Several clinical tests have been proposed on low back pain (LBP), but their usefulness in detecting lumbar instability is not yet clear. The objective of this literature review was to investigate the clinical validity of the main clinical tests used for the diagnosis of lumbar instability in individuals with LBP and to verify their applicability in everyday clinical practice. We searched studies of the accuracy and/or reliability of Prone Instability Test (PIT), Passive Lumbar Extension Test (PLE), Aberrant Movements Pattern (AMP), Posterior Shear Test (PST), Active Straight Leg Raise Test (ASLR) and Prone and Supine Bridge Tests (PB and SB) in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PubMed, and Scopus databases. Only the studies in which each test was investigated by at least one study concerning both the accuracy and the reliability were considered eligible. The quality of the studies was evaluated by QUADAS and QAREL scales. Six papers considering 333 LBP patients were included. The PLE was the most accurate and informative clinical test, with high sensitivity (0.84, 95% CI: 0.69 - 0.91) and high specificity (0.90, 95% CI: 0.85 -0.97). The diagnostic accuracy of AMP depends on each singular test. The PIT and the PST demonstrated by fair to moderate sensitivity and specificity [PIT sensitivity = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.51 - 0.83), PIT specificity = 0.57 (95% CI: 039 - 0.78); PST sensitivity = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.41 - 0.76), PST specificity = 0.48 (95% CI: 0.22 - 0.58)]. The PLE showed a good reliability (k = 0.76), but this result comes from a single study. The inter-rater reliability of the PIT ranged by slight (k = 0.10 and 0.04), to good (k = 0.87). The inter-rater reliability of the AMP ranged by slight (k = −0.07) to moderate (k = 0.64), whereas the inter-rater reliability of the PST was fair (k = 0.27). The data from the studies provided information on the methods used and suggest that PLE is the most appropriate tests to detect lumbar instability in specific LBP. However, due to the lack of available papers on other lumbar conditions, these findings should be confirmed with studies on non-specific LBP patients.

Background: Pain-related self-efficacy is defined as the beliefs held by people with chronic pain that certain activities can be carried out despite the pain. Poor self-efficacy is an obstacle to the recovery and predicts long-term disability. The aims of this study are to investigate the prevalence of poor pain self-efficacy in Italian subjects with chronic low back pain (LBP), and to inquire the relationships between self-efficacy, disability, pain, and main demographic and clinical characteristics.Methods: A secondary multicenter retrospective analysis was done on 310 outpatients with chronic non-specific LBP. The pain self-efficacy measured with the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), the disability measured with the Roland & Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the pain intensity measured with the Numerical Rating Scale were considered variables to investigate, whereas demographic and clinical variables were considered predictors or potential confounders. A 40/60 PSEQ score was adopted as cut-off to distinguish between good and poor self-efficacy.Results: 199 subjects (64.2% of the sample) showed poor self-efficacy. The odds of having poor self-efficacy appeared significantly related to female gender (OR = 1.80, 95%CI [1.12;2.90];p = 0.015) and drugs use (OR = 1.68, 95%CI [1.06;2.70];p = 0.029). Significant relationships also emerged between disability and higher age (β = 0.07, 95%CI [0.01; 0.12];p = 0.02), being female (β = 1.80, 95%CI [0.32;3.29];p = 0.018), low educational level (β = − 1.68, 95%CI [− 2.59;-3.29];p < 0.001), higher height (β = − 0.08, 95%CI [− 0.158;-0.002];p = 0.045), pain duration [mos] (β = 0.01, 95%CI [0.001;0.021];p = 0.041), and drugs use (β = 2.86, 95%CI [1.44;4.27];p < 0.001). The amount of pain appeared significantly related to educational level (β = − 0.47, 95%CI [− 0.76;-0.182];p < 0.001), smoking (β = 0.56, 95%CI [0.09; 1.03];p = 0.021), height (β = − 0.03, 95%CI [− 0.05; − 0.002];p = 0.036), and drugs use (β = 0.81, 95%CI [0.399;1.22];p < 0.001). No significant correlation appeared among weight, body mass index, and referred pain neither in relation to self-efficacy, nor in relation to pain/disability.Conclusions: The majority of our sample, composed of Italian people complained of chronic LBP, shows poor self-efficacy. Female gender and drugs use are significantly related to poor self-efficacy, low educational level negatively influences the amount of perceived pain and disability, and older age and smoking are related to disability and pain intensity, respectively. The knowledge of these sociodemographic and clinical characteristics potentially influencing chronic LBP may be useful to address more efforts towards the most negatively impacted subjects, among the entire population complained of chronic LBP.

Background: The role of rehabilitation after surgery in patients with low back pain is well recognized. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize and update the existing evidence according to the type of clinical condition and rehabilitation approach. Methods: This systematic review included RCTs on the effectiveness of rehabilitation after surgery for lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. We searched the literature for randomized controlled trials indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL, CENTRAL, Scopus, PEDro, and Web of Science databases, up to April 15, 2023. We used Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool to assess each study. We conducted a quantitative synthesis when population, intervention, control, and outcome were sufficiently homogeneous; otherwise, we conducted a qualitative analysis. Results: Forty-five studies (3.036 subjects) were included and analyzed according to the population considered: lumbar stenosis (1 trial), spondylolisthesis (3 trials), and disc herniation (41 trials). Regarding lumbar stenosis, a supervised active exercise program appears to improve outcomes related to pain, disability, and quality of life both in the short- and mid-term (1 study, n = 60). Concerning spondylolisthesis, kinesiophobia is reduced in the home exercises group compared to usual care, at 3-months follow-up (3 studies, n = 98). For disk herniation, supervised exercises are better than non-supervised exercises to reduce pain (MD -1.14; 95% CIs -1.65, -0.62; 5 trials, n = 250) and disability (SMD -0.70; 95% CIs -1.14, -0.26; 4 trials, n = 175). Supervised exercises are better than advice in reducing pain (SMD -0.91; 95% CIs -1.61, -0.21; 5 trials, n = 341) and disability (SMD -0.80; 95% CIs -1.59, -0.01; 4 trials, n = 261), in the short-term. Supervised exercises are equal to no treatment in reducing pain and disability, at 3 and 6 months after intervention (2 trials, n = 166). These results are supported by a very low to low quality of evidence. Conclusions: Our research suggests that supervised exercise may be effective in improving patient’s pain and disability after lumbar surgery, but RCTs regarding lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar spondylolisthesis are still scarce, with significant heterogeneity of proposed interventions.

Introduction: There is weak relationship between the presence of lumbar spondylolisthesis [SPL] and low back pain that is not always associated with instability, either at the involved lumbar segment or at different spinal levels. Therefore patients with lumbar symptomatic SPL can be divided into stable and unstable, based on the level of mobility during flexion and extension movements as general classifications for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Different opinions persist about best treatment (conservative vs. surgical) and among conservative treatments, on the type, dosage, and progression of physical therapy procedures.Purpose and importance to practice: The aim of this Masterclass is to provide clinicians evidence-based indications for assessment and conservative treatment of SPL, taking into consideration some subgroups related to specific clinical presentations.Clinical implications: This Masterclass addresses the different phases of the assessment of a patient with SPL, including history, imaging, physical exam, and questionnaires on disability and cognitive-behavioral components. Regarding conservative treatment, self- management approaches and graded supervised training, including therapeutic relationships, information and education, are explained. Primary therapeutic procedures for pain control, recovery of the function and the mobility through therapeutic exercise, passive mobilization and antalgic techniques are suggested. Moreover, some guidance is provided on conservative treatment in specific clinical presentations (lumbar SPL with radiating pain and/or lumbar stenosis, SPL complicated by other factors, and SPL in adolescents) and the number/duration of sessions.Future research priorities: Some steps to improve the diagnostic-therapeutic approach in SPL are to identify the best cluster of clinical tests, define different lumbar SPL subgroups, and investigate the effects of treatments based on that classification, similarly to the approach already proposed for non-specific LBP.