Matheve Thomas, Timmermans Annick, Danneels Lieven, De Baets Liesbet
Spine, Head and Pain Research Unit Ghent, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, 9000 Gent, Belgium.
REVAL-Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, UHasselt, 3500 Diepenbeek, Belgium.
J Clin Med. 2024 Aug 25;13(17):5025. doi: 10.3390/jcm13175025.
There is emerging evidence that task-specific pain-related psychological measures may better predict movement behaviour in chronic low back pain (CLBP) than general pain-related psychological measures. Currently, little is known regarding the prediction of movement duration and movement velocity. : Baseline data from a previously published randomized controlled trial were used (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02773160). Fifty-five patients with CLBP and 54 pain-free persons performed a lifting task while kinematic measurements were obtained to calculate movement velocity of the L1 vertebra, S1 vertebra, and the lumbar spine, as well as the time to complete the lifting task. Scores on the Photograph Daily Activities Series-Short Electronic Version (PHODA-SeV), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and its Activity Avoidance and Somatic Focus subscales were used as general pain-related psychological measures. The score on a picture of the PHODA-SeV, showing a person lifting an object with a bent back (PHODA-Lift), was used as task-specific measure of perceived harmfulness. : The task-specific measure best predicted movement duration and movement velocity of L1 and the lumbar spine, and explained 35%, 19%, and 25% of the respective movement parameters. Although general perceived harmfulness predicted S1 velocity and movement duration, it only explained 6% and 8% of the respective movement parameters. General measures of pain-related fear were not predictive for any of the movement parameters. It took patients with CLBP significantly longer to complete the lifting task when compared to the pain-free participants (ES = 1.01, < 0.0001), and patients with CLBP also moved significantly slower at L1 (ES = 0.85, < 0.0001) and the lumbar spine (ES = 1.01, < 0.0001). These between-groups differences were larger for CLBP subgroups with higher scores on the PHODA-Lift, and to some extent for subgroups with higher total scores on the PHODA-SeV. : Task-specific perceived harmfulness best predicts movement velocity. General pain-related fear measures (i.e., TSK and its subscales) do not predict these movement parameters.
越来越多的证据表明,与特定任务相关的疼痛心理测量指标可能比一般的疼痛相关心理测量指标能更好地预测慢性下腰痛(CLBP)患者的运动行为。目前,关于运动持续时间和运动速度的预测知之甚少。使用了先前发表的一项随机对照试验的基线数据(clinicaltrials.gov NCT02773160)。55名CLBP患者和54名无疼痛者进行了一项举重任务,同时获取运动学测量数据以计算第一腰椎、第一骶椎和腰椎的运动速度,以及完成举重任务的时间。使用照片日常活动系列 - 简短电子版(PHODA - SeV)、坦帕运动恐惧量表(TSK)及其活动回避和躯体关注子量表的得分作为一般的疼痛相关心理测量指标。PHODA - SeV中一张显示一个人弯腰举重物的图片(PHODA - Lift)的得分用作特定任务的感知有害性测量指标。特定任务测量指标能最好地预测第一腰椎和腰椎的运动持续时间和运动速度,并分别解释了各自运动参数的35%、19%和25%。虽然一般的感知有害性预测了第一骶椎的速度和运动持续时间,但它仅分别解释了各自运动参数的6%和8%。疼痛相关恐惧的一般测量指标对任何运动参数均无预测作用。与无疼痛参与者相比,CLBP患者完成举重任务的时间明显更长(效应量 = 1.01,P < 0.0001),CLBP患者在第一腰椎(效应量 = 0.85,P < 0.0001)和腰椎(效应量 = 1.01,P < 0.0001)处的运动也明显更慢。对于PHODA - Lift得分较高的CLBP亚组,这些组间差异更大,并且在一定程度上对于PHODA - SeV总分较高的亚组也是如此。特定任务的感知有害性能最好地预测运动速度。一般的疼痛相关恐惧测量指标(即TSK及其子量表)不能预测这些运动参数。