Low back pain in patients hospitalised with liver cirrhosis- a retrospective study

Abstract

Background Lower back pain is a common issue, but little is known about the prevalence of pain in patients with liver cirrhosis during hospitalisation. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine lower back pain in patients with liver cirrhosis. Methods The sample consisted of patients with liver cirrhosis (n = 79; men n = 55; women n = 24; mean age = 55.79 ± 12.52 years). The hospitalised patients were mobile. The presence and intensity of pain were assessed in the lumbar spine during hospitalisation. The presence of pain was assessed using the visual analogue pain scale (0–10). The range of motion of the lower spine was assessed using the Schober and Stibor tests. Frailty was measured by Liver Frailty Index (LFI). The condition of liver disease was evaluated using The Model For the End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and Child–Pugh score (CPS) and ascites classification. Student’s t test and Mann–Whitney test were used for analysis of the difference of group. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Tukey post hoc test was used to test differences between categories of liver frailty index. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to test pain distribution. Statistical significance was determined at the α-0.05 significance level. Result The prevalence of pain in patients with liver cirrhosis was 13.92% (n = 11), and the mean intensity of pain according to the visual analogue scale was 3.73 (± 1.90). Lower back pain was present in patients with ascites (15.91%; n = 7) and without ascites (11.43%; n = 4). The prevalence of lower back pain was not statistically significant between patients with and without ascites (p = 0,426). The base of Schober’s assessment mean score was 3.74 cm (± 1.81), and based on Stibor’s assessment mean score was 5.84 cm (± 2.23). Conclusion Lower back pain in patients with liver cirrhosis is a problem that requires attention. Restricted spinal mobility has been reported in patients with back pain, according to Stibor, compared to patients without pain. There was no difference in the incidence of pain in patients with and without ascites.

Relationship between Spine Range of Motion and Functional Tests in University Students: The Role of Demographic Factors

“…The second step measures the distance between these points during maximal forward flexion. A less than 5 cm increase in length indicates a limited range of motion in the lumbar spine [27]. The test reliability is excellent, with an intraclass correlation of 0.96 and an interclass correlation of 0.90 [28].…”

“…The Stibor sign is a cumulative measure of the other two tests, Schober and Ott. To perform the test, we measure the increase in the distance between two skin marks, one over the first sacral spinous process and the other over the C7 spinous process, after maximal forward bending [27,29].…”

Muscle Strength and Joint Range of Motion of the Spine and Lower Extremities in Female Prepubertal Elite Rhythmic and Artistic Gymnasts

“…The one end of the metering was placed in the spinous process of C7 and the other on the spinous process of S1. The participant, with stretched knees, hands free, and head relaxed, bends the trunk forward [30,32,33]. In full flexion of the trunk the increased difference was measured (Figure 1).…”

“…Then, from the spinous process of the S1 was measured 10 cm upwards, i.e., to the level of the 1st and 2nd lumbar vertebrae (L1-L2). In trunk flexion with knees stretched, the difference will be increased by about 4-5 cm (Figure 3) [30,32,33,37].…”

“…to the level of the 1st and 2nd lum vertebrae (L1-L2). In trunk flexion with knees stretched, the difference will be increa by about 4-5 cm (Figure 3) [30,32,33,37]. The participant was in the standing position.…”