Lumbar segmental instability: a criterion-related validity study of manual therapy assessment

J Haxby Abbott, Brendan McCane, Peter Herbison, Graeme Moginie, Cathy Chapple, Tracy Hogarty, J Haxby Abbott, Brendan McCane, Peter Herbison, Graeme Moginie, Cathy Chapple, Tracy Hogarty

Abstract

Background: Musculoskeletal physiotherapists routinely assess lumbar segmental motion during the clinical examination of a patient with low back pain. The validity of manual assessment of segmental motion has not, however, been adequately investigated.

Methods: In this prospective, multi-centre, pragmatic, diagnostic validity study, 138 consecutive patients with recurrent or chronic low back pain (R/CLBP) were recruited. Physiotherapists with post-graduate training in manual therapy performed passive accessory intervertebral motion tests (PAIVMs) and passive physiological intervertebral motion tests (PPIVMs). Consenting patients were referred for flexion-extension radiographs. Sagittal angular rotation and sagittal translation of each lumbar spinal motion segment was measured from these radiographs, and compared to a reference range derived from a study of 30 asymptomatic volunteers. Motion beyond two standard deviations from the reference mean was considered diagnostic of rotational lumbar segmental instability (LSI) and translational LSI. Accuracy and validity of the clinical assessments were expressed using sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: Only translation LSI was found to be significantly associated with R/CLBP (p < 0.05). PAIVMs were specific for the diagnosis of translation LSI (specificity 89%, CI 83-93%), but showed poor sensitivity (29%, CI 14-50%). A positive test results in a likelihood ratio (LR+) of 2.52 (95% CI 1.15-5.53). Flexion PPIVMs were highly specific for the diagnosis of translation LSI (specificity 99.5%; CI 97-100%), but showed very poor sensitivity (5%; CI 1-22%). Likelihood ratio statistics for flexion PPIVMs were not statistically significant. Extension PPIVMs performed better than flexion PPIVMs, with slightly higher sensitivity (16%; CI 6-38%) resulting in a likelihood ratio for a positive test of 7.1 (95% CI 1.7 to 29.2) for translation LSI.

Conclusion: This study provides the first evidence reporting the concurrent validity of manual tests for the detection of abnormal sagittal planar motion. PAIVMs and PPIVMs are highly specific, but not sensitive, for the detection of translation LSI. Likelihood ratios resulting from positive test results were only moderate. This research indicates that manual clinical examination procedures have moderate validity for detecting segmental motion abnormality.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The central posteroanterior passive accessory intervertebral motion (PAIVM) test. The patient lies prone. The clinician contacts the spinous process of the target vertebra with the hypothenar eminence, and delivers a gradual posteroanteriorly directed force.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The passive physiological intervertebral motion (PPIVM) test in flexion. The patient is positioned side-lying. The clinician palpates the interspace between the adjacent spinous processes of the target motion segment with one finger, while moving the lumbar spine from neutral into flexion via the patient's uppermost limb.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The passive physiological intervertebral motion (PPIVM) test in extension. The patient is positioned side-lying. The clinician palpates the interspace between the adjacent spinous processes of the target motion segment with one finger, while moving the lumbar spine from neutral to extension via the patient's uppermost limb.
Figure 4
Figure 4
STARD flow diagram.

References

    1. Maitland GD, Edwards BC. Vertebral manipulation. 5. London; Boston: Butterworths; 1986.
    1. Magee DJ. Orthopedic physical assessment. 3. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1997.
    1. Phillips DR, Twomey LT. comparison of manual diagnosis with a diagnosis established by a uni-level lumbar spinal block procedure. Manual Therapy. 1996;1:82–87. doi: 10.1054/math.1996.0254.
    1. Avery AF. Master of Applied Science thesis. Perth, Western Australia: Curtin University of Technology; 1996. The reliability of manual physiotherapy palpation techniques in the diagnosis of bilateral pars defects in subjects with chronic low back pain.
    1. Fritz JM, Childs JD, Flynn TW, Whitman JM, Wainner RS. Segmental mobility testing in the classification of low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2004;34:A7.
    1. Bogduk N, Amevo B, Pearcy M. biological basis for instantaneous centres of rotation of the vertebral column. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine. 1995;209:177–183.
    1. Schneider G. Master of Medical Science thesis. Newcastle, NSW, Australia: University of Newcastle; 1999. Instantaneous centres of rotation, centres of reaction, and true translation of lumbar segments: Normative data and reliability.
    1. Schneider G, Bogduk N. Evaluation of new method for determining translation of lumbar spinal segments. Proceedings of the Spine Society of Australia Conference: Adelaide. 2000.
    1. ClaritySMART Spinal Motion Analysis Research Technology
    1. NIH Image
    1. McKenzie AM, Taylor NF. Can physiotherapists locate lumbar spinal levels by palpation? Physiotherapy. 1997;83:235–239. doi: 10.1016/S0031-9406(05)66213-X.
    1. Downey B, Taylor N, Niere K. Can manipulative physiotherapists agree on which lumbar level to treat based on palpation? Physiotherapy. 2003;89:74–81. doi: 10.1016/S0031-9406(05)60578-0.
    1. Harlick JC. Is spinal lumbar palpation a valid clinical measure? New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy. 2001;29:33–34.
    1. Kulig K, Landel R, Powers CM. Assessment of lumbar spine kinematics using dynamic MRI: a proposed mechanism of sagittal plane motion induced by manual posterior-to-anterior mobilization. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2004;34:57–64.
    1. Chiradejnant A, Maher CG, Latimer J, Stepkovitch N. Efficacy of "therapist-selected" versus "randomly selected" mobilisation techniques for the treatment of low back pain: a randomised controlled trial. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy. 2003;49:233–241.
    1. Flynn T, Fritz J, Whitman J, Wainner R, Magel J, Rendeiro D, Butler B, Garber M, Allison S. A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with spinal manipulation. Spine. 2002;27:2835–2843. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200212150-00021.
    1. Flynn TW, Fritz JM, Wainner RS, Whitman JM. The audible pop is not necessary for successful spinal high-velocity thrust manipulation in individuals with low back pain. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2003;84:1057–1060. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00048-0.
    1. Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Flynn TW, Wainner RS, Childs JD. Clinical factors related to the failure of individuals with low back pain to improve with spinal manipulation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2003;33:A4–A5.
    1. Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW, Irrgang JJ, Delitto A, Johnson KK, Majkowski GR. Validation of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients likely to benefit from spinal manipulation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2004;34:A9–A10.
    1. Richardson CA, Jull GA, Hides JA, Hodges PW. Therapeutic exercise for spinal segmental stabilization in low back pain: scientific basis and clinical approach. Edinburgh; Sydney: Churchill Livingstone; 1999.
    1. O'Sullivan PB. Lumbar segmental 'instability': clinical presentation and specific stabilizing exercise management. Manual Therapy. 2000;5:2–12. doi: 10.1054/math.1999.0213.
    1. Mayer TG, Robinson R, Pegues P, Kohles S, Gatchel RJ. Lumbar segmental rigidity: can its identification with facet injections and stretching exercises be useful? Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2000;81:1143–1150. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2000.9170.
    1. Chiradejnant A, Latimer J, Maher CG, Stepkovitch N. Does the choice of spinal level treated during posteroanterior (PA) mobilisation affect treatment outcome? Physiotherapy Theory and Practice. 2002;18:165–174. doi: 10.1080/09593980290058544.
    1. Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ, eds . Statistics with Confidence: Confidence Intervals and Statistical Guidelines. 2. BMJ Books; 2000.
    1. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003;326:41–44. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41.
    1. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;271:703–707. doi: 10.1001/jama.271.9.703.
    1. Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.
    1. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. 2. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
    1. Nachemson A. The role of spinal fusion: Question 8: How do you define instability? How is it diagnosed, and what surgical treatment policy do you follow? Spine. 1981;6:306–307.
    1. White A, Panjabi M. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. 2. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1990.
    1. Landel RF, Kulig K, Powers CM. Accuracy of manual spinal segmental motion testing as determined by dynamic MRI. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2003;33:A3–A4.
    1. Maher CG, Simmonds M, Adams R. Therapists' conceptualization and characterization of the clinical concept of spinal stiffness. Physical Therapy. 1998;78:289–300.
    1. Holleman DR, Jr, Simel DL. Quantitative assessments from the clinical examination. How should clinicians integrate the numerous results? Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1997;12:165–171. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.012003165.x.
    1. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;271:389–391. doi: 10.1001/jama.271.5.389.
    1. Flynn TW. Move it and move on. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2002;32:192–193.
    1. Frobin W, Brinckmann P, Leivseth G, Biggemann M, Reikeras O. Precision measurement of segmental motion from flexion-extension radiographs of the lumbar spine. Clinical Biomechanics. 1996;11:457–465. doi: 10.1016/S0268-0033(96)00039-3.
    1. Matyas T, Bach T. The reliability of selected techniques in clinical arthrometrics. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy. 1985;31:175–195.
    1. Riddle DL. Measurement of accessory motion: critical issues and related concepts. Physical Therapy. 1992;72:865–874.
    1. Maher CG, Latimer J, Adams R. An investigation of the reliability and validity of posteroanterior spinal stiffness judgments made using a reference-based protocol. Physical Therapy. 1998;78:829–837.
    1. Inscoe EL, Witt PL, Gross MT, Mitchell RU. Reliability in evaluating passive intervertebral motion of the lumbar spine. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy. 1995;3:135–143.
    1. Strender LE, Sjoblom A, Sundell K, Ludwig R, Taube A. Interexaminer reliability in physical examination of patients with low back pain. Spine. 1997;22:814–820. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199704010-00021.
    1. Lundberg G, Gerdle B. The relationships between spinal sagittal configuration, joint mobility, general low back mobility and segmental mobility in female homecare personnel. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 1999;31:197–206. doi: 10.1080/003655099444362.
    1. Crosbie J. Physiotherapy research: A retrospective look at the future. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy. 2000;46:159–164.
    1. Refshauge K. Reflections on the direction of research and PRI. Physiotherapy Research International. 2002;7:iii–v.
    1. Streiner DL. Learning how to differ: agreement and reliability statistics in psychiatry. Can J Psychiatry. 1995;40:60–66.
    1. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. East Norwark, Connecticut: Appleton & Lange; 1993.
    1. Bartko JJ. Measurement and reliability: statistical thinking considerations. Schizophr Bull. 1991;17:483–489.
    1. Brennan P, Silman A. Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. BMJ. 1992;304:1491–1494.
    1. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:543–549. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-L.
    1. Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley; 1986.
    1. Lantz CA. Application and evaluation of the kappa statistic in the design and interpretation of chiropractic clinical research. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1997;20:521–528.
    1. Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR. High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:551–558. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-M.
    1. Wainner RS. Reliability of the clinical examination: How close is close enough? J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2003;33:488–491.
    1. Abbott JH, Mercer SR. Lumbar segmental hypomobility: Criterion-related validity of clinical examination items (a pilot study) New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy. 2003;31:3–9.
    1. Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Flynn TW, Wainner RS, Childs JD. Factors related to the inability of individuals with low back pain to improve with a spinal manipulation. Phys Ther. 2004;84:173–190.
    1. Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW, Irrgang JJ, Johnson KK, Majkowski GR, Delitto A. A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:920–928.
    1. Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Measurement properties of the RM-18. A modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Scale. Spine. 1997;22:2416–2421. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199710150-00018.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren