|
| |
Guideline from National Guideline Clearinghouse
Acute low back problems in adults.
Initial
Assessment Methods
 | Information about the:
 | patient's age |
 | duration and description of symptoms |
 | impact of symptoms on activity |
 | response to previous therapy |
|
 | Past history: red flags for possible cancer or infection, especially important in
patients over age 50
 | cancer, unexplained weight loss |
 | immunosuppression |
 | intravenous drug use |
 | history of urinary infection |
 | pain increased by rest |
 | presence of fever |
|
 | signs and symptoms of cauda equina syndrome: red flags for severe neurologic risk to the
patient
 | bladder dysfunction |
 | saddle anesthesia |
 | major limb motor weakness |
|
 | Inquiries about history of significant trauma relative to age
 | a fall from height or motor vehicle accident in a young adult |
 | a minor fall or heavy lift in a potentially osteoporotic or older patient |
|
 | Attention to psychological and socioeconomic problems in the individual's life |
 | Use of instruments such as a pain drawing or visual analog scale is an option to augment
the history. |
 | Recording the results of straight leg raising (SLR) is recommended in the assessment of
sciatica in young adults. In older patients with spinal stenosis, SLR may be normal. |
 | A neurologic examination emphasizing
 | ankle and knee reflexes |
 | ankle and great toe dorsiflexion strength |
 | distribution of sensory complaints |
|
Clinical Care
Methods
Patient
Information
Patient Education About Low Back Symptoms
Patients with acute low back problems should be given
accurate information about the following (Strength of Evidence = B):
 | Expectations for both rapid recovery and recurrence of symptoms based on natural history
of low back symptoms. |
 | Safe and effective methods of symptom control. |
 | Safe and reasonable activity modifications. |
 | Best means of limiting recurrent low back problems. |
 | The lack of need for special investigations unless red flags are present. |
 | Effectiveness and risks of commonly available diagnostic and further treatment measures
to be considered should symptoms persist. |
Structured Patient Education: Back School
 | In the workplace, back schools with worksite-specific education may be effective
adjuncts to individual education efforts by the clinician in the treatment of patients
with acute low back problems. (Strength of Evidence = C.) |
 | The efficacy of back schools in nonoccupational settings has yet to be demonstrated.
(Strength of Evidence = C.) |
Symptom Control: Medications
Acetaminophen and NSAIDs
 | Acetaminophen, Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin,
are acceptable for treating patients with acute low back problems. |
 | NSAIDs potential side effects. The most frequent complication is gastrointestinal
irritation. |
 | Phenylbutazone is not recommended, based on an increased risk for bone marrow
suppression. |
Muscle Relaxants
 | Muscle relaxants are an option in the treatment of patients with acute low back
problems. While probably more effective than placebo, muscle relaxants have not been shown
to be more effective than NSAIDs. |
 | No additional benefit is gained by using muscle relaxants in combination with NSAIDs
over using NSAIDs alone. |
 | Muscle relaxants have potential side effects, including drowsiness in up to 30 percent
of patients. |
Opioid Analgesics
 | When used only for a time-limited course, opioid analgesics are an option in the
management of patients with acute low back problems. |
 | Opioids appear to be no more effective in relieving low back symptoms than safer
analgesics, such as acetaminophen or aspirin or other NSAIDs. |
 | Clinicians should be aware of the side effects of opioids, such as decreased reaction
time, clouded judgment, and drowsiness, which lead to early discontinuation by as many as
35 percent of patients. |
 | potential physical dependence and the danger associated with the use of opioids while
operating heavy equipment or driving. |
Oral Steroids
 | Oral steroids are not recommended for the treatment of acute low back problems. |
 | A potential for severe side effects is associated with the extended use of oral steroids
or the short-term use of steroids in high doses. |
Colchicine
 | Based on conflicting evidence of effectiveness as well as the potential for serious side
effects, colchicine is not recommended for treating patients with acute low back problems. |
Antidepressant Medications
 | Antidepressant medications are not recommended for the treatment of acute low back
problems. |
Symptom Control: Physical Treatments
Spinal Manipulation
 | Manipulation can be helpful for patients with acute low back problems without
radiculopathy when used within the first month of symptoms. |
 | When findings suggest progressive or severe neurologic deficits, an appropriate
diagnostic assessment to rule out serious neurologic conditions is indicated before
beginning manipulation therapy. |
 | There is insufficient evidence to recommend manipulation for patients with
radiculopathy. |
 | A trial of manipulation in patients without radiculopathy with symptoms longer than a
month is probably safe, but efficacy is unproven. |
 | If manipulation has not resulted in symptomatic improvement that allows increased
function after 1 month of treatment, manipulation therapy should be stopped and the
patient reevaluated. |
Physical Agents and Modalities
 | The use of physical agents and modalities in the treatment of acute low back problems is
of insufficiently proven benefit to justify their cost. As an option, patients may be
taught self- application of heat or cold to the back at home. |
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation
 | Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is not recommended in the treatment
of patients with acute low back problems. |
Shoe Insoles and Shoe Lifts
 | Shoe insoles may be effective for patients with acute low back problems who stand for
prolonged periods of time. Given the low cost and low potential for harms, shoe insoles
are a treatment option. |
 | Shoe lifts are not recommended for treatment of acute low back problems when lower limb
length difference is <=2 cm. |
Lumbar Corsets and Back Belts
 | Lumbar corsets and support belts have not been proven beneficial for treating patients
with acute low back problems. |
 | Lumbar corsets, used preventively, may reduce time lost from work due to low back
problems in individuals required to do frequent lifting at work. |
Traction
 | Spinal traction is not recommended in the treatment of patients with acute low back
problems. |
Biofeedback
 | Biofeedback is not recommended for treatment of patients with acute low back problems. |
Symptom Control: Injection Therapy
Trigger Point and Ligamentous Injections
 | Trigger point injections are invasive and not recommended in the treatment of patients
with acute low back problems. |
 | Ligamentous and sclerosant injections are invasive and not recommended in the treatment
of patients with acute low back problems. |
Facet Joint Injections
 | Facet joint injections are invasive and not recommended for use in the treatment of
patients with acute low back problems. |
Epidural Injections (Steroids, Lidocaine, Opioids)
 | There is no evidence to support the use of invasive epidural injections of steroids,
local anesthetics, and/or opioids as a treatment for acute low back pain without
radiculopathy. |
 | Epidural steroid injections are an option for short-term relief of radicular pain after
failure of conservative treatment and as a means of avoiding surgery. |
Acupuncture
 | Invasive needle acupuncture and other dry needling techniques are not recommended for
treating patients with acute low back problems. |
Activity Modification
Activity Recommendations:
 | Patients with acute low back problems may be more comfortable if they temporarily limit
or avoid specific activities known to increase mechanical stress on the spine, especially
prolonged unsupported sitting, heavy lifting, and bending or twisting the back while
lifting. (Strength of Evidence = D.) |
 | Activity recommendations for the employed patient with acute low back symptoms need to
consider the patient's age and general health, and the physical demands of required job
tasks. (Strength of Evidence = D.) |
Bed Rest
 | A gradual return to normal activities is more effective than prolonged bed rest for
treating acute low back problems. (Strength of Evidence = B.) |
 | Prolonged bed rest for more than 4 days may lead to debilitation and is not recommended
for treating acute low back problems. (Strength of Evidence = B.) |
 | The majority of low back patients will not require bed rest. Bed rest for 2 to 4 days
may be an option for patients with severe initial symptoms of primarily leg pain.
(Strength of Evidence = D.) |
Exercise
 | Low-stress aerobic exercise can prevent debilitation due to inactivity during the first
month of symptoms and thereafter may help to return patients to the highest level of
functioning appropriate to their circumstances. (Strength of Evidence = C.) |
 | Aerobic (endurance) exercise programs, which minimally stress the back (walking, biking,
or swimming), can be started during the first 2 weeks for most patients with acute low
back problems. (Strength of Evidence = D.) |
 | Conditioning exercises for trunk muscles (especially back extensors), gradually
increased, are helpful for patients with acute low back problems, especially if symptoms
persist. During the first 2 weeks, these exercises may aggravate symptoms since they
mechanically stress the back more than endurance exercises. (Strength of Evidence = C.) |
 | Back-specific exercise machines provide no apparent benefit over traditional exercise in
the treatment of patients with acute low back problems. (Strength of Evidence = D.) |
 | Evidence does not support stretching of the back muscles in the treatment of patients
with acute low back problems. (Strength of Evidence = D.) |
 | Recommended exercise quotas that are gradually increased result in better outcomes than
telling patients to stop exercising if pain occurs. (Strength of Evidence = C.) |
Special
Studies and Diagnostic Considerations
Electrophysiologic
Tests (EMG and SEP)
 | Needle EMG and H-reflex tests of the lower limb may be useful in assessing questionable
nerve root dysfunction in patients with leg symptoms lasting longer than 4 weeks
(regardless of whether patients also have back pain). (Strength of Evidence = C.) |
 | If the diagnosis of radiculopathy is obvious and specific on clinical examination,
electrophysiologic testing is not recommended. (Strength of Evidence = D.) |
 | Surface EMG and F-wave tests are not recommended for assessing patients with acute low
back symptoms. (Strength of Evidence = C.) |
 | SEPs may be useful in assessing suspected spinal stenosis and spinal cord myelopathy.
(Strength of Evidence = C.) |
Bone Scan
 | A bone scan is recommended to evaluate acute low back problems when spinal tumor,
infection, or occult fracture is suspected from red flags on medical history, physical
examination, or collaborative lab test or plain x-ray findings. Bone scans are
contraindicated during pregnancy. (Strength of Evidence = C.) |
Thermography
 | Thermography is not recommended for assessing patients with acute low back problems.
(Strength of Evidence = C.) |
Plain X-Rays
 | Plain x-rays are not recommended for routine evaluation of patients with acute low back
problems within the first month of symptoms unless a red flag is noted on clinical
examination (such as specified below). (Strength of Evidence = B.) |
 | Plain x-rays of the lumbar spine are recommended for ruling out fractures in patients
with acute low back problems when any of the following red flags are present: recent
significant trauma (any age), recent mild trauma (patient over age 50), history of
prolonged steroid use, osteoporosis, patient over age 70. (Strength of Evidence = C.) |
 | Plain x-rays in combination with CBC and ESR may be useful for ruling out tumor or
infection in patients with acute low back problems when any of the following red flags are
present: prior cancer or recent infection, fever over 100 degrees F, IV drug abuse,
prolonged steroid use, low back pain worse with rest, unexplained weight loss. (Strength
of Evidence = C.) |
 | In the presence of red flags, especially for tumor or infection, the use of other
imaging studies such as bone scan, CT, or MRI may be clinically indicated even if plain
x-rays are negative. (Strength of Evidence = C.) |
 | The routine use of oblique views on plain lumbar x-rays is not recommended for adults in
light of the increased radiation exposure. (Strength of Evidence = B.) |
CT, MRI, Myelography, and CT-Myelography
 | In the presence of red flags suggesting cauda equina syndrome or progressive major motor
weakness, the prompt use of CT, MRI, myelography, or CT-myelography is recommended.
Because these serious problems may require prompt surgical intervention, planning for use
of such imaging studies is best done in consultation with a surgeon. (Strength of Evidence
= C.) |
 | CT, MRI, myelography, or CT-myelography and/or consultation with an appropriate
specialist is recommended when clinical findings strongly suggesting tumor, infection,
fracture, or other space-occupying lesions of the spine. (Strength of Evidence = C.) |
 | Routine spinal imaging tests are not generally recommended in the first month of
symptoms except in the presence of red flags for serious conditions. After 1 month of
symptoms, an imaging test is acceptable when surgery is being considered (or to rule out a
suspected serious condition). (Strength of Evidence = B.) |
 | For patients with acute low back problems who have had prior back surgery, MRI with
contrast appears to be the imaging test of choice to distinguish disc herniation from scar
tissue associated with prior surgery. (Strength of Evidence = D.) |
 | CT-myelography and myelography are invasive and have an increased risk of complications.
These test are indicated only in special situations for preoperative planning. (Strength
of Evidence = D.) |
 | The following are minimal quality criteria for imaging studies of the lumbar spine
(Strength of Evidence = B):
- CT and MRI cuts to be made no wider than 0.5 cm and parallel to the vertebral endplates.
- MRI scanners to have a magnetic field strength no less than 0.5 T (tesla) and to allow a
scanning time adequate for optimal image acquisition.
- Myelography and CT-myelography to use water-based contrast media.
- The technical protocols for these imaging tests to be described on radiologist reports.
|
Discography
 | Discography is invasive, and its use is not recommended for assessing patients with
acute low back pain. Interpretation is equivocal, and complications can be avoided with
other noninvasive techniques. (Strength of Evidence = C.) |
 | Due to increased potential risks, CT-discography is not recommended over other imaging
studies (MRI, CT) for assessing patients with suspected nerve root compression due to
lumbar disc hernia. (Strength of Evidence = C.) |
Surgery for Herniated Disc
 | It is recommended that the treating clinician discuss further treatment options, with
the patient with sciatica after approximately 1 month of conservative therapy. The
clinician should consider referral to a specialist when all of the following conditions
are met: (1) sciatica is both severe and disabling, (2) symptoms of sciatica persist
without improvement or with progression, and (3) there is clinical evidence of nerve root
compromise. (Strength of Evidence = B.) |
 | Standard discectomy and microdiscectomy are of similar efficacy and appropriate for
selected patients with herniated discs and nerve root dysfunction. (Strength of Evidence =
B.) |
 | Chymopapain is an acceptable treatment for such patients, but less efficacious than
standard or microdiscectomy. If chymopapain is being considered, testing patients for
allergic sensitivity to this substance can reduce incidence of anaphylaxis. (Strength of
Evidence = C.) |
 | Percutaneous discectomy is significantly less efficacious than chymopapain in treating
patients with lumbar disc herniation. This and other new methods of lumbar disc surgery
are not recommended until they can be proven efficacious in controlled trials. (Strength
of Evidence = C.) |
 | Patients with acute low back pain alone, who have neither suspicious findings for a
significant nerve root compression nor any positive red flags, do not need surgical
consultation for possible herniated lumbar disc. (Strength of Evidence = D.) |
Surgery for Spinal Stenosis
 | Elderly patients with spinal stenosis who can adequately function in the activities of
daily life can be managed with conservative treatments. Surgery for spinal stenosis should
not usually be considered in the first 3 months of symptoms. Decisions on treatment should
take into account the patient's lifestyle, preference, other medical problems, and risks
of surgery. (Strength of Evidence = D.) |
 | Surgical decisions for patients with spinal stenosis should not be based solely on
imaging tests, but should also consider the degree of persistent neurogenic claudication
symptoms, associated limitations, and detectable neurologic compromise. (Strength of
Evidence = D.) |
Spinal Fusion
 | In the absence of fracture, dislocation, or complications of tumor or infection, the use
of spinal fusion is not recommended for the treatment of low back problems during the
first 3 months of symptoms. (Strength of Evidence = C.) |
 | Spinal fusion should be considered following decompression at a level of increased
motion due to degenerative spondylolisthesis. (Strength of Evidence = C.) |
 | Social, economic, and psychological factors can significantly alter a patient's response
to back symptoms and to the treatment of those symptoms. (Strength of Evidence = D.) |
Assessment of Psychosocial Factors
 | In a patient with acute low back symptoms and no evidence of serious underlying spinal
pathology, the inability to regain tolerance of required activities may indicate that
unrealistic expectations or psychosocial factors need to be explored before considering
referral for a more extensive evaluation or treatment program. |
DEVELOPER(S):
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) - Federal Government Agency (U.S.)
COMMITTEE:
The Panel on Acute Lower Back Problems in Adults
GROUP COMPOSITION:
From 200 nominations solicited through a Federal Register announcement and from
professional and consumer organizations interested in the care of patients with low back
problems, AHCPR selected 23 individuals representing the fields of biomechanical and spine
research, chiropractic care, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine,
neurology, neurosurgery, occupational health nursing, occupational medicine, occupational
therapy, orthopedics, osteopathic medicine, physical and rehabilitation medicine, physical
therapy, psychology, rheumatology, and radiology. The panel also included a consumer
representative who had experience low back problems, but did not work in the health care
field.
Names of
Panel Members: Stanley J. Bigos, MD (Chair) ; Reverend O. Richard Bowyer ; G. Richard
Braen, MD ; Kathleen Brown, PhD, RN ; Richard Deyo, MD, MPH ; Scott Haldeman, DC, MD, PhD;
John L. Hart, DO ; Ernest W. Johnson, MD ; Robert Keller, MD; Daniel Kido, MD, FACR;
Matthew H. Liang, MD, MPH; Roger M. Nelson, PT, PhD; Margareta Nordin, RPT, DrSci; Bernice
D. Owen, PhD, RN Sc, PhD; Richard K. Schwartz, MS, OTR, FSR; Donald H. Stewart, Jr., MD;
John J. Triano, MA, DC; Lucius C. Tripp, MD, MPH, FACPM; Dennis C. Turk, PhD; Clark Watts,
MD, JD; James N. Weinstein, DO
ENDORSER(S):
Not stated
GUIDELINE STATUS:
This is the original release of the guideline.
Print copies: Available from the AHCPR Publications Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 8547,
Silver Spring, MD 20907; (800) 358-9295.
COMPANION DOCUMENTS:
The following documents are available:
- Acute low back problems in adults: assessment and treatment. Rockville, MD: AHCPR, 1994.
(Quick reference guide for clinicians; no.14). AHCPR Publication No. 95-0643.
- Understanding acute low back problems. Rockville, MD: AHCPR, 1994 Dec. (Consumer guide;
no. 14). AHCPR Publication No. 95-0644.
- Los problemas de la espalda. Rockville, MD: AHCPR, 1995 April. (Consumer guide, Spanish;
no.14). AHCPR Publication No. 95-0645.
- Bigos SJ, Bowyer OR, Braen GR, Brown K, et al. Acutre low back problems in adults.
Rockville, MD: AHCPR, 1997 Feb. (Guideline technical report; no. 14). AHCPR Publication
No. 97-N012.
Electronic copies: Items 1 through 3 are availabe from the National
Library of Medicine's HSTAT database.
Print copies:
Items 1 through 4 are available from the AHCPR Publications Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 8547,
Silver Spring, MD 20907: (800) 358-9295.
NGC STATUS:
This summary was completed by ECRI on August 1, 1998. The information was verified by the
guideline developer as of December 1, 1998.
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT:
No copyright restrictions apply.

|