Musculoskeletal disorders

Chapter 27 Musculoskeletal disorders


With contribution from Greg de Jong



Introduction


A survey of US adults in December 2007 found that 42% of respondents reported that they were in pain on the day of the survey, 1 in 4 experiencing acute pain, with 72% indicating they had experienced pain in the last 12 months. Of particular interest, 70% of people who reported acute pain, 45% recurrent pain and 20% of chronic pain sufferers indicated that they did not seek medical advice for their condition. The common reason given for the reluctance to seek advice included the perception that people take too many pills, a reluctance to take general medication for pain in a specific location, or that oral prescriptive medications upset their stomachs.1


In light of such statistics and concerns it would appear pertinent to investigate all available options in regard to the management of musculoskeletal care. Interestingly, in a further US study, knowledge of complementary health care providers and interventions specific to the most prevalent musculoskeletal conditions was found to be surprisingly low, with the exception of chiropractic treatment. However, most respondents indicated that they would be interested in accessing complementary health care for musculoskeletal injury and pain if costs were subsidised and that their doctors considered such interventions as reasonable.2


In Australia, national surveys indicate substantial usage of acupuncture, chiropractic and osteopathic treatments, particularly for back complaints. Approximately 1 in 4 Australians surveyed visited 1 of these providers — 16.1% chiropractors, 9.2% acupuncturists and 4.6% osteopaths — amounting to approximately 32.3 million visits per year, with over 90% considering their treatments to be somewhat helpful or very helpful.3


A British survey of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain demonstrated similarly high levels of usage for all forms of complementary therapies. In the survey, 84% of participants reported having used a complementary treatment in the last year with 65% as present users. Three people used over-the-counter complementary medicines for every 2 who sought treatment from a provider with the most used products being glucosamine and fish oils. Of respondents, 69% used conventional medicines concurrently with their complementary treatment of choice.4


This willingness to use complementary therapies in the US, the UK and Australia coupled with reluctance in the use of pharmacological therapies for day-to-day pain management suggests it is necessary for all doctors to expand their knowledge in the use of complementary medicine in addressing musculoskeletal pain and disability. However, this increased awareness to the public’s desire for complementary medicines also comes with the responsibility of addressing the efficacy of each option, keeping in mind that public interest may not always reflect best practice in medical care.


The first part of this chapter deals with acute musculoskeletal pain and the second part deals with chronic musculoskeletal pain.



Acute musculoskeletal pain and/or injury management


Acute pain is defined as pain of less than 3 months.5, 6 It may arise as a result of injury, repetitive movement or be insidious in nature. It has been highlighted by the Australian Acute Musculoskeletal Pain Guidelines Group7 that most incidences of acute musculoskeletal pain are of short duration (less than 3 months) and will not lead to chronic pain and disability, although mild symptoms may persist.


Furthermore, in the majority of cases the determination of cause and specific diagnosis is not required, whilst simple interventions, including information, assurance and the maintenance of appropriate levels of activity, when coupled with pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches will be satisfactory without the need for extensive investigation. What is critical is to identify as early as possible the minority of patients who are either presenting with a serious medical condition (‘red flags’) or are at risk of developing chronic musculoskeletal pain due to psychosocial factors (‘yellow flags’).8 (See Tables 27.1 to 27.3.)


Table 27.1 Identifying features (‘red flags’) of serious conditions associated with acute low back pain


















Feature or risk factor Factor/condition


Infection


Fracture






Tumour
Absence of aggravating features Aortic aneurysm

(Source: Australian Acute Musculoskeletal Pain Guidelines Group 2003 Evidence-Based Management of Acute Musculoskeletal Pain. National Health and Medical Research Council)


Table 27.2 Identifying features of serious conditions associated with acute thoracic spinal pain


















Feature or risk factor Condition


Fracture



Infection







Tumour




Other serious conditions

(Source: Australian Acute Musculoskeletal Pain Guidelines Group 2003 Evidence-Based Management of Acute Musculoskeletal Pain. National Health and Medical Research Council)


Table 27.3 Identifying features of serious conditions associated with acute neck pain
























Feature or risk factor Condition


Infection


Fracture





Tumour
Neurological symptoms in the limbs Neurological condition
Cerebrovascular symptoms or signs, anticoagulant use Cerebral or spinal haemorrhage
Cardiovascular risk factors, transient ischaemic attack Vertebral or carotid aneurysm

(Source: Australian Acute Musculoskeletal Pain Guidelines Group 2003 Evidence-Based Management of Acute Musculoskeletal Pain. National Health and Medical Research Council)



Lifestyle, mind–body issues and acute musculoskeletal injury


While lifestyle and mind–body medicine interventions may not be necessary during the initial stage of acute injury management, it is the assessment of these factors that form the core tool for identifying those patients who are most likely to progress onto chronic musculoskeletal conditions (‘yellow flags’) and hence require greater monitoring and follow up.8


For instance, in regard to low back pain, psychosocial and occupational factors are considered to have greater clinical value in predicting chronicity than clinical presentation.9, 10 A systematic review of psychosocial factors in 2008 identified that the most pertinent risks of failure to return to work after a low back injury were a low expectation of recovery and fear-avoidance behaviours.11 Depression, job satisfaction and stress levels did not appear to have an impact on the likelihood of return to work after injury.


A variety of evaluation tools, such as the Acute Low Back Screening Tool,8 Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, Oswestry Low Back Pain and Disability Questionnaire and so forth, have subsequently been developed to assess various aspects of psychosocial behaviours, particularly in regard to low back pain. Where such factors are identified as pertinent during an acute episode of injury early referral to behavioural strategies outlined under chronic musculoskeletal management should be considered.



Remaining active versus bed rest and collars


Current evidence suggests remaining active after an acute musculoskeletal injury is preferable in most instances to bed rest or immobilisation. A Cochrane review in 200512 indicated that advice to remain active was preferable to bed rest for acute low back pain, although there was no indication of difference where sciatic symptoms were present. Fordyce13 compared the use of analgesia, exercise, time contingent and behaviour contingent activity in addressing acute low back pain and found that the latter group who had been advised to ‘let pain be your guide’ were less likely to progress to chronic pain. In the instance of neck pain, remaining active was reported to be of more benefit than rest in a collar after whiplash injuries of the neck.14 Thus it would appear that remaining as active as possible while respecting pain levels is the best encouragement for patients experiencing acute musculoskeletal pain. Exceptions, however, do apply in the instance where musculoskeletal injury is significant enough to require protection from further damage (e.g. strains of ankle and knee ligaments).15



Behavioural therapy


A recent review reported on the rationale and evidence supporting 3 frequently used psychosocial interventions for chronic pain; namely, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), operant behavioural therapy and self-hypnosis training.16 The study concluded that CBT and operant behavioural therapy treatments have a focus on factors that exacerbate or maintain suffering in chronic pain, and should be considered as part of a multidisciplinary treatment paradigm. Whereas self-hypnosis training may be of benefit, it appears to be no more (or less) effective than other relaxation strategies that include hypnotic elements.



Education


A summary of findings on patient education from controlled trials on acute low back pain by the Australian Acute Musculoskeletal Guidelines Group7 indicated that practitioner-delivered information was more effective than brochures and booklets. Furthermore, information provided in the mail was less effective than in person. In regard to neck pain in general, a Cochrane review indicated no strong evidence for the effectiveness of educational interventions.17



Exercise


A Cochrane review18 indicated that for acute low back pain exercise was no more effective than no treatment or other conservative treatments. In the subacute phase limited evidence suggests that a graded exercise program may improve absentee rates. A literature review in 200819 supported this view, indicating that the most appropriate advice at an early stage was the continuation of normal activities as effectively as possible rather than an exercise program. Exercise at the subacute stage (>4 weeks) onwards was indicated to decrease pain and disability, although no specific exercise program was indicated as superior.


A Cochrane review of exercises for acute neck pain indicated limited evidence supporting active range of motion exercises or home-based exercise programs, including both mechanical and whiplash associated disorders.20 Exercise has been found beneficial in terms of short-term recovery and long-term function in relation to rotator cuff disease of the shoulder.21



Nutritional supplements


Where a condition arises insidiously the division into acute/subacute/chronic is less pertinent in regard to nutritional supplementation, as length of chronicity may depend upon successful identification by the assessing practitioner. For this reason and to avoid repetition all Nutritional/Herbal interventions for musculoskeletal pain will be considered in this section, although information is also pertinent to chronic pain.



Vitamin D


Increasing evidence indicates the importance of vitamin D deficiency in muscle pain and weakness. In a study of vitamin D deficiency in a community health clinic, 93% of patients with non-specific musculoskeletal pain were found to have vitamin D deficiency, and 100% of those were under 30 years of age.22 The authors highlighted the fact that vitamin D deficiency should be considered in all patients with non-specific muscular pain, including those not usually expected to be deficient — the young and non-house-bound.


A review of papers on vitamin D deficiency in 2006 concluded that vitamin D deficiency should be considered as a differential diagnosis in the evaluation of musculoskeletal complaints and treated accordingly.23 Furthermore, musculoskeletal weakness (e.g. of the thigh muscles) was an additional consequence of vitamin D deficiency. A pilot study of vitamin D deficiency in chronic pain patients found that in those patients with vitamin D deficiency (26%; serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D<20ng/l) using opioid drugs, the mean morphine equivalent dose and duration of use was significantly higher than non-vitamin D deficient patients.24


It is a misassumption that a sunny environment is necessarily protective against vitamin D deficiency. Case studies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt demonstrate significant relationships between vitamin D deficiency and chronic low back pain.25, 26 In Saudi Arabia 83% of patients with chronic low back pain were found to be vitamin D deficient with the majority successfully treated with vitamin D supplementation over a 3-month period.25 In the Egyptian study 81% of low back pain patients and 60% of controls were found to be vitamin D deficient indicating that despite the sunny climate many Egyptians were vitamin D deficient. Both limited duration of sun exposure and limited area of skin exposure were associated with deficiency findings.26 A small study of urban Australian Aboriginals comparing low back pain subjects with controls also demonstrated a 100% vitamin D deficiency amongst the 8 patients with low back pain.27


Treatment with vitamin D has been found to be effective for many low back pain patients in several case studies. It must be noted, however, that most studies used either intramuscular injections of between 10 and 30 000IU28,29 or high dose supplementation at levels of 50 000IU.30, 31 The one exception was a Saudi Arabian study in which levels of 5000IU/day (<50kg) or 10 000IU/day (>50kg) were used. In all instances clinical improvements were observed in the majority of patients within 3 months.25


A caveat to vitamin D supplementation addresses the question as to whether vitamin D has any effect on diffuse musculoskeletal pain that may be associated with low vitamin D levels. Warner and Arnspiger32 recently reported that low vitamin D levels were not associated with diffuse musculoskeletal pain, and treatment with vitamin D did not reduce pain in patients with diffuse pain and who have low vitamin D levels.




Omega-3 essential fatty acids


The resolution of acute inflammation is a dynamic process that requires an appropriate host response, tissue protection and resolution of inflammation. Increasing evidence recognises the role of omega-3 derived mediators (e.g. resolvin, protectin) in regulating the resolution of the acute inflammatory process.37, 38 To date no trials have been undertaken in regard to the use of omega-3 supplements during acute inflammation.


However, given the effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for both acute and chronic low back pain, and the assumed role of omega-3 essential fatty acids in the inflammatory process, a controlled study was undertaken amongst non-surgical neck and low back pain patients attending a neurosurgical practice.39 Patients were requested to take 1200mg/day of omega-3 supplements (EPA/DHA) and followed up after 1 month. Although response rate to recall by mail was only 50%, 78% remained compliant to recommended dosage, with 22% doubling the dosage themselves. Sixty percent of patients reported that their overall pain had improved, 60% that joint pain had improved and 59% discontinued their NSAID. Eighty percent reported that they were satisfied with their improvement.39 This early evidence indicates that further studies are required in this area, given the lack of complications associated with omega-3 supplementation as compared to NSAIDs.




Herbal medicines


A 2007 Cochrane review of herbal medicines for the low back identified 3 herbs; Harpagophytum procumbens (devil’s claw), Salix alba (white willow bark) and Capsicum frutescens (cayenne) as potentially beneficial in reducing low back pain, however, it was noted that the quality of studies were generally poor.42 While other herbs are often recommended for acute and chronic musculoskeletal conditions, evidence is usually of low quality, by inference from non-human studies or lacking at present.



Devil’s claw (Harpagophytum procumbens)


Reductions in low back pain and muscle stiffness have been reported in a series of double-blind studies using a Devil’s Claw extract Ll 174.43, 44 A double-blind study comparing devil’s claw (50 or 100mg harpagogoside)/day to rofecoxib (12.5mg) found equivalent benefit over a 6 week period,45, 46 with follow up after 1 year47 highlighting that devil’s claw was well tolerated and that treatment gains were sustained.


A recent review investigated 28 trials of which 20 reported adverse events.48 In none of the double-blind RCTs was the incidence of adverse events during treatment with Harpagophytum procumbens higher than during placebo treatment. Also, minor adverse events occurred in approximately 3% of the patients, these being mainly gastrointestinal in nature. A few reports of acute toxicity were found but there were no reports of chronic toxicity. Since the dosage used in most of the studies was at the lower limit and since long-term treatment with Harpagophytum products was advised, more safety data are required.








Physical therapies






Acupuncture


A Cochrane review (2009) of the use of acupuncture or dry needling for acute low back pain indicated insufficient evidence to make any recommendations.66 A Cochrane review in 2006 found no trials on acupuncture for acute neck pain.67 A Cochrane review of acupuncture for shoulder pain indicated the possibility of short-term benefit in pain and function, but that evidence was otherwise lacking in its efficacy.68 Acupuncture may also provide short-term relief from lateral elbow pain (tennis elbow), however, no benefit lasting greater than 24 hours has been demonstrated.69


Moreover, a systematic review investigated the effectiveness of acupuncture for non-specific low back pain70 in 23 trials (n = 6359). There was moderate evidence that acupuncture was more effective than no treatment, and strong evidence of no significant difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture, for short-term pain relief. However, there was strong evidence that acupuncture could be a useful supplement to other forms of conventional therapy for non-specific lower back pain.




Chronic musculoskeletal pain (e.g. low back pain)


The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that in 2004–2005 15% of the Australian population experienced low back pain at a cost of $567 million per year.71 In fact it has been estimated that up to 70% of the community of wealthy nations will experience low back pain in their lifetime, with 2–7% of patients developing chronic low back pain (pain>12 weeks) as a result of an acute episode.72 In approximately 85% of cases a specific diagnosis for low back pain cannot be determined despite diagnostic efforts.72 Even in instances where an initial acute episode is resolved, low back pain often follows a recurrent pattern with re-exacerbations likely.73


The biopsychosocial model of pain has been adopted to explain the complexities of the pain experience (Figure 27.1).74 Within this approach chronic pain is viewed as a composite response that results from the summation of biological, psychological and social factors individual to the patient’s pain ‘experience’ rather than directly correlating with tissue damage or disease. Although tissue damage may lead to nociception and a painful experience, the level of pain may be modified by many factors such as emotional response, belief structures, personal experience, cultural background, community and work environment and so forth. Alternatively in some instances tissue healing may be complete, yet pain may persist as part of a greater personal experience unique to the individual.



Hence in the context of integrative and complementary medicine the treatment of chronic low back pain may potentially involve the complete spectrum of mind–body therapies. Chronic low back pain should not be viewed solely as a musculoskeletal condition but as an experience of not only the body, but emotions, thought processes, family, social and spiritual network and, in instances of occupational injury, the work community of the patient. However, on the other hand we should not pass over the possibility of prolonged tissue damage or organic imbalance once the patient has entered the classification of chronic pain by assuming that the pain is ‘only’ psychosomatic in origin, for to do so would also risk overlooking the holism that is the individual living within the pain experience.



Lifestyle factors



Genetic


Recent studies indicate genetic influence in the development of some aspects of chronic low back pain. In twin studies related to low back pain, disc height narrowing was the factor found to correlate most with low back pain history, and further found to be genetically correlated. Other genetic correlations were found with the duration of the longest episode of back pain, hospitalisation from back pain and disability from back pain in the year previous to the study.75 Twin studies of adult women demonstrated a heritability of low back pain in adult females in the range of 52–68%, and neck pain in the range of 35–85%.76 A Danish twin study of men and women over the age of 70 indicated a genetic association with low back pain of 25% in men. However, only a modest and non-significant concordance was noted in women such that the conclusion was that genetics did not play a role in low back pain in women over 70.77

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Dec 4, 2016 | Posted by in GENERAL & FAMILY MEDICINE | Comments Off on Musculoskeletal disorders

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access