Paraspinal muscle cross-sectional area predicts low back disability but not pain intensity.
Cohort study
Low back disability
Low back pain
Multiple imputation
Muscle cross-sectional area
Paraspinal muscles
Journal
The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
ISSN: 1878-1632
Titre abrégé: Spine J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101130732
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
received:
03
07
2018
revised:
29
11
2018
accepted:
03
12
2018
pubmed:
12
12
2018
medline:
28
2
2020
entrez:
12
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The lumbar paraspinal muscles, including the erector spinae and multifidus, play an important role in movement and control of the spine. However, our understanding of their contribution to low back pain and disability is unclear. Systematic reviews have reported conflicting evidence for an association between paraspinal muscle size and low back pain, and a paucity of data examining muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and low back disability. To investigate the relationship between paraspinal muscle CSA and both low back pain intensity and disability. One-year longitudinal cohort study. Participants were selected from the SpineData Registry (Denmark), which enrolls people with low back pain of 2 to 12 months duration without radiculopathy and a satisfactory response to primary intervention. Current, typical, and worst pain in the prior 2 weeks were assessed by 11-point numeric rating scales and an average pain score was calculated, and disability was measured using the 23-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. CSA (cm Participants completed the study questionnaires and underwent the lumbar spine magnetic resonance images at baseline and were followed up 12 months later to repeat the questionnaires. Statistical analyses involved multivariable linear regression (cross-sectional analysis) and linear mixed-models (longitudinal analysis) with adjustment for confounders. Multiple imputation was conducted to account for missing data. A total of 962 participants were included and 588 (65.8%) were followed up at 12-months. Multivariable analysis showed that greater paraspinal muscle CSA was associated with lower levels of disability, after adjusting for confounders (right mean CSA: baseline beta -0.16, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.06, p<.01; longitudinal beta -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.01, p=.03). This was evident at all levels, except L5 which was marginal at baseline (beta -0.08, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.001, p=.045) and not significant longitudinally (beta -0.05, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.02, p=.18). However, there were no associations between muscle CSA and pain intensity (baseline beta -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02, p=.29; longitudinal beta -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02, p=.34). Results were similar for both complete case and multiple imputation analyses. This study found an inverse relationship between lumbar paraspinal muscle CSA and low back disability, but not pain intensity. While further investigation is needed, these findings suggest that treatment strategies directed at increasing paraspinal muscle size may be effective in reducing low back disability.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
The lumbar paraspinal muscles, including the erector spinae and multifidus, play an important role in movement and control of the spine. However, our understanding of their contribution to low back pain and disability is unclear. Systematic reviews have reported conflicting evidence for an association between paraspinal muscle size and low back pain, and a paucity of data examining muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and low back disability.
PURPOSE
To investigate the relationship between paraspinal muscle CSA and both low back pain intensity and disability.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING
One-year longitudinal cohort study.
PATIENT SAMPLE
Participants were selected from the SpineData Registry (Denmark), which enrolls people with low back pain of 2 to 12 months duration without radiculopathy and a satisfactory response to primary intervention.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Current, typical, and worst pain in the prior 2 weeks were assessed by 11-point numeric rating scales and an average pain score was calculated, and disability was measured using the 23-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. CSA (cm
METHODS
Participants completed the study questionnaires and underwent the lumbar spine magnetic resonance images at baseline and were followed up 12 months later to repeat the questionnaires. Statistical analyses involved multivariable linear regression (cross-sectional analysis) and linear mixed-models (longitudinal analysis) with adjustment for confounders. Multiple imputation was conducted to account for missing data.
RESULTS
A total of 962 participants were included and 588 (65.8%) were followed up at 12-months. Multivariable analysis showed that greater paraspinal muscle CSA was associated with lower levels of disability, after adjusting for confounders (right mean CSA: baseline beta -0.16, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.06, p<.01; longitudinal beta -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.01, p=.03). This was evident at all levels, except L5 which was marginal at baseline (beta -0.08, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.001, p=.045) and not significant longitudinally (beta -0.05, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.02, p=.18). However, there were no associations between muscle CSA and pain intensity (baseline beta -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02, p=.29; longitudinal beta -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02, p=.34). Results were similar for both complete case and multiple imputation analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
This study found an inverse relationship between lumbar paraspinal muscle CSA and low back disability, but not pain intensity. While further investigation is needed, these findings suggest that treatment strategies directed at increasing paraspinal muscle size may be effective in reducing low back disability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30529786
pii: S1529-9430(18)31280-4
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.12.004
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
862-868Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.