PTJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

PHYS THER
Vol. 87, No. 6, June 2007, p. 812
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.2007.87.6.812.1
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kasai, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Uchida, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kasai, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Uchida, A.

Letters and Responses

Author Response


We have reported the passive lumbar extension test to be an effective method, with high sensitivity and specificity, on the basis of the results of this test after radiological classification of the subjects into lumbar spinal instability–positive and lumbar spinal instability–negative groups.1 Our results indicate that, for patients with positive lumbar spinal instability, wearing a corset (the term "bracing" may be more suitable) or spinal fusion to stabilize the spine may be an effective intervention to improve clinical symptoms such as low back pain, because lumbar spinal instability is likely to be strongly related to these clinical symptoms.

In our study, height, body weight, and body mass index (mean±SD) for the lumbar spinal instability–positive and lumbar spinal instability–negative groups were 159.2±7.9 cm and 162.3±8.4 cm, 57.2±10.3 kg and 58.3±11.7 kg, and 22.5±4.1 and 22.1±4.4, respectively. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups, although the lumbar spinal instability–positive group had slightly lower values for height and body weight than the lumbar spinal instability–negative group, because the lumbar spinal instability–positive group had a slightly higher male:female ratio than the lumbar spinal instability–negative group.

In 1985, Kirkaldy-Willis2 organized a symposium on lumbar spinal instability, with several articles published in Spine. In the more than 20 years since then, many studies of spinal biomechanics have been performed, with an accumulation of various clinical findings; however, no consensus has yet been reached on the definition, classification, clinical symptoms, and evaluation methods for lumbar spinal instability. The reasons may stem from the existence of instability that is accompanied by radiologic evidence and clinical symptoms, instability that is not accompanied by radiologic evidence but that is accompanied by clinical symptoms, and so on. Imaging examinations are valuable in some cases but not in all, resulting in confusing discussion among specialists. The evaluation methods for lumbar spinal instability that have been reported by Hicks et al3 include painful arc inflexion, instability catch sign, painful catch sign, Gower sign, posterior shear test, prone instability test, apprehension sign, passive accessory intervertebral motion test, and passive physiological intervertebral motion test. The presence of so many tests for lumbar spinal instability suggests the ambiguity surrounding this disorder.

At present, functional (flexion-extension) radiography of the lumbar spine seems to be the most practical method for the evaluation of lumbar spinal instability. Therefore, we believe that it is important to conduct a patient interview for clinical symptoms such as pain and a clinical examination for patients who have radiographically apparent instability to accumulate scientifically reliable evidence. From this point of view, we have conducted a study of the passive lumbar extension test, which yielded the conviction that this test can be of some help for the diagnosis and management of lumbar spinal instability.1

Yuichi Kasai, Koichiro Morishita, Eij Kawakita, Tetsushi Kondo and Atsumasa Uchida

Y Kasai, MD, is Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Tsu City, Mie Prefecture, Japan

Address all correspondence to Dr Kasai at: ykasai{at}clin.medic.mie-u.ac.jp

References

  1. Kasai Y, Morishita K, Kawakita E, et al. A new evaluation method for lumbar spinal instability; passive lumbar extension test. Phys Ther. 2006;86:1661–1667.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Kirkaldy-Willis WH. Presidential symposium on instability of the lumbar spine. Spine. 1985;10:245.
  3. Hicks GE, Fritz JM, Delitto A, Mishock J. Interrater reliability of clinical examination measures for identification of lumbar segmental instability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:1858–1864.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kasai, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Uchida, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kasai, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Uchida, A.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Physical Therapy Association.