All Rights Reserved – ISPI 2008 1

A Scientific Rationale for Treating Lumbar Facet Joint Dysfunction with

Physical Therapy

The ever-increasing number of spine related disorders along with limited funds available to treat spinal

disorders, has lead to the development and implementation of evidence-based medicine. Third party

payers have used evidence-based practice (EBP) to force clinicians to prove the efficacy of their

interventions, if they were to be paid for their interventions.1 This has lead to a hierarchy of evidence,

with randomized controlled trials (RCT’s) and systematic reviews of RCT’s as the “highest” forms of

evidence. In developing a best-evidence approach for the efficacy of physical therapy (PT) in treating

lumbar facet joint dysfunction, EBP would require us to search for the systematic reviews and RCT’s. The

main problem with this is that PT, although utilized successfully in various forms of LBP2-5

, does not

target a specific tissue. Whereas procedures such as medial branch blocks can be very specialized and

precise6, 7

, especially with the visual feedback using fluoroscopy, treatments such as spinal

manipulation3, exercise

8, 9, traction

10 and more have shown efficacy in treating LBP, their effect on a

precise tissue such as intervertebral disc (IVD), facet joint, muscle or ligament is unknown. To develop a

scientific rationale for PT treatment for lumbar facet joints, it is suggested that clinicians view the patho-

anatomy of lumbar facet joints, their clinical presentations and the effect of PT on these pathological

changes and clinical presentations.

The lumbar spine consists of 5 paired, 10-total facet joints. These joints are synovial joints and

anatomically consist of:

1. Superior and inferior articular processes. These processes are lined with hyaline cartilage, which

serves as load-bearing surfaces. The hyaline cartilage is dependent on movement, more

precisely compression and distraction to maintain adequate nutrition to the cartilage.4, 11

The

articular surfaces are avascular through diffusion, via movement, allows nutrition to flow from

mainly the synovial fluid inside the facet joint to keep the cartilage healthy. Numerous studies

have shown that in the absence of movement, articular cartilage in the lumbar facet joints will

imbibe more fluid, cause the articular cartilage to swell and ultimately lead to articluar splitting

and wearing of the cartilage, potentially exposing the subchondral bone-plate, which is highly

innervated and a potential cause of facet joint pain, especially on weight-bearing. The fact that

articular cartilage is dependent on movement to keep it healthy and hydrated would imply that

All Rights Reserved – ISPI 2008 2

movement-based treatments such as spinal mobilization (level-specific, oscillating compression

and distraction techniques on the facet joints) and exercises aimed at creating movement of the

lumbar spine may be of benefit in treating lumbar facet joints. A recent cadaver study on

patients that did not survive car accidents, by dissecting the lumbar spines, have shown that >

70% of these facet joints showed damage, none of which were shown on standard lumbar X-

rays, pre-dissection12

. These joints showed damage (articluar splitting and swelling) of the facet

joints. It could be argued if these patients survived the accidents, and after subsequent X-rays,

may have been referred to PT. Treatments aimed at allowing normal movement, along with

compression/distraction techniques would more than likely allow the injured cartilage receive

much needed nutrition, which may/may not correlate to decreased pain and increased function.

The facet can be viewed the same as swollen, inflamed knee joint. Best evidence would require

early, gentle movement to a “swollen, hot” knee. The same may apply to lumbar facet joints.

Recent MRI studies have implicated facet joint swelling in LBP populations.13

The authors argue

that increased mechanical loading on facet joints, along with degenerative changes cause

swelling in facet joints, which can be readily detected on MRI, compared to uninjured levels and

normal healthy volunteers.13, 14

These studies would imply that injured and degenerated facet

joints are swollen, which I turn makes an added case for the potential of movement based

strategies such as mobilization and exercise to decrease joint swelling and thus pain.

2. Capsule. The articluar surfaces are surrounded by a thick, fibrous capsule, which encapsulates

the synovial fluid, which is critical to maintain nutrition of the articluar cartilage (see above). The

collagenous capsule allows for normal movement in various planes. As with any other collagen,

it responds well to slow movements as well as sustained movements. The capsule, however,

does not respond well to sudden movement. Sudden movement of the lumbar spine, especially

at end-ROM, may result in tearing of the collagen.12

This could be compared to an ankle sprain,

where sudden movement causes different degrees of collagen damage (grade I, II or III). The

injured tissue (capsule) will go through the normal phases of healing: inflammation, scarring and

remodeling. In ankle sprains, early movement and subsequent progressive load is applied to the

ligament to help the ankle heal. Basic sciences would imply that progressive exercises towards

the end-ROM of the joint (flexion and extension) may help keep the capsule “stretched out” –

which in turn allows normal movement of the joint, adequate synovial fluid flow and thus

healthy cartilage (see above).4 Also interesting to note is that recent studies have implicated

facet joints in the development of lumbar radiculopathy.15

In the past inflammatory properties

of the IVD have been implicated in the pathogenesis of lumbar radiculopathy due to chemical

activation of the dorsal root ganglion.16, 17 Tachihara et al, in discussion of the possible causes of

lumbar radiculopathy due to lumbar facets, implicates (amongst other potential causes), the

facet joint capsule. Movement-based approaches aimed at capsular healing may thus potentially

also have an effect on lumbar radiculopathy due to facet joint irritation.

All Rights Reserved – ISPI 2008 3

a. Multifidus. In the lumbar spine, the facet joint capsule is reinforced by the multifidus

(MF). The lumbar multifidus along with the transverses abdominus (TA) are very

important in the spinal stabilization mechanism.18

In normal, healthy people, MF and TA

fires prior to the use of the upper and lower extremities (feedforward control) to allow a

person to lift/use the extremity without causing unwanted stress on the local spinal

levels.19-23

In LBP populations, this feedforward mechanism is altered (delayed), which

leads to increased stress on the local spinal level. 19-23

MRI studies have shown that MF

atrophy is side and level-specific, as well as non-pathology specific.24-28

This may in

essence implicate the facet joints, based on the fact that the MF receives it’s nerve

supply from the dorsal ramus, which also innervates the local facet joint.29

Spinal stabilization, by virtue of retraining the feed-forward, co-contraction of the TA

and MF may work by abolishing the unwanted stress on the local spinal level, including

facet joint. Numerous studies have shown the benefit of spinal stabilization in treating

LBP.8, 9, 18, 30-32

An analogy to the facet joint capsule laxity/instability would be a medial

collateral ligament (MCL) injury. Injury to the MCL causes the knee to have increased

joint play and valgus, thus causing additional painful excursion and loading of the knee

joint. To help compensate for the MCL and the knee’s lack of stability, PT will often

strengthen the quadriceps, specifically the vastus mediallis (VMO) thus utilizing more

motor control to take unwanted stress off the knee, allowing it to heal and protecting it

from further damage (especially in the healing phase). Could this be the same for MF?

By retraining MF (along with TA), the facet joint’ stability could be enhanced, take

unwanted stress off the pain-sensitive joint, thus helping control and manage the

patient’s LBP.

b. Ligamentum flavum. In the lumbar spine, the part of the facet joint is reinforced by the

ligamentum flavum (LF). The LF consists of a high concentration of elsatin fibers,

allowing it to always be taught, thus not allowing it to “buckle” into the spinal canal,

causing neurovascular compromise.33, 34

Apart from bony changes to the lumbar

vertebrae (bone spurs, vertebral compression) and age-related changes to the lumbar

disc35

the LF has been implicated in the development of degenerative lumbar spinal

stenosis.5, 36

With aging, the LF becomes thicker and less elastic. This allows for a steady

encroachment of the spinal canal – hence degenerative spinal stenosis. Spinal stenosis is

a progressive disorder and clinical presentations may vary from mild to moderate to

severe. Patients with minimal to moderate spinal stenosis often get’s referred to PT for

conservative management. 5 A recent systematic review have shown that PT is very

effective in treating mild to moderate degenerative spinal stenosis:

i. Treadmill or cycling with body weight support37, 38

. It could be argued that

aquatic exercise that mimic such activities, or an underwater treadmill could

potentially provide similar results

ii. Lumbar traction37, 38

iii. Flexion exercises37, 38

All Rights Reserved – ISPI 2008 4

iv. Manual therapy38

3. Nerve supply. A final potential mechanism for pain relief from PT for facet joint pain may be the

same nerve supply that implicates the utilization of medial branch blocks and radiofrequency.

The lumbar facet joint receives innervation from the medial branch of the dorsal ramus.29

All of

the research into spinal stabilization, feedforward control and the immediate effect of pain on

the size and contraction of the MF had lead researchers to ask if treatments aimed at a spinal

level may have a neuro-physiolgical effect on the local muscles and thus create a mechanism of

pain control.21, 26, 39

A recent pilot study examined the immediate effect of spinal manipulation

(high-velocity, small amplitude) technique on the local stabilizing muscles utilizing diagnostic

ultrasound. This preliminary study showed that immediately post-manipulation, that the TA had

an immediate statistically significant increase in size in 8 out of 9 patients when asked to

perform a deep corset control maneuver.39

This study showed an immediate neuro-muscular

effect of a spinal manipulation, which led to a better quality contraction of the stabilizing

muscles, associated with protecting the local facet joint.

The previous passages are aimed at developing a theoretical model for the efficacy of treating facet joint

based pain with movement-based approaches utilized in physical therapy. It is interesting to note that

each and all of these mechanisms described above are all inter-related – stabilization, movement, motor

control and pain relief. These “anatomical” and “biomechanical” models described above do not take

into account additional potential benefits of PT intervention on a more cerebral level. New research into

pain science education utilized by physical therapists (aimed at explaining a patient’s pain to them,

decreasing fear, explaining the biology behind their pain) have shown significant changes in regards to

pain beliefs and attitudes 40, 41

, improved cognition and physical performance 42

, increased pain

thresholds and improved outcomes from therapeutic exercise 43, 44

. Improved understanding of pain

science or neurophysiology may also lead to a decrease in the fear and anxiety associated with spinal

surgery, and could potentially result in better outcomes related to decreased pain and improved

function 45

.

The aforementioned passages also make for another case: the importance of the relationship between a

good manual physical therapist and a physician able to help with diagnostic labeling, testing and pain

management. The effect of pain is well-known. Treatments such as radiofrequency and medial branch

blocks may be able to help decrease pain associated with a local facet disorder,46-48

while the patient

(now with less pain) may benefit from physical therapy aimed at restoring normal movement and

function along with decreasing fear associated with the injury.

References

1. Sackett DL. Evidence-based medicine. Spine. 1998;23:1085-1086

2. Waddell G, Burton AK. Concepts of rehabilitation for the management of low back pain. Best

Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005;19:655-670

All Rights Reserved – ISPI 2008 5

3. Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW, Irrgang JJ, Johnson KK, Majkowski GR, Delitto A. A clinical

prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal

manipulation: A validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:920-928

4. Twomey LT. A rationale for the treatment of back pain and joint pain by manual therapy. Phys

Ther. 1992;72:885-892

5. Fritz JM, Delitto A, Welch WC, Erhard RE. Lumbar spinal stenosis: A review of current concepts in

evaluation, management, and outcome measurements. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79:700-

708

6. Bogduk N. International spinal injection society guidelines for the performance of spinal

injection procedures. Part 1: Zygapophysial joint blocks. Clin J Pain. 1997;13:285-302

7. Bogduk N. Diagnostic blocks: A truth serum for malingering. Clin J Pain. 2004;20:409-414

8. O'Sullivan PB, Phyty GD, Twomey LT, Allison GT. Evaluation of specific stabilizing exercise in the

treatment of chronic low back pain with radiologic diagnosis of spondylolysis or

spondylolisthesis. Spine. 1997;22:2959-2967

9. Hodges PW. Core stability exercise in chronic low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;34:245-

254

10. Clarke J, van Tulder M, Blomberg S, de Vet H, van der Heijden G, Bronfort G. Traction for low

back pain with or without sciatica: An updated systematic review within the framework of the

cochrane collaboration. Spine. 2006;31:1591-1599

11. Twomey LT, Taylor JR. Sagittal movements of the human lumbar vertebral column: A

quantitative study of the role of the posterior vertebral elements. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.

1983;64:322-325

12. Twomey LT, Taylor JR, Taylor MM. Unsuspected damage to lumbar zygapophyseal (facet) joints

after motor-vehicle accidents. Med J Aust. 1989;151:210-212, 215-217

13. Friedrich KM, Nemec S, Peloschek P, Pinker K, Weber M, Trattnig S. The prevalence of lumbar

facet joint edema in patients with low back pain. Skeletal Radiol. 2007;36:755-760

14. Rihn JA, Lee JY, Khan M, Ulibarri JA, Tannoury C, Donaldson WF, 3rd, Kang JD. Does lumbar facet

fluid detected on magnetic resonance imaging correlate with radiographic instability in patients

with degenerative lumbar disease? Spine. 2007;32:1555-1560

15. Tachihara H, Kikuchi S, Konno S, Sekiguchi M. Does facet joint inflammation induce

radiculopathy?: An investigation using a rat model of lumbar facet joint inflammation. Spine.

2007;32:406-412

16. Ozaktay AC, Kallakuri S, Cavanaugh JM. Phospholipase a2 sensitivity of the dorsal root and

dorsal root ganglion. Spine. 1998;23:1297-1306

17. Takebayashi T, Cavanaugh JM, Cuneyt Ozaktay A, Kallakuri S, Chen C. Effect of nucleus pulposus

on the neural activity of dorsal root ganglion. Spine. 2001;26:940-945

18. Richardson CA, Jull GA. Muscle control-pain control. What exercises would you prescribe? Man

Ther. 1995;1:2-10

19. Hodges P, Cresswell A, Thorstensson A. Preparatory trunk motion accompanies rapid upper limb

movement. Exp Brain Res. 1999;124:69-79

20. Hodges PW. Changes in motor planning of feedforward postural responses of the trunk muscles

in low back pain. Exp Brain Res. 2001;141:261-266

21. Hodges PW, Moseley GL, Gabrielsson A, Gandevia SC. Experimental muscle pain changes

feedforward postural responses of the trunk muscles. Exp Brain Res. 2003;151:262-271

22. Hodges PW, Richardson CA. Feedforward contraction of transversus abdominis is not influenced

by the direction of arm movement. Exp Brain Res. 1997;114:362-370

All Rights Reserved – ISPI 2008 6

23. Tsao H, Hodges PW. Immediate changes in feedforward postural adjustments following

voluntary motor training. Exp Brain Res. 2007;181:537-546

24. Gille O, Jolivet E, Dousset V, Degrise C, Obeid I, Vital JM, Skalli W. Erector spinae muscle changes

on magnetic resonance imaging following lumbar surgery through a posterior approach. Spine.

2007;32:1236-1241

25. Hides JA, Belavy DL, Stanton W, Wilson SJ, Rittweger J, Felsenberg D, Richardson CA. Magnetic

resonance imaging assessment of trunk muscles during prolonged bed rest. Spine.

2007;32:1687-1692

26. Hides JA, Richardson CA, Jull GA. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography of the

lumbar multifidus muscle. Comparison of two different modalities. Spine. 1995;20:54-58

27. Hides JA, Stokes MJ, Saide M, Jull GA, Cooper DH. Evidence of lumbar multifidus muscle wasting

ipsilateral to symptoms in patients with acute/subacute low back pain. Spine. 1994;19:165-172

28. Hodges P, Holm AK, Hansson T, Holm S. Rapid atrophy of the lumbar multifidus follows

experimental disc or nerve root injury. Spine. 2006;31:2926-2933

29. Bogduk N, Wilson AS, Tynan W. The human lumbar dorsal rami. J Anat. 1982;134:383-397

30. Goldby LJ, Moore AP, Doust J, Trew ME. A randomized controlled trial investigating the

efficiency of musculoskeletal physiotherapy on chronic low back disorder. Spine. 2006;31:1083-

1093

31. Hodges P, Jull G. Does strengthening the abdominal muscles prevent low back pain? J

Rheumatol. 2000;27:2286-2288

32. Jull GA, Richardson CA. Motor control problems in patients with spinal pain: A new direction for

therapeutic exercise. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000;23:115-117

33. Taylor JR, Twomey LT, Corker M. Bone and soft tissue injuries in post-mortem lumbar spines.

Paraplegia. 1990;28:119-129

34. Okada A, Harata S, Takeda Y, Nakamura T, Takagaki K, Endo M. Age-related changes in

proteoglycans of human ligamentum flavum. Spine. 1993;18:2261-2266

35. Twomey LT, Taylor JR. Age changes in lumbar vertebrae and intervertebral discs. Clin Orthop

Relat Res. 1987:97-104

36. Cho DY, Lin HL, Lee WY, Lee HC. Split-spinous process laminotomy and discectomy for

degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: A preliminary report. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6:229-239

37. Pua YH, Cai CC, Lim KC. Treadmill walking with body weight support is no more effective than

cycling when added to an exercise program for lumbar spinal stenosis: A randomised controlled

trial. Aust J Physiother. 2007;53:83-89

38. Whitman JM, Flynn TW, Childs JD, Wainner RS, Gill HE, Ryder MG, Garber MB, Bennett AC, Fritz

JM. A comparison between two physical therapy treatment programs for patients with lumbar

spinal stenosis: A randomized clinical trial. Spine. 2006;31:2541-2549

39. Raney NH, Teyhen DS, Childs JD. Observed changes in lateral abdominal muscle thickness after

spinal manipulation: A case series using rehabilitative ultrasound imaging. J Orthop Sports Phys

Ther. 2007;37:472-479

40. Moseley L. Combined physiotherapy and education is efficacious for chronic low back pain. Aust

J Physiother. 2002;48:297-302

41. Moseley GL, Nicholas MK, Hodges PW. A randomized controlled trial of intensive

neurophysiology education in chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain. 2004;20:324-330

42. Moseley GL, Brhyn L, Ilowiecki M, Solstad K, Hodges PW. The threat of predictable and

unpredictable pain: Differential effects on central nervous system processing? Aust J Physiother.

2003;49:263-267

All Rights Reserved – ISPI 2008 7

43. Moseley GL. Impaired trunk muscle function in sub-acute neck pain: Etiologic in the subsequent

development of low back pain? Man Ther. 2004;9:157-163

44. Moseley GL. Widespread brain activity during an abdominal task markedly reduced after pain

physiology education: Fmri evaluation of a single patient with chronic low back pain. Aust J

Physiother. 2005;51:49-52

45. Moseley GL. Evidence for a direct relationship between cognitive and physical change during an

education intervention in people with chronic low back pain. Eur J Pain. 2004;8:39-45

46. Bogduk N. Diagnostic nerve blocks in chronic pain. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol.

2002;16:565-578

47. Dreyfuss P, Halbrook B, Pauza K, Joshi A, McLarty J, Bogduk N. Efficacy and validity of

radiofrequency neurotomy for chronic lumbar zygapophysial joint pain. Spine. 2000;25:1270-

1277

48. Dreyfuss P, Schwarzer AC, Lau P, Bogduk N. Specificity of lumbar medial branch and l5 dorsal

ramus blocks. A computed tomography study. Spine. 1997;22:895-902

Pictures: Images courtesy of Dr. Lance Twomey (with permission)

Picture 1: lumbar facet joint. Note the

superior articular process cartilage

swelling and splitting, along with

decrease synovial space.

Injured facet joint

from an MVA. Note

the swelling and

bleeding.

All Rights Reserved – ISPI 2008 8

Normal facet joint.

Note the medially

placed (thick)

ligamentum flavum

Lumbar facet s/p MVA –

note the capsule damage

and potential laxity