Back Pain: Henrotin Y

Burton AK, Balagué F, Cardon G, Eriksen HR, Henrotin Y, Lahad A, Leclerc A, Müller G, van der Beek AJ, Anonymous00001. · No affiliation provided · Eur Spine J. · Pubmed #16550446 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Demoulin C, Fauconnier C, Vanderthommen M, Henrotin Y. · Département de Médecine Physique et Kinésithérapie-Réadaptation, Université de Liège, Belgique. · Rev Med Liege. · Pubmed #16184742 No free full text.

Abstract: This article aims to recommend easy, reproducible and valid physical tests and questionnaires to allow a functional and physical assessment of sub-acute and chronic low back pain patients. We recommend the pain visual analogue scale, the French translation of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (EIFEL) and the Dallas questionnaire to appreciate pain intensity and its influence on patients' quality of life. Sorensen's test is recommended in order to assess trunk extensor muscles endurance. We suggest to measure pelvic and lumbar flexion mobility by means of the inclinometer technique. The test described by McQuade is recommended to assess abdominal muscles static endurance.

Burton AK, Balagué F, Cardon G, Eriksen HR, Henrotin Y, Lahad A, Leclerc A, Müller G, van der Beek AJ, Anonymous00032. · Centre for Health and Social Care Research, University of Huddersfield, 30 Queen Street, Huddersfield HD1 2SP, UK. · Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. · Pubmed #15949775 No free full text.

Abstract: This chapter summarizes the European Guidelines for Prevention in Low Back Pain, which consider the evidence in respect of the general population, workers and children. There is limited scope for preventing the incidence (first-time onset) of back pain and, overall, there is limited robust evidence for numerous aspects of prevention in back pain. Nevertheless, there is evidence suggesting that prevention of various consequences of back pain is feasible. However, for those interventions where there is acceptable evidence, the effect sizes are rather modest. The most promising approaches seem to involve physical activity/exercise and appropriate (biopsychosocial) education, at least for adults. Owing to its multidimensional nature, no single intervention is likely to be effective at preventing the overall problem of back pain, although there is likely to be benefit from getting all the players onside. However, innovative studies are required to better understand the mechanisms and delivery of prevention in low back pain.

Marty M, Rozenberg S, Legout V, Durand-Zaleski I, Moyse D, Henrotin Y, Perrot S, Anonymous00198, Anonymous00199. · Service de Rhumatologie Hôpital Henri-Mondor, Université Paris 12, Créteil, France. · Spine (Phila Pa 1976). · Pubmed #19564771 No free full text.

Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors potentially influencing patient self-evaluation of chronic low back pain (CLBP) and their interactions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The impact of the time, context, and/or recall on the self-assessment of chronic pain intensity remains poorly understood. METHODS: A prospective study investigated patients' CLBP intensity over 29 days. Patients were evaluated on days 1 and 29 by the investigator with a pain intensity visual analog scale (0-100), and interviewed by phone on days 8, 15, and 22 to 28 to evaluate pain intensity with a numerical rating scale (0-10), either thrice daily (time-associated group), or during rest/activities (activity-associated group). Current and/or recalled pain intensities were also assessed. Means of recorded pain intensity and overall assessment of patient's pain intensity of the day were subjected to statistical analyses with analysis of variance and test of correlation. RESULTS: Among the 203 patients included, 194 (56.2% women; mean age: 47.5 +/- 12.1 year) were considered in the analysis (9 patients were not followed until day 24). Strong correlations were obtained between mean pain intensity (time-associated group = 44 patients) and overall assessment of pain intensity of the day. Strong correlations were also obtained between overall assessment of pain intensity of the day and intensity measured during each activity, but not between current pain intensity and remembered pain 24 of 48 hours earlier (activity-associated group = 150 patients). Recalled pain intensities for the last 7 or 28 days were strongly correlated with current pain intensity, but the correlations were markedly weaker after adjustment for day 29-pain intensity. CONCLUSION: For CLBP patients, overall assessment of pain intensity of the day at evening is accurate to assess pain on 1 day. Overall assessment of pain intensity of the day is very close with usual pain. Furthermore, 24 and 48 hours remembered pain intensity are not accurate measures. Recalls of pain on the 7 or 28 last days were very dependant of the pain intensity of the day of the assessment. These findings could contribute to improving pain intensity assessment in CLBP patients avoiding multiple assessments, especially during clinical trials.