Logo of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br)
Joint Replacement Instrumentation Limited (JRI) Ad
Quick search:        
          Advanced Search
Guest Access | Sign In
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume, Vol 88-B, Issue SUPP_II, 217.  
Copyright © 2006 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kamath, R.
Right arrow Articles by Mohsen, A.M.M.A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kamath, R.
Right arrow Articles by Mohsen, A.M.M.A

British Association of Spine Surgeons


Aberdeen, Scotland – 2–4 February, 2005

President – Mr R Marshall


RELEVANCE OF CLINICAL EXAMINATION IN LOW BACK PAIN AND/OR RADICULOPATHY.

KamathR. ; ChandranP. ; MalekS. ; and MohsenA.M.M.A

Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, UK

Introduction and Aims Back pain patients usually demand more time in clinic. A significant proportion of this time is spent in performing clinical examination. It has been recognised that detailed history of symptoms is the backbone in reaching the diagnosis and deciding the management plan for patients with lower back pain and/or radiculopathy. The aim of the study was to look at 1) Contributions from History and Examination. 2) Does Clinical Examination add any further information not identified from history?

Method A prospective, blinded study was carried out to determine the usefulness of history and clinical examination, individually to reach the diagnosis and plan the management. 75 consecutive lower back pain and/or radiculopathy patients were included in the study. Two orthopaedic registrars saw all the patients. One took detailed history and the other registrar performed clinical examination. Both registrars based on their information arrived at a provisional diagnosis. A consultant also took history and examined these patients. MRI scan was done as per clinical indication.

Results The data was analysed using standard statistics software. In all patients history suggested the possible diagnosis. Clinical examination did not add any further information to alter the course of management, which was planned for the patient. Clinical examination did not show any further information that was not identified in the MRI scan.

Conclusion Clinical examination does not add to the body of information available from history. Clinical examination does not add any further information not available on the scan. Clinical examination should be performed for patients considered for surgery to document the findings; here both subjective and objective assessment should be performed. Examination is not a useful screening tool.

Please send correspondance to BASS at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35 - 43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, UK.






(c) British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery All Rights Reserved
Registered charity no: 209299     Print ISSN: 0301-620X
Hip, Knee, Trauma, Upper limb, Foot & Ankle, Paediatrics, Oncology, Spine, Arthroplasty, General