and physical therapy may not be effective. Local injection of the nodule with a solution of anaesthetic and steroid is effective in treating the episacral lipoma. Here we describe 2 patients with painful nodules over the posterior iliac crest. One patient complained of severe lower back pain radiating to the left lower extremity and this patient subsequently underwent disc operation. The other patient had been treated for greater trochanteric pain syndrome. In both patients, symptoms appeared to be relieved by local injection of anaesthetic and steroid. Episacral lipoma should be considered during diagnostic workup and in differential diagnosis of acute and chronic low back pain. 2000 Apr;49(4):345-8.

Fibro-fatty nodules and low back pain. The back mouse masquerade.

Curtis P¹, Gibbons G

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Few useful interventions exist for patients with persistent low back pain. We suggest that a fibro-fatty nodule (“back mouse”) may be an identifiable and treatable cause of this and other types of pain.

METHODS:

We describe 2 patients with painful nodules in the lower back and lateral iliac crest areas. In both cases, the signs and symptoms were unusual and presented at locations distant from the nodule. One patient complained of severe acute lower abdominal pain, and the other had been treated for chronic recurrent trochanteric bursitis for several years.

RESULTS:

In both patients, symptoms appeared to be relieved by multiple injection of the nodule.

DISCUSSION:

There is agreement that back mice exist. Referred pain from the nodules might explain the distant symptoms and signs in these cases. Multiple puncture may be an effective treatment because it lessens the tension of a fibro-fatty nodule.

CONCLUSIONS:

Randomized trials on this subject are needed. In the meantime, physicians should keep back mice in mind when presented with atypical and unaccountable symptoms in the lower abdomen, inguinal region, or legs.

 

Don’t underestimate the value of seated ‘chair-lifts’ both as an important testing procedure for “compression but also as a counter to the discal stress imposed by daily sitting. Holtzman, Froyer, Saunders and others have examined the decompression effect and benefit of this maneuver and found that it indeed both relieves pain and restores height i.e. fosters disc fluid imbibition in people who sit a lot during the day. “Sitting is the new smoking” takes on a chiropractic edge when you realize the damaging effects on the lumbar discs. Instructing patients to try this “self-decompression” 30-60 seconds (dependent on their strength) several times per day can help pain and possibly disc nutrition & revitalization.

Eur Spine J. May 2007; 16(5): 669–678.

1. Grob, H. Frauenfelder, and A. F. Mannion

Abstract

The finding that degenerative changes of the cervical spine are common in asymptomatic individuals has challenged the notion of cause and effect. Degenerative changes of the cervical spine are commonly accompanied by a reduction or loss of the segmental or global lordosis, and are often considered to be a cause of neck pain. The aim of this study was to examine the correlation between the presence of neck pain and alterations of the normal cervical lordosis in people aged over 45 years. No significant difference between the two groups could be found in relation to the global curvature, the segmental angles, or the incidence of straight-spine or kyphotic deformity (P > 0.05). The presence of such structural abnormalities in the patient with neck pain must be considered coincidental.Degenerative changes of the cervical spine are commonly accompanied by a reduction or loss of the segmental or global lordosis, and are often considered to be a cause of neck pain. Nonetheless, such changes may also remain clinically silent. The aim of this study was to examine the correlation between the presence of neck pain and alterations of the normal cervical lordosis in people aged over 45 years. One hundred and seven volunteers, who were otherwise undergoing treatment for lower extremity problems in our hospital, took part. Sagittal radiographs of the cervical spine were taken and a questionnaire was completed, enquiring about neck pain and disability in the last 12 months. Based on the latter, subjects were divided into a group with neck pain (N = 54) and a group without neck pain (N = 53). The global curvature of the cervical spine (C2–C7) and each segmental angle were measured from the radiographs, using the posterior tangent method, and examined in relation to neck complaints. No significant difference between the two groups could be found in relation to the global curvature, the segmental angles, or the incidence of straight-spine or kyphotic deformity (P > 0.05). Twenty-three per cent of the people with neck pain and 17% of those without neck pain showed a segmental kyphosis deformity of more than 4° in at least one segment—most frequently at C4/5, closely followed by C5/6 and C3/4. The average segmental angle at the kyphotic level was 6.5° in the pain group and 6.3° in the group without pain, with a range of 5–10° in each group. In the group with neck pain, there was no association between any of the clinical characteristics (duration, frequency, intensity of pain; radiating pain; sensory/motor disturbances; disability; healthcare utilisation) and either global cervical curvature or segmental angles. The presence of such structural abnormalities in the patient with neck pain must be considered coincidental, i.e. not necessarily indicative of the cause of pain. This should be given due consideration in the differential diagnosis of patients with neck pain.

 

Dr. Kennedy comment: another study questioning the ‘curve’ and it’s relation to symptoms. I call attention again to Dr. Eyal  Ledermans’ article: “The fall of the postural-structural-biomechanical model”. However, irrespective of these findings I still say all I’d rather have a ‘good’ curve in my own neck.

 

Through 3.5 million years of development we humans find ourselves with lordotic curves intra-uterine. Clearly someone wanted our lower backs and necks “curved” i.e. extended. Numerous published studies suggest extension is the most common directional-preference in HNP conditions and McGill and others show how extension “shuts off” the LE activity thus reducing the crushing-effect of the hyperactive/hyper-tonic posterior muscles endemic in so many with cLBP (Janda’s lower cross syndrome). Further at least 2 recently published studies (Mustafa) show HNP can be effectively treated using extension traction methods. Magnusson, Pope et al (1995)also demonstrated that prone extension postures restore height and have an “unloading” effect on discs equal to or better than flexion postures.

Both a ‘stress-shielding’ (neural arch impaction reducing posterior disc compression) and nuclear “migration” (an intact, hydrophilic nucleus that moves as an isotropic mechanism under pressure) can explain extensions benefit…. but neither is definitive in all cases. It’s not surprising however that extension appears most immediately beneficial in cases of moderate disc degeneration (the arches are already approximating).

So we try to exploit this with our decompression positions…when an extension benefit is apparent prone traction becomes a necessity…when it’s not apparent (or neural stress signs/stenosis or an “anterior disc” manifests) supine is probably the best call.