Back Pain: Ursin H

Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, Mannion AF, Reis S, Staal JB, Ursin H, Zanoli G, Anonymous00003. · No affiliation provided · Eur Spine J. · Pubmed #16550448 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Ursin H. · Department of Biological and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. · Psychoneuroendocrinology. · Pubmed #15964145 No free full text.

Abstract: In order to react adequately to any new challenge, it is necessary to stop all ongoing activity. The first phase in the orienting response to a novel stimulus is an arrest of all ongoing activity. Inhibition is also necessary to switch from one behaviour to another, and from one cognitive activity to another. Inhibition was a difficult phenomenon to handle until the role of inhibitory synapses was demonstrated, and that many brain areas have an inhibitory function for overt behaviour and for establishing new responses in learning experiments. The role of these areas for learning and for plasticity of the brain has been well established. Recently, the role of inhibition, or lack of inhibition, for cognitive activities has been discussed for the understanding of somatization and sensitization to afferent somatic impulses. It has been postulated that muscle pain is maintained by positive feed back loops between muscles, the spinal cord, and the brain areas for pain and interpretation of pain. Activity in these loops may lead to sensitisation of the neural circuits, leading to chronic pain states. Similar models have been presented for non-specific gastric and intestinal complaints, and for fatigue and depression. Rumination and perseveration of negative thoughts may maintain the activity in these loops.

Eriksen HR, Ursin H. · Department of Biological and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen, Jonas Lies vei 91, N-5009 Bergen, Norway. · J Psychosom Res. · Pubmed #15094030 No free full text.

Abstract: INTRODUCTION: This review argues that "subjective health complaints" is a better and neutral term for "unexplained medical symptoms." The most common complaints are musculoskeletal pain, gastrointestinal complaints and "pseudoneurology" (tiredness, sleep problems, fatigue, and mood changes). These complaints are common in the general population, but for some these complaints reach a level that requires care and assistance. THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS: We suggest that these complaints are based on sensations from what in most people are normal physiological processes. In some individuals these sensations become intolerable. In some cases it may signal somatic disease, in most cases not. Cases without somatic disease, or with minimal somatic findings, occur under diagnoses like burnout, epidemic fatigue, multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic musculoskeletal pain, chronic low back pain, chronic fatigue syndrome, and fibromyalgia. These complaints are particularly common in individuals with low coping and high levels of helplessness and hopelessness. CONCLUSION: The psychobiological mechanisms for this is suggested to be sensitization in neural loops maintained by sustained attention and arousal.

Ursin H. · Institutt for biologisk og medisinsk psykologi, Universitetet i Bergen. · Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. · Pubmed #10382340 No free full text.

Abstract: A series of Norwegian controlled studies of treatment for low back pain are reviewed with regard to the prognostic factors identified. The importance of controlled and randomized studies is emphasized. A satisfactory level of prediction can only be reached by combining medical, psychological, and social factors. Important prognostic factors are lateral mobility, generalized and intense pain, fear of pain, long duration of pain and sickness leaves, poor subjective evaluation of prognosis and ability to work, low trust in one's own ability to control health, low level of physical training and activity before the acute event, and high level of other subjective health complaints. These data are in good agreement with results from other countries. New data on treatment emphasize the importance of activation of the patient, reducing the fear and avoiding bedrest and inactivity.

Skouen JS, Grasdal AL, Haldorsen EM, Ursin H. · Outpatient Spine Clinic, Haukeland University Hospital, Norway. · Spine (Phila Pa 1976). · Pubmed #11979157 No free full text.

Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: A subgroup of 195 patients with chronic low back pain, being part of a larger study of other musculoskeletal patients, were included in a randomized controlled prospective clinical study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcome in terms of return to work and cost-effectiveness of a light multidisciplinary treatment program with an extensive multidisciplinary program and treatment as usual initiated by their general practitioner. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Light multidisciplinary programs seem to reduce sick leave in patients with subacute low back pain. There are few, if any, previous studies of the effectiveness of light versus extensive multidisciplinary treatment on return to work in patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: Patients with chronic low back pain (n = 195), on an average sick-listed for 3 months, were included. The patients were randomized to a light multidisciplinary treatment program, an extensive multidisciplinary program, or treatment as usual by their primary physician. Full return to work was used as outcome response, and follow-up was 26 months after the end of treatment. Cost-benefit was calculated for the treatment programs. RESULTS: In men significantly better results for full return to work were found for the light multidisciplinary treatment compared with treatment as usual, but no differences were found between extensive multidisciplinary treatment and treatment as usual. No significant differences between any of the two multidisciplinary treatment programs and the controls were found for women. Productivity gains for the society from light multidisciplinary treatment versus "treatment as usual" of 57 male patients with low back pain would during the first 2 years accumulate to U.S. $852.000. CONCLUSIONS: The light multidisciplinary treatment model is a cost-effective treatment for men with chronic low back pain.

Hagen EM, Eriksen HR, Ursin H. · Spine Clinic, Central Hospital in Hedmark, Ottestad, Norway. · Spine (Phila Pa 1976). · Pubmed #10908942 No free full text.

Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: A controlled randomized clinical trial was performed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of a light mobilization program on the duration of sick leave for patients with subacute low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Early intervention with information, diagnostics, and light mobilization may be a cost-effective method for returning patients quickly to normal activity. In this experiment, patients were referred to a low back pain clinic and given this simple and systematic program as an outpatient treatment. METHODS: In this study, 457 patients sick-listed 8 to 12 weeks for low back pain, as recorded by the National Insurance Offices, were randomized into two groups: an intervention group (n = 237) and a control group (n = 220). The intervention group was examined at a spine clinic and given information and advice to stay active. The control group was not examined at the clinic, but was treated with conventional primary health care. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up assessment, 68.4% in the intervention group had returned to full-duty work, as compared with 56.4% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Early intervention with examination, information, and recommendations to stay active showed significant effects in reducing sick leave for patients with low back pain.

Lie SA, Eriksen HR, Ursin H, Hagen EM. · Norwegian Network for Back Pain, The Research Unit, Department of Health, University Research Bergen, Bergen, Norway. · Scand J Public Health. · Pubmed #18519297 No free full text.

Abstract: AIMS: Analysing and presenting data on different outcomes after sick-leave is challenging. The use of extended statistical methods supplies additional information and allows further exploitation of data. METHODS: Four hundred and fifty-seven patients, sick-listed for 8-12 weeks for low back pain, were randomized to intervention (n=237) or control (n=220). Outcome was measured as: "sick-listed'', "returned to work'', or "disability pension''. The individuals shifted between the three states between one and 22 times (mean 6.4 times). In a multi-state model, shifting between the states was set up in a transition intensity matrix. The probability of being in any of the states was calculated as a transition probability matrix. The effects of the intervention were modelled using a non-parametric model. RESULTS: There was an effect of the intervention for leaving the state sick-listed and shifting to returned to work (relative risk (RR)=1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09- 1.47). The nonparametric estimates showed an effect of the intervention for leaving sick-listed and shifting to returned to work in the first 6 months. We found a protective effect of the intervention for shifting back to sick-listed between 6 and 18 months. The analyses showed that the probability of staying in the state returned to work was not different between the intervention and control groups at the end of the follow-up (3 years). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that these alternative analyses give additional results and increase the strength of the analyses. The simple intervention did not decrease the probability of being on sick-leave in the long term; however, it decreased the time that individuals were on sick-leave.

Hagen EM, Svensen E, Eriksen HR, Ihlebaek CM, Ursin H. · Spine Clinic, Sykehuset Innlandet HF, Ottestad, Norway. · Spine (Phila Pa 1976). · Pubmed #16741460 No free full text.

Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVES: To compare subjective health complaints in subacute patients with low back pain with reference values from a Norwegian normal population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Comorbidity is common with nonspecific low back pain. We wanted to investigate if these complaints were specific or part of a more general unspecific condition comparable to subjective health complaints in the normal population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group consisted of 457 patients sick-listed 8 to 12 weeks for low back pain. All subjects filled out questionnaires. The subjective health complaints in the study group were compared with reference values from a Norwegian normal population using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Compared with the normal reference population, the patients with low back pain had significantly more low back pain, neck pain, upper back pain, pain in the feet during exercise, headache, migraine, sleep problems, flushes/heat sensations, anxiety, and sadness/depression. The prevalence of pain in arms, pain in shoulders, and tiredness was also high, but not significantly higher than in the reference population. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that patients with low back pain suffer from what may be referred to as a "syndrome," consisting of muscle pain located to the whole spine as well as to legs and head, and accompanying sleep problems, anxiety, and sadness/depression.

Eriksen HR, Ursin H. · No affiliation provided · Spine (Phila Pa 1976). · Pubmed #10647172 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.