Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is defined as pain, muscle tension, or stiffness localized below the costal margin and above the inferior gluteal folds, with or without sciatica, that lasts for at least twelve weeks.1 It is the leading cause of disability and loss of productivity in the United States.2 There is conflicting evidence on what is the most effective nonpharmacological treatment for CLBP. Many studies have shown that any general exercise routine is effective for improving symptoms, but the literature provides conflicting evidence about what specific type of exercise is best.3 A few studies have demonstrated decreased pain and disability with supervised directional preference exercise routines compared to non-directional preference routines. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a home directional preference exercise/stretch program for reducing disability in mechanical CLBP in patients in a residency clinic and to expand on the limited evidence of directional preference exercise effectiveness. Unlike other directional preference interventional studies, this program’s simplicity and convenience of performing at home potentially could increase patient compliance and therefore effectiveness. Patients were screened at a routine clinic visit and considered eligible if they had a known diagnosis of CLBP. They were excluded if they were in an acute exacerbation. Participating patients were categorized on directional range of motion preference based on their physical exam, either flexion or extension, whichever improved their pain. They were given a simple routine with instructions and pictures consisting of three exercises and stretches that emphasized their specific directional preference. Subjects performed three sets of each routine two to three days per week. Degree of disability score was measured at initial visit by completing the gold standard disability index questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Degree of disability was reassessed with ODI at a follow-up assessment four to eight weeks later with five follow-up questions regarding compliance and acute exacerbation. Patients were excluded if they were in an acute exacerbation. Pre-interventional disability scores were then compared to post-interventional disability scores. Twelve total patients enrolled in the program. Seven were lost to follow up. Five completed the study at the proper follow up interval; however, one was in an acute exacerbation so was excluded. Of the four patients included, two had extension and two had flexion preference. Three out of four patients had decreased disability scores at follow up. Total post-intervention score on ODI improved by an average of 10 points compared to pre-intervention score for the patients who improved. The most improved post-interventional ODI score category was walking and changing degree of pain. Seventy-five percent of the patients who completed the study had an improvement in their CLBP disability score. However, due to a small sample size and study power, the results are not statistically significant. Therefore, a conclusion cannot be appropriately drawn about the effectiveness of performing a home directional preference exercise/stretch program for reducing disability in mechanical CLBP in patients at a residency clinic. Nevertheless, the results are promising and deserve further investigation with a larger sample size.

La lombalgie compte parmi les causes principales d’incapacité chez des membres des Forces armées canadiennes (FAC). Une prise en charge efficace de cette condition est donc primordiale afin de maintenir des forces opérationnelles. Les études randomisées contrôlées réalisées auprès de la population générale suggèrent que la direction préférentielle (DP) est efficace pour guider la prise en charge de la lombalgie. Toutefois, aucune étude n’a investigué l’efficacité d’une telle approche en contexte réel ou auprès de la population militaire. L’objectif de ce mémoire était d’évaluer, dans le contexte réel de la pratique clinique, l’efficacité d’une prise en charge guidée par la DP parmi des membres des FAC souffrant de lombalgie. Pour ce faire, une étude observationnelle de cohorte incluant 44 membres consentant des FAC a été réalisée. Les patients du groupe exposé (n=22) ont reçu des interventions guidées par la DP. Les patients du groupe non-exposé (n=22) ont reçu les soins usuels, soit des interventions déterminées par leur physiothérapeute, mais pas d’approche guidée par la DP. Les données ont été colligées et comparées entre les deux groupes au début de l’étude, à 1 mois, et à 3 mois grâce à un questionnaire autoadministré concernant la douleur (intensité, localisation, fréquence), l’incapacité perçue, la consommation de médicaments, et l’effet global perçu (douleur, fonctionnement et état général). La perte de productivité et l’utilisation de soins de santé ont été mesurées à 3 mois grâce au dossier médical électronique. Des différences statistiquement significatives en faveur du groupe exposé à une prise en charge guidée par la DP ont été observées pour l’intensité de la douleur (Δ à 1 mois : 1,9/10; Δ à 3 mois : 1,3/10), l’incapacité perçue (Δ 1 mois : 4,3/24; Δ 3 mois : 3,5/24), l’amélioration de l’effet global perçu à 1 mois (douleur : 86,4 % vs 57,1 %; fonctionnement : 81,8 % vs 47,6 %; état général : 86,4 % vs 57,1 %) et à 3 mois (douleur : 95,5 % vs 71,1 %; état général : 95,5 % vs 66,7 %), et l’amélioration du statut au travail à 3 mois (54,5 % vs 23,8 %). Malgré les limites de notre étude, nos résultats suggèrent qu’en conditions réelles de pratique, la prise en charge guidée par la DP est plus efficace que les soins usuels pour réduire la douleur et l’incapacité chez les membres des FAC souffrant de lombalgie. / Abstract : Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause for disability in Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members. Efficacious and cost-effective management for LBP is thus essential to maintaining operational capabilities. In randomized controlled trials among the general population, directional preference (DP) was shown useful to guide treatment of LBP, but no studies have investigated this in real-life settings or in military personnel. The purpose of this study was to evaluate, in real-life clinical practice, the effectiveness of DP to guide management of LBP in CAF members when compared to usual care. To that purpose, we conducted a cohort study including 44 consenting CAF members with LBP. Patients in the exposed group (n=22) were assessed for DP and received matching interventions. Patients in the non-exposed group (n=22) received interventions as determined by their treating physiotherapist, excluding any DP-guided treatments. Data were collected and compared between groups at baseline, at 1-month and at 3-month follow-up using self-administered questionnaires regarding pain (intensity, location, frequency), perceived disability, medication, and perceived global effect (pain, function, overall status). Work loss and health care utilization were measured at 3 months using electronic health records. Statistically significant differences, favoring the exposed group, were observed for pain intensity (Δ at 1 month: 1.9/10; CI 95%; 0.97 – 2.89; Δ at 3 months: 1.3/10; CI 95%: 0.35 – 2.31), disability (Δ at 1 month: 4.3/24; CI 95%: 2.12 – 6.38; Δ at 3 months: 3.5/24; CI 95%; 1.59 – 5.33), perceived global effect at 1 month (pain: 86.4% vs 57.1%; function: 81.8% vs 47.6%; overall status: 86.4% vs 57.1%) and at 3 months (pain: 95.5% vs 71.1%; overall status: 95.5% vs 66.7%) with p-values <.05, and improvement in work status (3 months: 54.5% vs 23.8%). Our data suggest that DP-guided management is more effective than usual care physiotherapy to reduce pain and improve function in CAF members with LBP. Our findings are useful to inform clinicians and policy makers to improve management strategies for CAF members.