Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Low Back Pain With Right-Leg Numbness in a Crop Farmer


28

Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Low Back Pain With Right-Leg Numbness in a Crop Farmer



Christopher R. Showalter, Darren A. Rivett, Mark A. Jones



Subjective Examination


Bob was a 52-year-old crop farmer. He was happily married and the father of two teenage children. Bob routinely worked 12- to 14-hour days on his 1800 acres, operating various pieces of equipment and machinery, which primarily involved prolonged sitting while operating the equipment. The sitting was interspersed with attaching and detaching heavy implements from the machines and occasional lifting of loads as heavy as 125 lb. His lifestyle was essentially sedentary for long hours, and he did not play any sports or perform any regular exercise.


Bob was referred to our clinic at the insistence of his friend, a previous patient of the clinic, and began the first session by stating, ‘I’m here to see if anything can be done about my back problem’. He said he felt our consultation would ‘probably not help much’, as his regular chiropractor was unable to help with the pain. It was put to Bob that there was no harm in obtaining a second opinion, and he agreed to continue. He explained that he had been having low back pain (LBP) and some numbness in the right leg for 12 weeks.



Area, Nature and Type of Pain


Bob described his pain as 6/10 (on a numerical pain rating scale) throughout the day on most days, which increased to 8/10 at night. His pain was worse in the morning (8–9/10). He reported ‘deep, sharp, biting’ pain and a ‘tight pulling’ in the right lower back and pointed to the area of L4–L5 on the right. He also reported numbness in the right anterior thigh and the lateral and posterior calf, as well as a feeling of weakness or ‘giving way’ in his right leg (Fig. 28.1).


image

Fig. 28.1 Body chart depicting symptoms.

Bob generally retired to bed around 10.00 pm after taking 750 mg of acetaminophen (nonopioid analgesic), 15 mg of oxycodone (opioid analgesic) and 5 mg of prednisone (steroidal anti-inflammatory) that had been prescribed by his primary care physician 2 days earlier. He usually preferred to sleep on his back, but in recent months he had found he could only get comfortable lying on his left side. He usually awoke at approximately 2.00 am with 8/10 pain and took more acetaminophen and oxycodone. Bob reported he could not find a comfortable position in bed to get back to sleep, so he tried to sleep in a reclining chair to avoid waking his wife. He slept fitfully and finally awoke in the morning around 6.00 am with 8–9/10 pain and feeling stiff, like his ‘back is rusty’. He continued the drug regime three more times throughout the day, including before bed, as the pain became more intense. Bob was concerned with the amount and type of medications he felt he was ‘forced to take to remain working’. He was particularly concerned at the prospect of becoming addicted to oxycodone.



Pain Behavior and Irritability


Bob reported that his LBP was at its worst (8–9/10) in the morning upon waking. He reported that he was able to reduce the morning pain with a hot shower, medications and ‘getting moving’ soon afterward. The LBP varied throughout the day, although it was generally a 6/10, and became worse with prolonged postures of inactivity, including sitting in tractors or cultivator machinery for more than 30 minutes or standing for more than 15 minutes. Once elevated, the pain took approximately 1 hour to settle back to baseline levels, provided he discontinued static sitting and standing postures and ‘kept his back moving’ with slow gentle walking. Bob took his medications as prescribed but often self-prescribed an additional 750 mg of acetaminophen two to three times a day when his pain was elevated. He felt the need to keep moving and get his lower back ‘lubricated’ to feel better. As a consequence of his pain behavior, Bob had modified his workday schedule to involve sitting for no more than 30 minutes and standing for no more than 15 minutes. These activities were broken up with periods of slowly walking short distances, for approximately 2–3 minutes. This eased his pain to 4/10, but the relief was short-lived. This schedule was significantly affecting his productivity at work.



Reasoning Question:



  1. 1. Can you please outline what your thoughts were at this early stage of the consultation? In particular, can you comment on the type of the pain in this case?

Answer to Reasoning Question:


The key nature of Bob’s disorder was disability. His disorder was substantially affecting his lifestyle, sleep and ability to work and provide for his family. This was evident in that he reported he had increasing trouble climbing in and out of trucks, tractors and cultivators due to the ‘weakness and feeling of giving way’ in his right leg. Bob reported that relatively simple tasks seemed to take greater effort and increase his pain as he performed them. This resulted in his further need to take medication.


The kind of pain Bob reported had components of both a nociceptive patho-mechanical (stiff-dominant) type of pain and a nociceptive patho-inflammatory (pain-dominant) type of pain (Maitland, 2005a). Mechanical nociceptive pain is typically characterized by pain with movements, particularly toward the end of range, and the pain of a mechanical problem limits normal range. Mechanical pain and range of movement often improve with active or passive movement and are generally worse at the end of the day. Mechanical pain is normally produced by tissue that is compressed, stretched or tightened beyond its usual limits. It may awaken the patient at night and usually subsides rapidly after a change in sleeping position, upon which the patient returns to sleep quickly.


Patho-inflammatory nociceptive pain is usually characterized by pain in the early to mid-range of movement and is exacerbated with some movements, unless the movement is in a particular preferred direction. Inflammatory pain may be chemically mediated, centrally evoked or both. Inflammatory pain is usually worse after rest or inactivity, particularly first thing in the morning after sleep. Inflammatory pain may awaken the patient at night, who often has difficulty returning to sleep, in spite of repeated attempts to alter sleeping position.


Bob exhibited characteristics of both kinds of pain, with inflammatory pain predominating at this time.


Reasoning Question:



  1. 2. It appears Bob’s condition is quite irritable. Can you please discuss your reasoning processes with respect to this and how you planned to modify your physical examination as a result?

Answer to Reasoning Question:


Maitland (2005a) described the concept of irritability as the patient’s response to movement in terms of three interrelated factors: (1) how much activity, or how vigorously a certain activity is performed; (2) how much symptom provocation is evoked; and (3) the duration for the symptoms to return to baseline levels. The inherent value of the concept of irritability is that it guides the vigor of both the physical examination and the subsequent treatment of the patient. A patient with an irritable presentation may require a modified physical examination whereby not all movements and tests are performed, and only essential components of movement are examined. The patient must be properly instructed not to move beyond the first onset of the pain (P1). Similarly, the therapist may not wish to fully reproduce the patient’s pain, as doing so may lead to exacerbation of symptoms that will take some time to settle back to baseline levels or may lead to termination of the examination or potentially mask other examination results. Treatment in the management of an irritable presentation may also need to be modified to use only a limited number of bouts of intervention, performed briefly, and in early to mid-range of available pain-free movement. A bout of intervention is the amount of time taken to apply a specific intervention (i.e. 30 seconds). Thus, irritable presentations often respond to short bouts (20–30 seconds) and a limited number of bouts (two or three) at any given treatment session. Attempting to achieve greater gains in the early management of an irritable problem may lead to exacerbation of symptoms and regression from the previous session’s gains in pain, range of movement (ROM) and function. A useful heuristic is to consider that ‘all problems are considered irritable until proven otherwise’. This concept helps to ensure that patients are not overly examined or treated on day 1. The true degree of irritability becomes more evident at treatment 2, during which specific questioning is directed to the patient regarding his or her symptom response: (1) immediately following treatment, (2) a few hours after treatment, (3) during sleep hours, (4) first thing in the morning and (5) upon return for treatment. This information allows for a more in-depth understanding of the true irritability.


Bob’s condition was irritable, as was evidenced by his report of relatively short periods of sitting or standing resulting in increased pain that remains at an elevated level for some time, even up to 1 hour. The concept of irritability has been shown to have moderate inter-rater reliability (Barakatt et al., 2009a). It has been suggested that validated measures of LBP characteristics in current clinical use, such as the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, may adequately capture Maitland’s concept of irritability (Barakatt et al., 2009b). A 2012 randomized controlled trial (RCT; Cook et al., 2012a) found that in patients with LBP, the presence of irritability at the initial evaluation was a negative prognostic indicator across the domains of (1) Oswestry Disability Index, (2) numerical pain rating scale, (3) reported rate of recovery and (4) total visits and days in care.


Clinical Reasoning Commentary:


As discussed in Chapter 1, the three main types of pain musculoskeletal clinicians need to be able to assess for and recognize are nociceptive pain (with and without inflammation), neuropathic pain and maladaptive central nervous system (CNS) sensitization, or nociplastic pain (e.g. Gifford et al., 2006; IASP, 2017; Nijs et al., 2014; Wolf, 2011). The description of Bob’s pain provided here is consistent with a nociceptive-dominant ‘pain type’.


The analysis regarding irritability informs the hypothesis category judgements regarding ‘precautions and contraindications to physical examination and treatment’. As discussed in Chapter 1, and consistent with this answer, this clinical judgement informs the following:




Aggravating and Easing Factors


Bob reported that the factors that aggravated his condition included sitting, bending backward and standing. His pain could occasionally be relieved by bending forward while sitting or walking for short periods. Although these movements might reduce his pain slightly, they provided only short-term relief.



Past and Present History


Bob had received chiropractic treatment monthly for approximately 18 years. He generally had visited the chiropractor once per month but sometimes more depending on how his back was feeling. The treatment had routinely comprised thrust manipulation to his lumbar, thoracic and cervical spinal areas. He had not been instructed in any post-treatment care or home exercise program. He felt that the chiropractor gave him some relief that lasted for 2–3 days, but he wondered why his back never seemed to get better to the point that he was pain-free.


Bob stated that he had a ‘bad manipulation’ in the lumbar spine approximately 4 years ago, resulting in significant LBP and 2 weeks of total bed rest. He felt his back ‘has never felt the same since’. He changed chiropractors at that time and continued with monthly treatment.


Twelve weeks prior, Bob started to experience increased intensity of LBP and the onset of numbness in his right leg. There was no event to precipitate these changes. Bob sought chiropractic treatment two to three times per week for 8 weeks with two different chiropractors. Bob had discontinued these chiropractic treatments for the 4 weeks prior to his consultation for physical therapy and had seen his primary care physician 2 days earlier because the pain had become ‘unbearable’ and the numbness seemed to be getting worse. The physician ordered medications and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lumbar spine.



Medication and Special Questions


Bob took 20 mg of prednisone four times daily (QID), 750 mg of acetaminophen QID, and 15 mg of oxycodone QID for his LBP. Bob took no other medications and had no general health problems or red flags. He denied any symptoms of spinal cord compression or cauda equina syndromes. No prior imagery of the spine was available.



Imaging


An MRI scan had been ordered but not performed due to the cost involved.



Self-Report Questionnaires


Bob completed a number of self-report forms, with the following results at baseline prior to treatment:




Reasoning Question:



  1. 3. Were there any psychosocial issues that you considered relevant in this case? If so, how may these impact on the overall diagnosis, management and prognosis?

Answer to Reasoning Question:


Bob was the epitome of the stoic farmer. He was willing to endure pain, with minimal complaining, to get his work done. He was eager for pain relief and to get on with his life. He was concerned about potential drug addiction and further deteriorating LBP that would adversely impact his farming and hence his family’s financial security. There was no evidence of secondary benefit or yellow flags attributable to his condition. There was a barrier to overcome from the onset of the initial examination, with Bob expressing skepticism about the potential value of physical therapy intervention given that multiple chiropractic visits had not helped. I made it a deliberate point early in our first treatment to explain that the two disciplines are different and that my intention was to not only offer him pain relief through treatments but also strategies to deal with his pain when he was at work and, most importantly, specific strategies and home exercises that he could perform to maximize his rehabilitation and potentially minimize further deterioration and the need for further physical therapy or other care.


Another barrier to overcome was the 18-year treatment history with emphasis on the patient passively submitting to interventions performed upon him, with little advice regarding home care of his spine or the value of general or specific exercises for the low back. The important role of the patient as a collaborative decision-maker in the rehabilitative process would be required to be emphasized as well as the value of a regular exercise program.


Important components of Bob’s treatment would therefore need to address his concerns about his condition, educate him in the nature of his condition, empower and encourage him to adopt strategies for self-treatment and emphasize the inherent value of his positive mental attitude and motivation to improve his situation.


Reasoning Question:



  1. 4. Can you discuss your clinical hypotheses following the subjective examination? Was there any particular structure you used as a means of planning the physical examination?

Answer to Reasoning Question:


Many therapists using the ‘Maitland-Australian concept’ find it valuable to ‘filter’ the subjective data from the patient history through the eight clinical hypothesis categories (Jones and Rivett, 2004) as a valuable aid in planning the physical examination. This intermediate and ongoing step allows for reflection on the pertinent clinical data and an opportunity to plan the physical examination appropriately. The clinical hypotheses confirmed, modified, denied, or newly formed in this step are tested in the physical examination. The eight categories in relation to this case are presented in the following subsections.


Capabilities and Restrictions


Capabilities:



Restrictions:



Recognizing these capabilities and restrictions allows the therapist and patient to collaboratively set realistic benchmarks for re-assessment and both short- and long-term goals, and furthermore, it promotes using functional measures of overall improvement in terms that are meaningful to the patient.


Patient Perspectives


Sacket described evidence-based medicine, also known as evidence-based practice (EBP), as the ‘the integration of best available research evidence WITH clinical expertise AND patient values’ (Sackett, 1998).


Bob was highly motivated and had strong prognostic indicators in his favor. Skepticism regarding the role and potential effectiveness of physical therapy was an early barrier to overcome. Patient education and developing a collaborative relationship between therapist and patient was an important early goal with this patient. It was important to encourage Bob to become involved in the decision-making process regarding his condition and to stimulate his active participation in the rehabilitation of the disorder. Particular emphasis needed to be made to empower him to understand the value of self-treatment and an ongoing appropriate exercise regime.


Mechanisms of Symptom Production



Sources of Symptoms


There was evidence of both mechanical and inflammatory pain. The potential likely tissue sources were as follows: lumbar disc, nerve root impingement, compression and/or adhesion, spondylosis and osteoarthritis (OA) of the lumbar vertebrae and zygapophyseal (facet) joints, neurodynamic abnormalities, muscle spasm, tightness, weakness and functional spinal instability (motor control dysfunction).


Contributing or Predisposing Factors


Contributing factors were as follows: ergonomic design of various machinery used, time frames spent in specific postures, nature of farm work (prolonged sitting, heavy lifting, long hours).


Predisposing factors were as follows: poor posture, sedentary lifestyle and lack of regular exercise.


Precautions and Contraindications to Physical Therapy Examination and Treatment


Bob had an irritable presentation; thus, it was important to limit the initial physical examination to essential components only, limit vigor and carefully monitor symptoms. No other precautions or contraindications were found.


The stability of the disorder was unknown at this time. It was appropriate to be prudently careful until more information was known about Bob’s condition and, in particular, his response to initial treatment. As previously stated, irritability was assumed to be a significant factor until proven otherwise.


Management


Bob had experienced numerous treatments of thrust manipulation over many years; therefore, it was reasonable to consider the potential for iatrogenic (intervention-induced) spinal segmental laxity in ligamentous, capsular and other structures. Thrust manipulation was unlikely to be offered at this time. The patient denied any prior advice or prescription of exercises designed for lumbar mobility, pain relief or segmental stabilization and neuromuscular control. It was likely that Bob had compromised motor control of his lumbar spine stability due to numerous factors already identified, namely, sedentary work, lack of routine exercises and so forth.


Prognosis


Bob exhibited certain characteristics that were positive prognostic indicators overall. He was gainfully self-employed, was in a stable and loving relationship, was in good general health, had a positive personality and sincerely desired to get well and get on with life and the farm work he enjoyed.


There were also negative prognostic indicators. These included the severity and chronicity of his condition, which seemed to be progressive in nature and displayed peripheral symptoms of spinal origin, an ODI score of 56% indicating severe disability and an FABQW score of 24/42. As previously stated, irritability was a negative prognostic indicator across a number of domains (Cook et al., 2012a).


Reasoning Question:



  1. 5. Your subjective examination gave you a means of planning your physical examination. Can you discuss more specifically the purpose of your physical examination and perhaps how the Maitland approach is utilized in this part of the assessment?

Answer to Reasoning Question:


Within the context of the Maitland concept, the purpose of the physical examination was as follows:



Geoffrey Maitland first described the concept of the comparable sign (CS) in 1971 (Maitland, 1971) as ‘reproduction of the patient’s pain with movement’, which he further refined in 1991 (Maitland, 1991) as, ‘The aim of physical examination is to provoke, with test movements, either an abnormal response in an appropriate [anatomical] site, or, when suited to the disorder, reproduce the symptoms’. Comparable sign is one of the core tenets of the Maitland approach to manual therapy. The test movements Maitland referred to in his writings include active physiological movements, passive physiological movements, passive accessory movements and any spontaneous movement the patient can perform to affect his or her symptoms. Thus, CSs are physical examination findings related to the patient’s chief complaint that are reproduced during examination and subsequent treatment. These findings include observed abnormalities of movement, postures or motor control deficits, abnormal responses to movement, static deformities and abnormal joint assessment findings. The CS is most commonly accompanied by the patient’s verbal report and confirmation of symptoms of the patient’s primary complaint. The CS has been shown to have construct validity (Cook et al., 2015). The concept of the CS is a valuable component of a clinical decision-making process. Within-session and between-session changes in the CS after the second visit have a significant association with positive outcomes for pain and ODI at discharge. A 2-point change (or better) in pain is associated with a 50%, or greater, reduction in ODI at discharge (Cook et al., 2012b).


Clinical Reasoning Commentary:


The hypothesis categories framework was initially proposed by Jones (1987) and has continued to evolve through professional discussion. As highlighted in Chapter 1, it is not necessary or even appropriate to stipulate a definitive list of clinical judgements all clinicians must consider, as this would only stifle the independent and creative thinking important to the evolution of our professions. However, a minimum list of categories of decisions that can/should be considered is helpful to those learning and reflecting on their clinical reasoning because it provides them with initial guidance to understand the purpose of their questions and physical assessments, encourages breadth of reasoning beyond diagnosis and creates a framework in which clinical knowledge can be organized as it relates to decisions that must be made (i.e. diagnosing, understanding patients’ perspectives, determining therapeutic interventions, establishing rapport/therapeutic alliance, collaborating, teaching, prognosis and managing ethical dilemmas). The hypothesis categories presented and discussed in Chapter 1 have been modified slightly since the Jones and Rivett (2004) publication.


With respect to the Maitland concept, many of the key principles embedded in contemporary clinical reasoning theory emanated from his concept (see Jones [2014]). Maitland always insisted on a systematic and comprehensive patient examination that, in his words, ‘enables you to live the patient’s symptoms over 24 hours’. All patient information regarding the problem, its effects on the patient’s life and the associated physical impairments found on physical examination had to be analyzed with the aim of ‘making features fit’. Patient treatments were never recipes or protocols; rather, specific treatments were based on thorough analysis of the subjective (i.e. patient interview) and physical findings combined with knowledge of research, clinical patterns, treatment strategies that had been successful for similar presentations and systematic re-assessment of all interventions. Although Maitland did not refer to this process of information gathering, analysis, decision-making, intervention and re-assessment as clinical reasoning, it clearly was a structured and logical approach in line with contemporary clinical reasoning theory. Consistent with the aim of contemporary EBP, his ‘Brick Wall’ concept emphasized consideration of both research and experienced-based evidence, with the research providing a general guide, and the patient’s unique presentation determining how that research was applied and ultimately the specific interventions to trial. In particular, he cautioned about over-focusing on pathology that can present differently in different patients and may be asymptomatic. When Maitland still practiced and taught, pain science theory was considerably less developed than now, with much of the understanding then relating to the original gate-control theory of pain and the effects of different treatment modalities, including manual therapy. Similarly, assessment and management of psychosocial factors in musculoskeletal practice have evolved considerably to being more explicit and more structured, with greater appreciation of the influence that distress from psychosocial factors can have on patients’ pain and disability. However, when you consider the following direct quote from Maitland, his reference to ‘personal commitment (empathy) to understand what the person (patient)’ is a direct acknowledgment of the importance of understanding psychosocial factors, simply expressed in different terms with less explicit assessment strategies than we now teach:


The Maitland concept requires open-mindedness, mental agility and mental discipline linked with a logical and methodical process of assessing cause and effect. The central theme demands a positive personal commitment (empathy) to understand what the person (patient) is enduring. The key issues of ‘the concept’ that require explanation are personal commitment, mode of thinking, techniques, examination and assessment. (Maitland, 1987, p. 136)



Physical Examination


Observation


Bob was examined in a pair of shorts. In standing with feet shoulder-width apart, decreased lumbar lordosis and bilateral paravertebral muscle wasting were observed. A slight shift to the left (contralateral to the right-sided pain) was observed in standing. Shoulder height, scapular position, arm position, gluteal folds, popliteal creases and Achilles tendon alignment were all within normal limits (WNL). The right upper limb showed slightly more muscle hypertrophy than the left (Bob was right-handed). Muscle development was WNL in both lower limbs.



Neurological Examination


Resting pain prior to examination was 6/10. Testing was performed in supine without pillows. The left leg was WNL. On the affected (right) limb, deep tendon reflexes (DTRs) were 1+ at the patellar ligament (indicating potential L4 involvement) and WNL at the Achilles (S1). Sensation testing was performed with eyes closed, and the patient reported when he could feel sensation. Sensation loss was reported as a percentage of normal compared to the other limb. Light touch sensation was tested using cotton swabs, and deficits were found in the anterolateral thigh at 60% sensation, lateral tibia at 60% sensation and the lower calf displaying 80% sensation. These deficits in a dermatomal pattern were suggestive of involvement of the L4 and L5 nerve roots, respectively. Resisted movement was used to test motor function, and resisted knee extension was 4/5 implicating L3 and L4. No atrophy, increased resting tone, or pathological reflexes were observed in either limb, and Babinski signs and clonus were negative bilaterally, ruling out upper-motor-neuron involvement.



Active Physiological Movements


The patient was properly instructed to immediately report any feelings, sensations, symptoms and, particularly, LBP that he experienced during any test movements. He was instructed to not proceed with any movement beyond the initial onset of his pain (P1). Resting pain was 6/10.


Prior to testing active physiological movements, (R) glide correction of the (L) shift deformity was performed in standing. Glide correction involves gently gliding the shoulders to the right while pulling the pelvis to the left, while avoiding any lateral flexion, and evaluating symptom response.


Glide correction in neutral flexion/extension immediately increased his LBP from a 6/10 to 7/10, and his lumbar paraspinal musculature began to spasm. Glide correction in slight extension immediately increased pain from 6/10 to 8/10, with increased spasm. Glide correction in slight lumbar flexion did not affect his pain levels or cause spasm, and he moved more freely and smoothly. The shift was slightly improved upon return to standing (Fig. 28.2).


Apr 2, 2020 | Posted by in SPORT MEDICINE | Comments Off on Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Low Back Pain With Right-Leg Numbness in a Crop Farmer

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access