Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Centralization in patients with sciatica: are pain responses to repeated movement and positioning associated with outcome or types of disc lesions?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

To determine the frequency of different patterns of centralization and their association with outcomes and MRI findings in patients experiencing sciatica.

Methods

A prospective longitudinal cohort study of 176 patients with radicular pain below the knee, who all had an MDT clinical assessment. Based on their pain response, patients were divided into five groups: abolition centralization, reduction centralization, unstable centralization, peripheralization, and “no effect”. Patients had an MRI.

Results

Overall, 84.8% of patients reported experiencing centralization, 7.3% peripheralized and 7.9% reported “no effect”. The median reduction in RMQ scores across all the three centralization groups was 9.5 points at 3 months, and 12.0 points at 12 months. The peripheralization group improved similarly. The ‘no effect’ group improved significantly lower (p < 0.001), by 3.0 at both time points. Patients who centralized, and peripheralized had a significantly reduction in leg pain, the “no effect” group demonstrated a less favorable outcome (p < 0.02). There was no association between pain responses and the type of disc lesion.

Conclusion

In patients with sciatica, centralization was common and associated with improvement in activity limitation and leg pain. Centralization was very common in ruptured disc therefore the study does not support the theory, that centralization only occurs if the intra-discal hydrostatic mechanism is functional.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bigos L et al (1994) Acute low back problems in adults, clinical practice guidelines. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, pp 1–160

    Google Scholar 

  2. Manniche C et al (1999) Low back pain. Frequency, management and prevention from an HTA perspective. Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment, Copenhagen, pp 1–107

  3. Kelsey JL, White AA III (1980) Epidemiology and impact of low-back pain. Spine 5:133–142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Heliovaara M, Impivaara O, Sievers K et al (1987) Lumbar disc syndrome in Finland. J Epidemiol Community Health 41:251–258

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Leboeuf-Yde C, Klougart N, Lauritzen T (1996) How common is low back pain in the Nordic population? Data from a recent study on a middle-aged general Danish population and four surveys previously conducted in the Nordic countries. Spine 21:1518–1525

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Manninen P, Riihimäki H, Heliövaara M (1995) Incidence and risk factors of low-back pain in middle-aged farmers. Occup Med (Lond) 45:141–146

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Shvartzman L, Weingarten E, Sherry H et al (1992) Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended conservative therapy versus surgical intervention in the management of herniated lumbar intervertebral disc. Spine 17:176–182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. McKenzie R, May S (2003) The lumbar spine. Mechanical diagnosis and therapy, 2nd edn. Spinal Publications New Zealand Ltd, Waikanae, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  9. Donelson R, Silva G, Murphy K (1990) Centralization phenomenon. Its usefulness in evaluating and treating referred pain. Spine 15:211–213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Donelson R, Grant W, Kamps C et al (1991) Pain response to sagittal end-range spinal motion. A prospective, randomized, multicentered trial. Spine 16:206–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Donelson R, Aprill C, Medcalf R et al (1997) A prospective study of centralization of lumbar and referred pain. A predictor of symptomatic discs and anular competence. Spine 22:1115–1122

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Long AL (1995) The centralization phenomenon. Its usefulness as a predictor or outcome in conservative treatment of chronic low back pain (a pilot study). Spine 20:2513–2520

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Karas R, McIntosh G, Hall H et al (1997) The relationship between nonorganic signs and centralization of symptoms in the prediction of return to work for patients with low back pain. Phys Ther 77:354–360

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sufka A, Hauger B, Trenary M et al (1998) Centralization of low back pain and perceived functional outcome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 27:205–212

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Werneke M, Hart DL, Cook D (1999) A descriptive study of the centralization phenomenon. A prospective analysis. Spine 24:676–683

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fritz JM, Delitto A, Vignovic M et al (2000) Interrater reliability of judgments of the centralization phenomenon and status change during movement testing in patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81:57–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Aina A, May S, Clare H (2004) The centralisation phenomenon of spinal symptoms—a systematic review. Man Ther 9:134–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kilpikoski S, Airaksinen O, Kankaanpaa M et al (2002) Interexaminer reliability of low back pain assessment using the McKenzie method. Spine 27:207–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Albert HB. Manniche C (2011) The efficacy of systematic active conservative treatment for patients with severe sciatica. A single-blind randomized clinical controlled trial (In review)

  20. Milette PC (1997) The proper terminology for reporting lumbar intervertebral disk disorders. Am J Neuroradiol 18:1859–1866

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Brant-Zawadzki M, Jensen MC, Obuchowski N et al (1995) Interobserver and intraobserver variability in interpretation of lumbar disc abnormalities: a comparison of two nomenclatures. Spine 20:1257–1263

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Masaryk TJ, Ross JS, Modic MT et al (1988) High-resolution MR imaging of sequestered lumbar intervertebral disks. Am J Roentgenol 150:1155–1162

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Solgaard Sorensen J, Kjaer P, Jensen ST et al (2006) Low-field magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine: reliability of qualitative evaluation of disc and muscle parameters. Acta Radiol 47:947–953

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Jensen TS, Albert HB, Soerensen JS, Manniche C, Leboeuf-Yde C (2006) Natural course of disc morphology in patients with sciatica: an MRI study using a standardized qualitative classification system. Spine 31:1605–1612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Werneke M, Hart D (2003) Discriminant validity and relative precision for classifying patients with nonspecific neck and back pain by anatomic pain patterns. Spine 28:161–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Werneke M, Hart DL, Resnik L et al (2008) Centralization: prevalence and effect on treatment outcomes using a standardized operational definition and measurement method. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 38:116–125

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wetzel FT, Donelson R (2003) The role of repeated end-range/pain response assessment in the management of symptomatic lumbar discs. Spine 3:146–154

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kopp JR, Alexander AH, Turocy RH et al (1986) The use of lumbar extension in the evaluation and treatment of patients with acute herniated nucleus pulposus. A preliminary report. Clin Orthop 202:211–218

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Natalie DeMorton. B.App.Sc (Physio), Ph.D. for performing the ANCOVA analysis.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Research Department, Spine Centre of Southern Denmark, Østre Houghvej 55, 5500, Middelfart, Denmark

    Hanne B. Albert, Eva Hauge & Claus Manniche

  2. Hospital Lillebaelt, Institute of Regional Health Services Recearch, University of Southern Denmark, Middelfart, Denmark

    Hanne B. Albert, Eva Hauge & Claus Manniche

Authors
  1. Hanne B. Albert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eva Hauge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claus Manniche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanne B. Albert.

Additional information

The study was funded by The Regional Institute of Health Sciences Research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Albert, H.B., Hauge, E. & Manniche, C. Centralization in patients with sciatica: are pain responses to repeated movement and positioning associated with outcome or types of disc lesions?. Eur Spine J 21, 630–636 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2018-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2018-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation