Lumbar supports and education for the prevention of low back pain in industry: a randomized controlled trial. Lumbar supports to prevent recurrent low back pain among home care workers: a randomized trial. Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners: a cluster randomized controlled trial. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. The efficacy of active rehabilitation in chronic low back pain. Effect on pain intensity, self-experienced disability, and lumbar fatigability. The back home trial: general practitioner-supported leaflets may change back pain behavior. Evaluation of an educational low back pain prevention program for hospital employees. The effectiveness of exercise programmes after lumbar disc surgery: a randomized controlled study.
Low back pain is a frequent and costly health problem. Prevention of low back pain is important both for the individual patient and from an economic perspective.
                To assess the efficacy of lumbar supports and education in the prevention of low back pain in industry.
                A randomized controlled trial with a factorial design.
                The cargo department of an airline company in the Netherlands.
                A total of 312 workers were randomized, of whom 282 were available for the 6-month follow-up.
                Subjects were randomly assigned to 4 groups: (1) education (lifting instructions) and lumbar support, (2) education, (3) lumbar support, and (4) no intervention. Education consisted of 3 group sessions on lifting techniques with a total duration of 5 hours. Lumbar supports were recommended to be used during working hours for 6 months.
                Low back pain incidence and sick leave because of back pain during the 6-month intervention period.
                Compliance with wearing the lumbar support at least half the time was 43%. In the 282 subjects for whom data were available, no statistically significant differences in back pain incidence (48 [36%] of 134 with lumbar support vs 51 [34%] of 148 without, P=.81) or in sick leave because of low back pain (mean, 0.4 days per month with lumbar support vs 0.4 days without, P=.52) were found among the intervention groups. In a subgroup of subjects with low back pain at baseline, lumbar supports reduced the number of days with low back pain per month (median, 1.2 vs 6.5 days per month; P=.03).
                Overall, lumbar supports or education did not lead to a reduction in low back pain incidence or sick leave. The results of the subgroup analysis need to be confirmed by future research. Based on our results, the use of education or lumbar supports cannot be recommended in the prevention of low back pain in industry. People use lumbar supports to prevent low back pain. Secondary analyses from primary preventive studies suggest benefit among workers with previous low back pain, but definitive studies on the effectiveness of supports for the secondary prevention of low back pain are lacking.
                To determine the effectiveness of lumbar supports in the secondary prevention of low back pain.
                Randomized, controlled trial.
                Home care organization in the Netherlands.
                360 home care workers with self-reported history of low back pain.
                Short course on healthy working methods, with or without patient-directed use of 1 of 4 types of lumbar support.
                Primary outcomes were the number of days of low back pain and sick leave over 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the average severity of low back pain and function (Quebec Back Pain Disability scale) in the previous week.
                Over 12 months, participants in the lumbar support group reported an average of -52.7 days (CI, -59.6 to -45.1 days) fewer days with low back pain than participants who received only the short course. However, the total sick days in the lumbar support group did not decrease (-5 days [CI, -21.1 to 6.8 days]). Small but statistically significant differences in pain intensity and function favored lumbar support.
                Study participants were unblinded, and a substantial amount of missing data required imputation. Objective data on sick days due to low back pain were not available.
                Adding patient-directed use of lumbar supports to a short course on healthy working methods may reduce the number of days when low back pain occurs, but not overall work absenteeism, among home care workers with previous low back pain. Further study of lumbar supports is warranted. Single blind randomized study.
                To compare the effectiveness of lumbar instrumented fusion with cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration.
                To the authors' best knowledge, only one randomized study has evaluated the effectiveness of lumbar fusion. The Swedish Lumbar Spine Study reported that lumbar fusion was better than continuing physiotherapy and care by the family physician.
                Sixty-four patients aged 25-60 years with low back pain lasting longer than 1 year and evidence of disc degeneration at L4-L5 and/or L5-S1 at radiographic examination were randomized to either lumbar fusion with posterior transpedicular screws and postoperative physiotherapy, or cognitive intervention and exercises. The cognitive intervention consisted of a lecture to give the patient an understanding that ordinary physical activity would not harm the disc and a recommendation to use the back and bend it. This was reinforced by three daily physical exercise sessions for 3 weeks. The main outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index.
                At the 1-year follow-up visit, 97% of the patients, including 6 patients who had either not attended treatment or changed groups, were examined. The Oswestry Disability Index was significantly reduced from 41 to 26 after surgery, compared with 42 to 30 after cognitive intervention and exercises. The mean difference between groups was 2.3 (-6.7 to 11.4) (P = 0.33). Improvements inback pain, use of analgesics, emotional distress, life satisfaction, and return to work were not different. Fear-avoidance beliefs and fingertip-floor distance were reduced more after nonoperative treatment, and lower limb pain was reduced more after surgery. The success rate according to an independent observer was 70% after surgery and 76% after cognitive intervention and exercises. The early complication rate in the surgical group was 18%.
                The main outcome measure showed equal improvement in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration randomized to cognitive intervention and exercises, or lumbar fusion. Cluster randomized controlled trial for a multifaceted implementation strategy.
                To assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions (multifaceted implementation strategy) to implement the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners with regard to adherence to guideline recommendations.
                Guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care have been developed in various countries, but little is known about the optimal implementation strategy. A multifaceted implementation strategy was developed to overcome identified barriers to the implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners.
                General practitioners were randomized to an intervention or a control group. The general practitioners in the intervention group (n = 21) received tailored interventions consisting of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners, a 2-hour educational and clinical practice workshop; two scientific articles on low back pain management; the guideline for occupational physicians; a tool for patient education; and a tool for reaching agreement on low back care with physical, exercise, and manual therapists. The control group (n = 20) received no intervention. The participating general practitioners were asked to recruit consecutive patients with a new episode of low back pain as the main reason for consultation. General practitioners completed registration forms of each individual consultation with regard to the main outcome measures: advice and information, referral to other health-care providers, and prescription of medication.
                Forty-one of the 67 randomized general practitioners reported on a total of 616 consultations for 531 patients with nonspecific low back pain. The advice and explanation provided by the general practitioners, the prescription of paracetamol or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and prescription of pain medication on atime contingent or a pain contingent basis showed no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups. There were also no differences in overall referral rate. However, in follow-up consultations fewer patients were referred to a physical or exercise therapist by the general practitioners in the intervention group than in the control group.
                The multifaceted intervention strategy modestly improved implementation (for parts of the recommendations in) the Dutch low back pain guideline by general practitioners and produced small concomitant changes in patient management. The implementation strategy produced fewer referrals to therapists during follow-up consultations. A randomized controlled multicenter study with a 2-year follow-up by an independent observer.
                To determine whether fusion of the lower lumbar spine could reduce pain and diminish disability more effectively when compared with nonsurgical treatment in patients with severe chronic low back pain (CLBP).
                The reported results after fusion surgery on patients with CLBP vary considerably, and the evidence of treatment efficacy is weak in the absence of randomized controlled studies.
                A total of 294 patients referred to 19 spinal centers from 1992 through 1998 were randomized blindly into four treatment groups. Patients aged 25-65 years with CLBP for at least 2 years and with radiologic evidence of disc degeneration at L4-L5, L5-S1, or both were eligible to participate in the study. The surgical group (n=222) included three different fusion techniques, not analyzed separately in this study. Patients in the nonsurgical group (n=72) were treated with different kinds of physical therapy. The surgical group comprised 49.5% men, and the mean age was 43 years. The corresponding figures for the nonsurgical group were 48.6% and 44 years. The patients had suffered from low back pain for a mean of 7.8 and 8.5 years and been on sick leave due to back pain for a mean of 3.2 and 2.9 years, respectively. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to measure pain. The Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire, the Million Score and the General Function Score (GFS) were used to measure disability. The Zung Depression Scale was used to measure depressive symptoms. The overall result was assessed by the patient and by an independent observer. Records from the Swedish Social Insurance were used to evaluate work disability. Patients who changed groups were included in the analyses of significance according to the intention-to-treat principle.
                At the 2-year follow-up 289 of 294 (98%) patients, including 25 who had changed groups, were examined. Back pain was reduced in the surgical group by 33% (64 to 43), compared with 7% (63 to 58) in the nonsurgical group (P=0.0002). Pain improved most during the first 6 months and then gradually deteriorated. Disability according to Oswestry was reduced by 25% (47 to 36) compared with 6% (48 to 46) among nonsurgical patients (P=0.015), according to Million by 28% (64 to 46) compared with 8% (66 to 60) (P=0.004), and accordingtoGFS by 31% (49 to 34) compared with 4% (48 to 46) (P=0.005). The depressive symptoms, according to Zung, were reduced by 20% (39 to 31) in the surgical group compared with 7% (39 to 36) in the nonsurgical group (P=0.123). In the surgical group 63% (122/195) rated themselves as "much better" or "better" compared with 29% (18/62) in the nonsurgical group (P<0.0001). The "net back to work rate" was significantly in favor of surgical treatment, or 36% vs. 13% (P=0.002). The early complication rate in the surgical group was 17%.
                Lumbar fusion in a well-informed and selected group of patients with severe CLBP can diminish pain and decrease disability more efficiently than commonly used nonsurgical treatment. A randomized study comparing the results of active rehabilitation and passive control treatment in patients with chronic low back pain with follow-up at 6 months and 1 year.
                To study the efficacy of active rehabilitation on pain, self-experienced disability, and lumbar fatigability.
                Exercises in an outpatient setting are widely used for the treatment of chronic low back pain. The efficacy of the active rehabilitation approach has been documented in randomized control studies, but these studies have seldom been focused on lumbar fatigability, which is now recognized as a frequent problem among patients with chronic low back pain.
                Fifty-nine middle-aged patients (37 men and 22 women) with nonspecific chronic low back pain were randomly assigned to 12 weeks' active rehabilitation or to a passive control treatment (massage, thermal therapy). Pain and disability index, low back pain intensity (visual analog scale, 100 mm), and the objectively assessed lumbar muscle fatigability (spectral electromyogram, mean power frequency slope [MPFSLOPE]) in a new 90-second submaximal isoinertial back endurance test were recorded before and after the interventions and at 6-month and 1-year follow-up visits.
                Results of repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance indicated that back pain intensity (visual analog scale) and functional disability (pain and disability index score) decreased, and lumbar endurance (MPFSLOPE) improved significantly more (P < 0.05) in the active rehabilitation group than in the passive control treatment group, when measured at a 1-year follow-up examination. The group difference in visual analog scale and pain and disability index changes became even more significant at the end of 1 year. The change in lumbar endurance was significantly greater in the active rehabilitation group than in the passive control treatment group at the 6-month follow-up, but not at the 1-year follow-up.
                The active progressive treatment program was more successful in reducing pain and self-experienced disability and also in improving lumbar endurance than was the passive control treatment. However, the group difference in lumbar endurance tended to diminish at the 1-year follow-up. A single-blind randomized controlled trial of a leaflet developed for people with acute low back pain was compared with the usual general practitioner management of back pain.
                To test the effectiveness of a patient information leaflet on knowledge, attitude, behavior, and function.
                Despite the commonality of back pain in general practice, little evidence on the effectiveness of simple interventions such as leaflets and advice on self-management has been reported. On the basis of a five-stage needs analysis, a simple leaflet was developed that considered the views of patients and health professionals.
                For this study, 64 patients with acute back pain were assigned to the leaflet or control group. The participants were visited at home after 2 days, 2 weeks, then 3, 6, and 12 months, where they completed a range of self-report measures. Behavioral aspects were discretely recorded by a "blinded" researcher. Primary outcomes were knowledge, attitude, behavior, and function.
                In all, 272 home visits were undertaken. The findings show that at 2 weeks, knowledge about sitting posture was greater in the leaflet group (P = 0.006), which transferred to a behavioral difference (sitting with lumbar lordosis support) when participants were unaware that they were being observed (P = 0.009). This difference remained significant at 3 months. Patients in the leaflet group also were better at maintaining a wide base of support when lifting a light object than the control subjects throughout all five assessments. There were no significant differences in the functional outcomes tested.
                This trial demonstrates that written advice for patients can be a contributory factor in the initial general practitioner consultation because it may change aspects of knowledge and behavior. This has implications for the management of acute back pain, with potential health gain. To evaluate the impact of an educational low back pain prevention program in a cohort of hospital employees.
                A cohort of 136 nonclerical hospital employees attended classes on safe postures and patient handling, then received advice by educators who observed them while they performed their typical workday tasks. Each of the subjects in this intervention group was matched on age, sex, and job category with a control. Musculoskeletal complaints and changes in habits during work and recreational activities were evaluated before the intervention (or the corresponding date in the control group) and after two years.
                In the intervention group, 36% of subjects with low back pain at baseline were free of this symptom at follow-up, whereas only 26% were in the opposite situation. The proportion of subjects with low back pain episodes lasting longer than 30 days increased significantly from baseline to follow-up in the control group (from 30% to 49%) but not in the intervention group. The number of sick leaves longer than 30 days decreased significantly in the intervention group. Only 33% of the intervention group subjects felt the intervention had been helpful; this proportion varied across job categories.
                Our data suggest that differences in job categories should be taken into account when designing educational programs for preventing low back pain. They also indicate that back school programs may be more effective in subjects with a history of low back pain, whereas instruction on safe postures and patient handling may be the best approach in subjects who have not previously experienced low back pain. Observing and providing advice to employees while they are performing their usual duties may be an essential component of low back pain prevention. To compare two different exercise programmes versus a control group, after lumbar disc surgery.
                A prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study.
                Outpatient clinic of Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
                Sixty patients diagnosed as having single level lumbar disc herniation with clinical examination and MRI evaluation and who had undergone lumbar discectomy (post-operative first month) at a single level. Patients with serious pathologies involving the cardiac and respiratory systems that could prevent them from doing exercises were excluded. Intervention: The patients were randomly split into three groups. The first group received an intensive exercise programme and back school education while the second group received a home exercise programme and back school education. The third group was defined as the control group and did not receive education or exercise.
                The patients were evaluated at the beginning and end of the treatment with clinical parameters, pain levels, endurance tests and weight-lifting tests, modified Oswestry Disability Index, Beck Depression Inventory, Low Back Pain Rating Scale and return to work.
                The groups doing exercises experienced a decrease in the severity of pain and disability, also functional parameters showed better improvement than the control group. The intensive exercise programme was better than the home exercise programme.
                It seems that intensive exercise is more effective in reduction of pain and disability, but whether it is cost-effective is not clear.
There is moderate evidence that lumbar supports are not more effective than no intervention or training in preventing low-back pain, and conflicting evidence whether they are effective supplements to other preventive interventions. It remains unclear whether lumbar supports are more effective than no or other interventions for treating low-back pain.
There is still a need for high quality randomised trials on the effectiveness of lumbar supports. One of the most essential issues to tackle in these future trials seems to be the realization of an adequate compliance. Special attention should be paid to different outcome measures, types of patients and types of lumbar support.