Objective: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a limiting musculoskeletal condition, not a disease that affects social and psychological features even economical field of world population affecting mainly man active workers range 35 to 55years old. The major challenge for dealing with this pathology is that patients present, depressive, pain catastrophization and kinesiophobic signs, reducing adherence to treatment. For this reason, the purpose of this case report was to verify the effect of a physical therapy model based on cognitive functional therapy on pain, function and patient satisfaction in a patient with chronic non-specific low back pain.

Design: Case report.

Setting: Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo Hospital.

Subject: A 52years old man, married and industry machinery operation worker diagnosed with chronic low back pain.

Methods: Application of twelve questionnaires for pain, function, and patient satisfaction outcomes in initial evaluation, middle and end of the rehabilitation protocol based on cognitive functional therapy.

Results: In the end of the treatment with emphasis on biopsychosocial approach, the patient was able to get back to his normal activities of daily living, working and exercising without pain.

Conclusion: This case report presented positive results in relation to pain, function and patient satisfaction in a patient with chronic non-specific low back pain submitted to a physical therapy model based on cognitive functional therapy.         

Keywords: low back pain, cognitive therapy, physical therapy, motor control

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a limiting musculoskeletal condition - not a disease¹ - that affects social and psychological features even economical field of world population, especially in developed countries^2,3 affecting mainly man active workers range 35 to 55 years old⁴. It is responsible for high costs to public health systems^5–7 even its clinical symptoms are related to great numbers of physical and work incapacities and negative impact in quality of life. High expenses resulting from the request of physical examinations by the doctors, even there was evidence of a low correlation between LBP symptomatology and imaging findings are other important reason as well.^8,9

CLBP classification is still the subject of several discussions in the clinical and scientific context, and this is due to its multifactorial etiology.^10–12 The most part of patients are usually classified in groups by clinical findings, but there are some individuals who do not fit any of them rising a group termed non-specific chronic low back pain. This situation set the clinical decision-making back.^13,14 By the way, clinical decision-making is another unconcluded subject already. Although several classification schemes exist, each with their own philosophy and categorizing method. However, most have one common element which is mainly based upon directional preference^15,16 and motor control.^17,18 Other treatments are passive and based on manual therapy,¹⁹ electroanalgesia^19,20 and acupuncture.²¹

Due to the complexity of the etiology of LBP, the approach to this syndrome has also expanded and become more comprehensive considering biopsychosocial factors as a form of diagnosis and treatment,^22,23 bringing with it tools such as education dealing pain^24,25 and therapies as cognitive functional (CFT) and behavioral (CBT).^23,26,27

The aim of CFT is lead patients to confront their fear and changing beliefs about movements, pain mechanisms and behavior during activities that cause pain and to give tools for these patients to reduce excessive trunk muscle activity and not try to avoid some postures.^26,28

Another important aspect about cognitive therapy is its excellent cost-effectiveness when compared to conventional therapy and even with another cognitive approach technique, as described by Herman et al.²⁸ The authors detailed expenditures with each therapy and the government's economy for treatment of the population and listed cognitive therapy with the lowest cost-benefit ratio.²⁸

The major challenge for physiotherapy in dealing with LBP is the profile that patients present, which is usually composed of depressive and kinesiophobia factors,²⁹ signs of catastrophization and denial, sleep disturbances,³⁰ among others, reducing adherence to some treatments. We believe that these non-biological components have great influence not only on the behavior of the symptoms, but also on the prognosis of these individuals.

Kelly & Baker³¹ described six common errors that may hinder behavioral changes and attitudes toward our health: common sense, information transmission, information management, rational actions, irrational actions, predictive accuracy. Analyzing each one and their relationship to each other, one can understand some aspects that may negatively influence the patient's acceptance of a given therapy, showing that unimodal therapies may not be effective.

The association of these factors here presented, strengthens the importance of the cognitive behavioral approach as a tool in the intervention of a syndrome that for a long time had its origin credited only to biomechanical issues and image findings, showing that, as complex as the origin of LBP, be the approach to your treatment, without disregarding any of the probable causes. For this reason, the purpose of this case report was to verify the effect of an approach based on the biopsychosocial physiotherapeutic model in a subject with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

History

The Sample was composed by patient male JJ, 52years old, BMI=22, married, and worker in operation of machinery industry. He was recruited and evaluated by the physiotherapy service of Irmandade de Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo - ISCMSP on September 25^th, 2015 and got a medical diagnosis of chronic low back pain. JJ had a history of insidious pain started ten years ago that always after the end of a workday routine and their main complaint was absence of mobility in his back, as reported respectively:

"I always end up making a lot of effort in my work. I need to crouch to get some heavy boards and transfer to another location, and when I get home after work, I feel a lot of pain in my spine. All the doctors that I went have always told me that I had to change company sector because my spine could not be carrying weight all the time, otherwise my herniated disc would increase."

"When I turn around or change my position I feel my back hampered."

After the medical diagnosis the patient was sent to physical therapy. However, even after some appointments with a physical therapist the clinical condition was not still satisfactory. When asked about his last episode of blocking, the patient reported that happened two weeks after the date of his evaluation, occurring during their work period. The patient had begun the practice of walking for approximately two months for a period of thirty minutes duration and frequency of twice a week, suspending this practice activity after the fact. About of recent event of pain worsening the patient was instructed by doctor to increase the drug doses to alleviate the symptoms (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Pain representation area related by patient.

Evaluation

The first physical therapy clinical evaluation performed was conducted through the application of twelve questionnaires to delineate and understand the patient better in all biopsychosocial aspects, and reapplied in the middle of treatment for monitoring and after its completion as criteria of discharge physiotherapy. All the instruments are listed below.

TAMPA scale: a self-applicable questionnaire used to identify fear of movement or exercise trough 17 questions. Higher scores represent higher kinesiophobia;⁴²

VAS (Visual Analogue Scale): 10 centimeters line that represents 0 “no pain” to 10 “the worst possible pain”.⁴³

McGill Pain Questionnaire: a questionnaire to understand the patient pain in three dimensions: affective, sensorial and intensity.⁴⁴

Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire: an instrument with 24 statements about activities, one point for each checked question.⁴⁵

Beck Depression Inventory: a self-related scale to verify symptoms and intensity od depression signs through 21 items.⁴⁶

VASA (Visual Analogue Scale for Anxiety): 10 centimeters line that represents 0 “not at all anxiety” to 10 “very anxious”.⁴⁷

Global Perceived Effect Scale: a self-analysis of effect of treatment on to a low back pain episode compared with another.⁴⁸

Patient Specific Functional Scale: a ten points scale to show the level of difficulty for three or more important activities for the patient to compare before and after treatment.⁴⁸

FABQ-Brazil (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire): self-rated depression measure through 21 questions.⁴⁹

ÖMPSQ-short (Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire—short form): a questionnaire to classify patients with low back pain in a high or low risk of pain chronification.⁵⁰

STarT Back Screening: classifies the risk of poor prognosis of low back pain patients with or without radiculopathy influenced by physical and psychosocial factors.⁵¹

Medrisk: a 13 items Instrument for Measuring Patient Satisfaction rated to 1 to 9 point in each question.⁵²

According to the patient's report the pain had become centralized and shooting down to the lateral of the hips and right thigh as shown on the map of pain described by the patient himself (Figure 2). Furthermore, the pain condition was intensified when the patient performed the trunk flexion, for example, to take an object on the ground. To make measureable these activities, we asked to patient choose the three most difficult activities for him and we used the Patient Specific Functional Scale³⁸ to compare the results before, during and after the treatment.

Figure 2 Magnetic resonance imaging in the sagittal view, T2 weighting.

Physiotherapy approach

The patient underwent ten sessions of physical therapy with emphasis on a biopsychosocial approach with 60 minutes each, twice a week within a period of five weeks. In addition, after each treatment the patient reported his pain signals in this way:

"Always when I left the therapy, I feel much better ... But when I return to the next session, I came back getting a little worse compared to last time I get out of here."

The patient also reported the sensation of well-being after the practice of the exercises oriented to their home realization. Being that even tired after the day of work the same felt relief of the pain at the end of the proposed series.

After the end of the treatment with emphasis on the biopsychosocial approach, the patient was able to get back to his normal activities of daily living, returned to his work functions and performed the practice of walking without pain complaints. In addition, he reported having reestablished his sexual activity without major limitations.

The purpose of this case report was to identify the effects of the intervention based on the cognitive behavioral model in a patient with chronic nonspecific low back pain with symptomatology reported over ten years. The main explanation of this was to bring a diagnostic approach based on the use of specific questionnaires to identify and know the patient in their social, emotional and physical aspects, as well as a better strategy to conduct the clinical reasoning on the subject based on the principle of individuality.

The patient in this report, believe that any movement where he used his spine vigorously or even performing a discreet motion in an erroneous way, could affect his disc and aggravate the problem installed in his column, this is due to an exposition made by the medical team where the patient was submitted during all the years of conviviality with the pain, leading him to believe that his spine was fragile and that at some point could make him invalid. These beliefs that relate the symptoms and/or their worsening with movements are common in patients with LBP, and exposure to this type of superficial information directly influences hypervigilance and exacerbation of symptoms, negatively reflecting the prognosis.⁴³

Therefore, when assessing and subsequently initiating the treatment of a patient with chronic pain, it is necessary to keep in mind the importance of the physiological cascades of pain described by Mosley (2003) and their influence on the daily activities of the patient, precisely because the pain exerts such broad influences in biopsychosocial systems that the patient is expected to be kinesiophobic, catastrophic and depressed in relation to pain, doubting that any intervention would be beneficial to his spine, as well as some activities mainly related to work.²⁹ After so much time living with the uncomfortable, the patient often loses hopes of being able to see himself well again, especially during the productive phases of life.⁴⁴

However, the cognitive behavioral physiotherapeutic model, as described by O'Sullivan¹⁰ and later reproduced by Ney Meziat⁴⁴ in his case report, aims to act on these central and peripheral pain alterations, demonstrating exactly the contrary to the patient, that is, the patient should understand that the more movement, the better his functional and psychosocial condition.²⁹ This explains the feeling of well-being reported by the patient whenever he performed the prescribed exercises to be performed at home, even during peak reassurance after work.

Moreover, exposure to the nocebo through the numerous requests for imaging examinations in the period of ten years, always characterizing degenerative changes and leading the patient to believe that his pain was of mechanical origin, i.e., produced by excessive use of his spine, leads us to a serious error of interpretation in clinical practice.^45–48 Brinjikji et al.⁴⁷ verified the innumerable structural modifications of the lumbar spine throughout the life, being noticed larger alterations with the advancement of the age, but without any direct influence with the history of pain.⁴⁸

Thus, pains of biopsychosocial origin in this patient showed distal symptomatology, but were only perceived when it performed its trunk flexion, leading us to believe that the belief in bowing was the main limiting factor for the same perform the movements in their activities of daily living and work, proving to be highly kinesiophobic for this practice. From the moment the patient was clarified as to the mechanisms of pain and the demystification of his beliefs, the fact of bowing was something non-harmful and not harmful to his spine, a perception that was demonstrated in the improvement of the TAMPA questionnaire and as in our results, was also perceived by previous reports in the literature.^49–51

The main finding of this case report was to present the values obtained in the questionnaires used in the study in order to perceive real results regarding the improvement of the symptoms, beliefs and lifestyle of the patient submitted to the behavioral cognitive physiotherapeutic intervention in non-specific chronic low back pain. Since the biopsychosocial influence in the patient's complaint is clear based on the results of the first application of the questionnaires and the enormous evolution of the questionnaire in a short period of time, bringing us a quantitative return of the improvement of this subject when we verify the final results of the questionnaires. This supports the importance of a more detailed evaluation to identify these factors, as well as a better orientation in the lumbar spine approach in the physiotherapist's clinical practice.⁵²

This case report presented positive results in relation to pain, function and patient satisfaction in a patient with chronic non-specific low back pain submitted to a physical therapy model based on cognitive functional therapy.

None.

Author declares that there are no conflicts of interest.

None.

1. Ehrlich EG. Low Back Pain. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2003;81:671–676.
2. Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, et al. The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(6):968–974.
3. Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, et al. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64(6):2028–2037.
4. Driscoll T, Jacklyn G, Orchard J, et al. The global burden of occupationally related low back pain:estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(6):975–981.
5. Fritz JM, Childs JD, Wainner RS, et al. Primary Care Referral of Patients with Low Back Pain to Physical Therapy: Impact on Future Health Care Utilization and Costs. Spine. 2012;37(25):2114–2121.
6. Lamb SE, Hansen Z, Lall R, et al. Group cognitive behavioral treatment for low–back pain in primary care: a randomised controlled trial and cost–effectiveness analysis. Lancet. 2010;375(9718):916–923.
7. Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J. 2008;8(1):8–20.
8. Barbara S, Choi YS, Bauer AZ, et al. The Cascade of Medical Services and Associated Longitudinal Costs Due to Nonadherent Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Low Back Pain. Spine. 2014;39(17):1433–1440.
9. Laflamme YT, Longtin C, Brismée JM. How radiological findings can help or hinder patients’ recovery in the rehabilitation management of patients with low back pain: what can clinicians do? J Man Manip Ther. 2017;25(2):63–65.
10. O’Sullivan P. Diagnosis and classification of chronic low back pain disorders: Maladaptive movement and motor control impairments as underlying mechanism. Man Ther. 2005;10(4):242–255.
11. Jesus–Moraleida FR, Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML, et al. The Brazilian Back Complaints in the Elders (Brazilian BACE) study:characteristics of Brazilian older adults with a new episode of low back pain. Braz J Phys Ther. 2018;22(1):55–63.
12. Williams JS, Ng N, Peltzer K, et al. Risk Factors and Disability Associated with Low Back Pain in Older Adults in Low–and Middle–Income Countries. Results from the WHO Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE). PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0127880.
13. Fourney DR, Andersson G, Arnold PM, et al. Chronic low back pain: a heterogeneous condition with challenges for an evidence–based approach. Spine. 2011;36:S1–S9.
14. Lee H, Mansell G, McAuley JH, et al. Causal mechanisms in the clinical course and treatment of back pain. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology. 2017;30(6):1074–1083.
15. Garcia AN, Costa LCM, Hancock MJ, et al. McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy was slightly more effective than placebo for pain, but not for disability, in patients with chronic non–specific low back pain: a randomized placebo controlled trial with short and longer term follow–up. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(9):594–600.
16. de Campos TF, Maher CG, Clare HA, et al. Effectiveness of McKenzie Method–Based Self–Management Approach for the Secondary Prevention of a Recurrence of Low Back Pain (SAFE Trial):Protocol for a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial. Phys Ther. 2017;97(8):799–806.
17. Massé–Alarie H, Beaulieu LD, Preuss R, et al. Influence of paravertebral muscles training on brain plasticity and postural control in chronic low back pain. Scandinavian Journal of Pain. 2016;12:74–83.
18. Jeong UC, Sim JH, Kim CY, et al. The effects of gluteus muscle strengthening exercise and lumbar stabilization exercise on lumbar muscle strength and balance in chronic low back pain patients. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(12):3813–3816.
19. Delitto A, George SZ, Dillen LV, et al. Low Back Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines Linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health from the Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(4):A1–A57.
20. van Middelkoop M, Rubinstein SM, Kuijpers T, et al. A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non–specific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(1):19–39.
21. Liu L, Skinner MA, McDonough SM, et al. Acupuncture for chronic low back pain:a randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing treatment session numbers. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(12):1592–1603.
22. Waddell G. A new clinical model for the treatment of low–back pain. Spine. 1987;12(7):632–644.
23. Engel GL. The biopsychosocial model and the education of health professionals. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1978;310:169–87.
24. Sorensen PH, Bendix T, Manniche C, et al. An educational approach based on a non–injury model compared with individual symptom–based physical training in chronic LBP. A pragmatic, randomised trial with a one–year follow–up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:212.
25. Louw A, Kory Zimney K, Puentedura EJ, et al. The efficacy of pain neuroscience education on musculoskeletal pain:A systematic review of the literature. Physiother Theory Pract. 2016;32(5):332–355.
26. Meziat FN. Changing beliefs for changing movement and pain: Classification–based cognitive functional therapy (CB–CFT) for chronic non–specific low back pain. Manual Therapy. 2016;21:303–306.
27. O'Sullivan P, Waller R, Wright A, et al. Sensory characteristics of chronic non–specific low back pain:a subgroup investigation. Man Ther. 2014;19:311–318.
28. Herman PM, Anderson ML, Sherman KJ, et al. Cost–Effectiveness of Mindfulness–Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Careamong Adults with Chronic Low–Back Pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(20):1511–1520.
29. Moseley GL. A pain neuromatrix approach to patients with chronic pain. Man Ther. 2003;8(3):130–140.
30. Alsaadi SM, McAuley JH, Hush JM, et al. The Bidirectional Relationship Between Pain Intensity and Sleep Disturbance/Quality in Patients With Low Back Pain. Clin J Pain. 2014;30(9):755–765.
31. Kelly MP, Barker M. Why is changing health–related behaviour so difficult? Public Health. 2016;136:109–116.
32.  Tkachuk GA, Harris CA. Psychometric properties of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia–11 (TSK–11). J Pain. 2012;13(10):970–977.
33. Ferreira–Valente MA, Pais–Ribeiro JL, Jensen MP. et al. Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain. 2011;152(10):2399–2404.
34. Menezes Costa, Maher CG, McAuley KH, et al. The Brazilian–Portuguese versions of the McGill Pain Questionnaire were reproducible, valid, and responsive in patients with musculoskeletal pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(8):903–912.
35. Nusbaum L, Natour J, Ferraz MB, et al. Translation, adaptation and validation of the Roland Morris questionnaire–Brazil. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2001;34(2):203–210.
36. Gomes–Oliveira MH, Gorenstein C, Neto FL, et al. Validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Beck Depression Inventory–II in a community sample. Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 2012;34(4):389–394.
37. Hornblow AR, Kidson MA. The Visual Analogue Scale for Anxiety. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1976;10(4):339–341.
38. Costa LO, Maher CG, Latimer J, et al. Clinimetric testing of three self–report outcome measures for low back pain patients in Brazil: which one is the best? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(22):2459–2463.
39. Abreu AM, Morais Faria CDC, Vicente Cardoso SM, et al. The Brazilian version of the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. Cad Saude Publica. 2008;24(3):615–623.
40. Fagundes FR, Pena Costa LO, FuhroFF, et al. Örebro Questionnaire: short and long forms of the Brazilian–Portuguese version. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(11):2777–2788.
41. Pilz B, Vasconcelos RA, Marcondes FB, et al. The Brazilian version of STarT Back Screening Tool – translation, cross cultural adaptation and reliability. Braz J Phys Ther. 2014;(5):453–461.
42. Oliveira NFC, Costa LOP, Nelson P, et al Measurement Properties of the Brazilian Portuguese Version of the Med Risk Instrument for Measuring Patient Satisfaction With Physical Therapy Care. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(11):879–889.
43. Baird AJ, Haslam RA. Exploring differences in pain beliefs within and between a large nonclinical (workplace) population and a clinical (chronic low back pain) population using the pain beliefs questionnaire. Phys Ther. 2013;93(12):1615–1624.
44. Meziat FN, Mendonça R, Nogueira LAC. Lack of confidence in the lower limb: Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) for a unilateral loading impairment in chronic non–specific low back pain. Case report. Manual Therapy. 2016;25:104–108.
45. Lin IB, O'Sullivan PB, Coffin JA, et al. Disabling chronic low back pain as an iatrogenic disorder: a qualitative study in Aboriginal Australians. BMJ Open. 2013;3(4):e002654.
46. Webster BS, Bauer AZ, Choi Y, et al. Iatrogenic consequences of early magnetic resonance imaging in acute, work–related, disabling low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22):1939–1946.
47. Brinjikji W, Luetmer PH, Comstock B, et al. Systematic Literature Review of Imaging Features of Spinal Degeneration in Asymptomatic Populations. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(4):811–816.
48. Gallagher L, McAuley J, Moseley GL. A randomized–controlled trial of using a book of metaphors to reconceptualize pain and decrease catastrophizing in people with chronic pain. Clin J Pain. 2013;29(1):20–25.
49. Rabey M, Beales D, Slater H, et al. Multidimensional pain profiles in four cases of chronic non–specific axial low back pain:an examination of the limitations of contemporary classification systems. Man Ther. 2015;20(1):138–147.
50. Bunzli S, Smith A, Watkins R, et al. What do people who score highly on the tampa scale of kinesiophobia really believe? a mixed methods investigation in people with chronic non specific low back pain. Clin J Pain. 2015;31(7):621–632.
51. Rabey M, Smith A, Beales D, et al. Multidimensional Prognostic Modelling In People With Chronic Axial Low Back Pain. Clin J Pain. 2017;33(10):877–891.
52. Gardner T, Refshauge K, Smith L, et al. Physiotherapists’ beliefs and attitudes influence clinical practice in chronic low back pain:a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Man Ther. 2015; 20(1):138–147.