Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.665808
Title: An evaluation of passive recumbent quantitative fluoroscopy to measure mid-lumbar intervertebral motion in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain and healthy volunteers
Author: Mellor, Fiona E.
ISNI:       0000 0004 5351 163X
Awarding Body: Bournemouth University
Current Institution: Bournemouth University
Date of Award: 2014
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
Introduction: The biomechanical model of back pain has failed to find distinct relationships between intervertebral movement and pain due to limitations and variation in methods, and errors in measurement. Quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) reduces variation and error and measures dynamic intervertebral motion in vivo. This thesis used recumbent QF to examine continuous mid-lumbar intervertebral motion (L2 to L5) in patients with assumed mechanical chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) that had been clinically diagnosed. It aimed to develop kinematic parameters from the continuous data and determine whether these could detect subtle mechanical differences by comparing this to data obtained from healthy volunteers. Methods: This was a prospective cross sectional study. Forty patients with CNSLBP (age 21 to 51 years), and 40 healthy volunteers matched for gender, age and body mass index underwent passive recumbent QF in the coronal and sagittal planes. The patient group completed questionnaires for pain and disability. Four kinematic parameters were developed and compared for differences and diagnostic accuracy. Reference intervals were developed for three of the parameters and reproducibility of two were assessed. The radiation dose was compared to lumbar spine radiographs and diagnostic reference levels were established. Finally, relationships between patient’s pain and disability and one of the kinematic parameters (continuous proportional motion CPM) were explored. Results: Reproducibility was high. There were some differences in the coronal plane and flexion for each kinematic parameter, but no consistency across segments and none had high diagnostic accuracy. Radiation dose for QF is of the same magnitude as radiographs, and there were no associations between patient characteristics of pain and disability and CPM. Conclusion: Although the kinematic differences were weak, they indicate that biomechanics may be partly responsible for clinically diagnosed mechanical CNSLBP, but this is not detectable by any one kinematic parameter. It is likely that other factors such as loading, central sensitisation and motor control may also be responsible for back pain that is considered mechanical. QF is easily adapted to clinical practice and is recommended to replace functional radiography, but further work is needed to determine which kinematic parameters are clinically useful.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.665808  DOI: Not available
Share: