Background context: Low back pain (LBP) and low back disorders (LBDs) identify a complex constellation of conditions that frustrate both diagnosis and therapy. Dynamic quantitative assessment and questionnaire instruments directed toward psychosocial and situational variables provide potentially powerful tools for determining functional pathology and potentially outcome.
Purpose: Our goal was to independently assess clinical correlates of a trunk motion measurement device, the lumbar motion monitor (LMM). The reliability of the LMM as a clinical test was assessed by comparison with an independent medical examination and biobehavioral questionnaires.
Study design/setting: There were three study components. A multispecialty physician panel that administered a structured physical examination contributed to a clinical correlation case series study. Standardized outcomes and risk identification questionnaires were administered to the case population. Finally, the LMM was administered in a customary fashion to the same population.
Patient sample: Nineteen subjects were recruited on the basis of criteria that included symptoms of chronic recurrent low back pain. This was an employed and active, although impaired, population. Eighteen of the subjects were currently employed with limited lost work time, but chronic and recurrent pain was a common feature.
Outcome measures: Questionnaire outcome measures were both characterologic and situation based. In addition to providing diagnoses, the physician panel was also asked to offer certain qualitative assessments, such as rehabilitative potential and functional level pertinent to activities of daily living. The impact of LMM measures on physician decision making was also assessed. Trunk angular measurements were used to assess function of patients with chronic low back disorders.
Methods: Kinematic performance on the LMM was expressed as three probability scores. These were the likelihood of abnormality, the "sincerity of effort" (exacerbation or aggravation of impairment), and the likelihood of structural anatomic disease. These variables were examined against established self-report measures of pain and disability.
Results: The LMM and physician panels were in agreement on the presence or absence of abnormality. LMM findings tended to be more consistent with clinical history than the clinical examination. The LMM results were also generally consistent with the self-reported measures of pain and disability: a high likelihood of structural disease was associated with depression, somatization, poor health perception and diminished vitality.
Conclusions: The LMM appears to be a useful assessment tool for gauging the presence of LBP and LBD. It was accurate in detecting abnormality when abnormality was determined by clinical history and physician diagnosis. The LMM's differentiation of mechanical low back disease (nonanatomically specific disorders) from structurally specific low back disease was not consistent with a parallel clinical differentiation. Larger trials in a prospective format and studies on a chronically disabled population seem warranted. In an impaired but less disabled population, elevated pain and somatization did not appear to weaken the effort during testing.