Sind auf dem Bewegungsausmaß basierende Leitfäden eine valide Beurteilungsmethode für echte Beeinträchtigung bei LWS-Erkrankungen?

Zusammenfassung

In den USA leiden 80 - 85 % der Bevölkerung irgendwann in ihrem Leben unter Kreuzschmerzen. Hierbei stellt sich die Frage, auf welche Art und Weise die entsprechenden Beurteilungen der Beeinträchtigungen erhoben werden. Die vorliegende Arbeit untersucht die Validität der dafür von der American Medical Association entwickelten Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.

Abstract

80 - 85 per cent of the American population will experience low back pain once in their lifetime. The question arises in which way the corresponding assessment data of these impairments are collected. The article investigates the validity of the for this purpose developed Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment of the American Medical Association.

Kreuzschmerzen - Beurteilungsmethode - Leitfäden

Low back pain - assessment - guidelines

Literatur

• 1 American Medical Association .Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Chicago; American Medical Association 1990 3rd ed
• 2 Beals R K, Hickman N W. Industrial injuries of the back and extremities, comprehensive evaluation - an aid in prognosis and management.  J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 1972;  54 1593-1611
• 3 Boumphrey F. The difficult back patient. Presented at AAOS - CME Update -Current Concepts in Lumbar Disc Disease. Cleveland/Ohio; 1990
• 4 Chiarello C M, Savidge R. Interrater reliability of the Cybex EDI 320 and the fluid goniometer in normals and patients with low back pain.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;  74 32-37
• 5 Dopf C A, Mandel S S, Geiger D F. et al . Analysis of spine motion variability using a computerized goniometer compared to physical examination: a prospective clinical study.  Spine. 1994;  19 586-595
• 6 Gajdosik R L, Albert C R, Mitman J J. Influence of hamstring length on the standing position and flexion range of motion of the pelvic angle, lumbar angle, and thoracic angle.  J Sports Phys Ther. 1994;  20 213-218
• 7 Gill K, Krag M H, Johnson G B. et al . Repeatability of four clinical methods for assessment of lumbar spinal motion.  Spine. 1988;  13 50-53
• 8 Gracovetsky S, Newman N, Pawlowsky M. et al . A database for estimating normal spinal motion derived from noninvasive measurements.  Spine. 1995;  20 1036-1046
• 9 Holbrook T, Grazier K. The frequency of occurrence, impact and cost of selected musculoskeletal conditions in the United States. Chicago; American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons 1984
• 10 Mayer T G, Tencer A, Kristoferson S. et al . Use of noninvasive techniques for quantification of spinal range of motion in normal subjects and chronic low-back dysfunction patients.  Spine. 1984;  9 588-594
• 11 Mayer R S, Chen I, Lavender S A. et al . Variance in the measurement of sagittal lumbar spine range of motion among examiners, subjects, and instruments.  Spine. 1995;  20 1489-1493
• 12 McGregor A H, McCarthy I D, Hughes S P. Motion characteristics of the lumbar spine in the normal population.  Spine. 1995;  20 2421-2428
• 13 Merrit J, McLean T, Erikson R P. et al . Measurement of trunk flexibility in normal subjects: reproducibility of three clinical methods.  Mayo Clinic Proc. 1986;  61 192-197
• 14 Nachemson A L. The lumbar spine: an orthopaedic challenge.  Spine. 1976;  1 59-71
• 15 Norkin C, White D. Measurement of Joint Motion: A Guide to Goniometry. Philadelphia; F. A. Davis 2003
• 16 Rainville J, Sobel J, Hartigan C. Comparison of total lumbosacral flexion and true lumbar flexion measured by a dual inclinometer technique.  Spine. 1994;  19 2698-2701
• 17 Sullivan M S, Dickinson C E, Troup J D. The influence of age and gender on lumbar spine sagittal plane range of motion: a study of 1.126 healthy subjects.  Spine. 1994;  19 682-686
• 18 Williams R, Binkley J, Bloch R. et al . Reliability of the modified-modified Schober and double inclinometer methods for measuring lumbar flexion and extension.  Phys Ther. 1993;  73 33-44