Multimodale Verfahren – auf die Mischung kommt es an!

Zusammenfassung.

Multimodale Behandlungsprogramme nach dem Konzept der “Functional restoration” (FR) haben ihre Effektivität für Patienten mit chronischen Rückenschmerzen gegenüber dem bisherigen Behandlungsvorgehen international bewiesen. Gleichwohl werden in den Studien große Unterschiede bzgl. des Erfolgsparameters “Rückkehr zur Arbeit” beobachtet, wobei sich die Effekte je nach Land erheblich unterscheiden (insbesondere USA – Skandinavien). Es gibt deutliche Hinweise dafür, dass die Uneinheitlichkeit dieser Ergebnisse auf die unterschiedlichen sozialrechtlichen Bedingungen in den jeweiligen Ländern zurückzuführen ist. Betrachtet man die Effektivität der Einzelbausteine der FR-Programme in Metaanalysen, zeigen z. B. Physikalische Therapie und Psychotherapie (behaviorale Verfahren) allein keine bzw. nur geringe (langfristige) Effekte. Es spricht vieles dafür, dass die einzelnen Verfahren (Trainingstherapie, Physikalische Therapie, Arbeitstraining, psychologische Therapie) nur in Kombination zum Erfolg führen bzw. die Effektivität rückführbar ist auf unspezifische (im weitesten Sinne psychologische) Wirkfaktoren des Gesamtkonzeptes. Bei der notwendigen Standardisierung der Behandlungsprogramme dürfen in Bezug auf Zielsetzung und therapeutische Vorgehensweisen individuelle Faktoren nicht vernachlässigt werden.

Abstract.

In the last 50 years conventional treatments have not been able to slow down the expanding chronic low back pain problem. However, nowadays health care has changed according to a broad biopsychosocial model of health, the positive effect of activity on health and healing, emphasis on function rather than pain or impairment, and reliance upon clinical evidence. In search for new solutions “functional restoration” (FR) programs have been developed. They include multidisciplinary treatment of patients in groups, consisting of 6–8 h of treatment a day, lasting 3 to 6 weeks and usually integrating intense physical and ergonomic training, psychological (behavioral) therapy, patient education, and instruction in social- and work-related issues. FR programs have yet to demonstrate their effectiveness in several countries. Controlled studies in the USA were very positive regarding the return-to-work rate, whereas studies in Scandinavian countries did not demonstrate similar results. Possible reasons for the different results concerning back-to-work ratios might be that study design, patient population, content of the program, and other external factors are different and studies as well as effects are therefore not directly comparable. According to several well-controlled studies, the most probable reason for this different effect may be that social and security (health care) systems and cultures differ among countries and that patients with chronic low back pain respond differently to this combination. Sick absenteeism and inability to work may be influenced by many factors besides pain that cannot be addressed by intervention or prevention programs, e.g., job satisfaction, education level, and the compensation systems. It may be that the lower economic benefit during sick leave in the United States leads to favorable results from functional restoration programs. Concerning the prediction of success, several studies have shown that medical background, diagnosis and physical impairment as well as physical variables (mobility, strength) have limited predictive value. Return to work and pain reduction are much better predicted by length of absence from work, application for pension, and the patients' disability in daily-life activities. In the last five years another important variable of success has been identified: avoidance behavior has been suspected to be a major contributor to the initiation and maintenance of chronic low back pain. The perpetuation of avoidance behavior beyond normal healing time subsequently leads to negative consequences such as “disuse syndrome”, which is associated with physical deconditioning, sick role behavior, psychosocial withdrawal and negative affect. Accordingly, fear-avoidance beliefs were strongly related to absenteeism from work due to back pain and were the best predictors of therapy outcome in 300 acute low back pain patients. In a prospective study on 87 patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) we demonstrated that fear-avoidance beliefs were the strongest predictors of return to work after a functional restoration treatment program. Although nonspecific mechanisms such as emotional disturbance, helplessness, pain anticipation, disability, and job circumstances could be identified as influencing the chronic pain process, we have to remember that long-lasting experience of pain is usually a very individual process in which several conditions may work together in a unique combination. Treatment procedures must consider this variability by focusing on general mechanisms, as well as on individual conditions and deficits. FR treatment strongly depends on behavioral principles that rule the whole therapeutic process: Adequate information is necessary to overcome unhelpful beliefs; information has to be related to the patients' daily experiences and their mental capability to understand them. Pacing, goal-setting, graded exposure with exercise quotas and permanent feedback as well as contingent motivation characterize the training procedures. Training procedures must incorporate the patients' daily activities early on. The patients' efficacy expectations are the most potent determinants of change in the training process. Exacerbation of pain is not taken as a failure of the therapeutic concept, but as a challenge to self-management. However, the important principle in managing chronic low back pain is “treating patients rather than spines.”