Open Access

Comparison of facet joint degeneration in firefighters and hospital office workers

  • Dong Hyun Kim1,
  • Yon Soo An1,
  • Hyung Doo Kim1,
  • Kyoung Sook Jeong1,
  • Yeon-Soon Ahn1Email author,
  • Kun-Hyung Kim2,
  • Youngki Kim3,
  • Han-Soo Song4,
  • Chul-Gab Lee4,
  • Young-Jun Kwon5 and
  • Jin-Ha Yoon6
Annals of Occupational and Environmental MedicineThe official journal of the Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Medicine201729:24

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40557-017-0180-1

Received: 13 March 2017

Accepted: 15 June 2017

Published: 24 June 2017

Abstract

Background

There are few published studies on the relationship between occupational lumbar load and facet joint degeneration (FJD). This cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate the effect of physical lumbar load on FJD by comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of firefighters (FFs) and hospital office workers (HOWs).

Methods

We randomly sampled 341 male FFs and 80 male HOWs by age stratification. A questionnaire and clinical examination, including MRI of the lumbar spine (T12-S1), were conducted. FJD was diagnosed and graded by using the classification of Pathria et al., and reclassified into two groups as follows: no FJD (grade 0) and FJD (grades 1, 2, and 3). The prevalence of FJD was analyzed according to occupational group.

Results

The prevalence of FJD ranged from 31% (L1–L2) to 75% (L4–L5) in the FFs, and from 18% (L1–L2) to 69% (L4–L5) in the HOWs. After adjustment for age, body mass index, and frequency of physical exercise, the adjusted odds ratios (OR) for FJD in the FFs were significantly higher than those in the HOWs at all lumbar spinal levels, except for L3–L4 (L1–L2: OR, 2.644; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.317–5.310; L2–L3: OR, 2.285; 95% CI, 1.304–4.006; L4–L5: OR, 1.918; 95% CI, 1.037–3.544; L5–S1: OR, 1.811; 95% CI, 1.031–3.181).

Conclusion

This study shows that FFs exhibit a greater likelihood of having FJD than HOWs after controlling for other risk factors of FJD. This suggests that the physical occupational demands of FFs affect their risk of developing FJD.

Keywords

Firefighters Facet joint degeneration Low back pain Physically demanding job Lumbar burden

Background

Facet joint degeneration (FJD) is one of the primary causes of low back pain (LBP) [13]. According to the existing literature, several significant risk factors of FJD have been identified, including female sex, obesity, short stature, aging, and intense physical exercise [36]. Additionally, mechanical damage to the lumbar spine occurs after repetitive lumbar flexion and twisting motions [7]. For example, the prevalence of FJD in tennis athletes, who typically perform such movements, is 4 or 5 times higher than that in the age-matched general population [3, 8, 9]. In another study, strenuous physical activities were shown to be associated with a high prevalence of FJD [10]. As demonstrated in a previous study, repetitive lumbar flexion, lateral bending, and twisting induce facet joint arthropathy. However, few studies have investigated the relationship between jobs that involve a physical lumbar load and FJD [11].

Firefighters (FFs) are known to perform more physical activities in relation to their job than the general population [12]. Evaluation of job-related movements using ergonomic tools, such as the National Institute of Occupational Safety Health lifting equation, or the rapid entire body assessment, revealed that FFs frequently bend or twist their backs [7, 12]. FFs commonly perform intense physical activities involving a high load on the lumbar spine, such as fire suppression (FS), rescue operations, and emergency medical services (EMS). These activities include using heavy equipment, maintaining an improper posture in hazardous locations, carrying heavy equipment on the back, repeatedly pushing patients while transferring them, carrying patients on a stretcher, and bending their backs frequently [1315]. Such physically demanding activities place a burden on the lumbar spine and cause degenerative lumbar diseases, such as FJD, which eventually lead to LBP among FFs [1619]. Despite this, few studies have examined how a physically demanding job affects FJD [20].

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been found to be one of the most important diagnostic tools to identify anatomical abnormalities in the spine [2124]. However, most MRI studies do not focus on whether degenerative changes in the lumbar spine occur in individuals with a specific job. Based on MRI, this study aimed to objectively determine whether FFs, who have a higher lumber load due to their physical activities, have a higher likelihood of developing FJD than hospital office workers (HOWs), who have a relatively lower lumber load.

Methods

Study subjects

Firefighters

In this study, Korea was divided into five areas, and five fire stations were randomly sampled for each of the five areas. We made a request to the 25fire stations sampled, and were provided with lists of FFs including information about their sex, age, and duty from each of those departments. Male FFs on the lists were stratified according to their age (those in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s) and their duties at the time of the study (fire suppression, emergency medical service and rescue, and office workers). Then, they were randomly sampled in proportion to their parameters (aiming for the number of 350 FFs). Among the subjects sampled, the FFs who did not give consent for participation in this study were sampled as the second or third priority in consideration of their age and duties. Apart from those who were diagnosed by a physician with back injuries or diseases, the number of the final subjects was 341, including89 in their 20s, 96 in their 30s, 86 in their 40s, and 70 in their 50s.

Control group

We investigated what previous studies have done for selecting control group. Similar to our study, there was articles using “office worker” as a control. The office workers had sedentary work but were free to change posture and move around [25, 26]. So we selected hospital office workers as control group. For this study, lists of male HOWs were requested from five university hospitals located in each of the same areas as the sampled fire stations. From the lists, 20 workers each were randomly sampled according to their age group (those in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s). Excluding those who were diagnosed by a physician with back injuries or diseases, the total number of subjects was 80, with 20 individuals in each age group.

Study overview

In this study, questionnaire-based interviews, physical examination by a physician, lumbar radiography, and MRI were performed for FFs and HOWs over a 4-month period, from October 2014 to January 2015.

Questionnaire

The structured questionnaire consisted of questions regarding the general characteristics, occupational factors, and lifestyle factors known to affect FJD. The questionnaire was filled out by the subjects and then supplemented with interviews. The general characteristics included age (age groups: 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, and 50–59 years), height (cm), weight (kg), and body mass index (BMI).The lifestyle risk factors included smoking status (nonsmoker, ex-smoker, or current smoker), drinking status (less than 72 g alcohol intake per week or 72 g alcohol consumption per week), and frequency of physical exercise (<1 time/week, 1 or 2 times/week, or ≥3 times/week). Nonsmokers were defined as individuals who had never smoked, while ex-smokers were defined as individuals who had quit smoking >6 months prior to participating in the study. Based on the frequency of alcohol consumption per week (72 g/week), the subjects were divided into healthy drinkers and higher-risk drinkers. Frequent physical activity was defined as exercising more than 3 times/week. The occupational risk factors comprised the job duty performed for the longest duration (FFs typically perform different types of work on rotations, including fire suppression, emergency medical service and rescue, and office work) and employment duration (<5, 5–10, 10–20, and >20 years). People with lumbar spine injury or spine surgery were excluded from the study. The questionnaire survey was conducted on the presence or absence of back pain (in the past 1 year, patients complained of back pain for more than 1 day due to back pain: yes/no).

Physician examination

The subjects were interviewed about their medical history and physical measurements (height, weight), and then physical examinations (tenderness point in lower back, range of motion of forward backward lateral bending, sensory or motor weakness, straight leg raising test) were conducted.

Medical imaging tests

The protocol is pre-agreed format, imaging method and reading method. The protocol was created to score the facet joint degeneration reading. It also included disc herniation, foraminal stenosis, central canal stenosis and other spinal disease. It was essential to image and read in the same way. After a protocol was developed for simple lumbar radiography (anteroposterior, lateral, right oblique, left oblique, flexion, and extension in a standing position) and MRI, we performed medical imaging tests in accordance with the protocol, including sagittal and axial T1- and T2-weighted imaging of the spine. From the last thoracic level through the first sacral level, the MRI scans were performed on 1.5-T scanners. The slice thickness was 4 mm, and the length of the field of view ranged from 146 to 150 mm. Four radiologists and occupational environmental medicine specialists participated in the study and developed a reading paper by determining the contents to be read in simple radiographs and MR images. We determined what should be read on radiography and MRI, and developed a read sheet. By using simple radiography, we only determined the overall state in relation to the identifiable diseases and injury, such as kyphoscoliosis (scoliosis, kyphosis, and lordosis), spina bifida, spondylolysis, anterior or posterior spondylolisthesis, and fracture. After radiography, we used MRI to identify the degree of FJD (left and right), whether a slipped disk was present or absent (type of slipped disc and its direction), Pfirrmann grade (sign of a slipped disc and degeneration), the degree of central canal stenosis, and the degree of neural foraminal stenosis.

The classification method developed by Pathria et al. [27] was used to evaluate FJD. The degree of FJD on MR image was graded on a scale of 0 to 3(grade 0, normal; grade 1, degenerative changes that include joint space narrowing, cyst formation, small osteophytes without joint hypertrophy seen on axial or sagittal images; grade 2, joint hypertrophy and large osteophytes without fusion; and grade 3, bony fusion of the joint [28]). In the case of disagreement betweenthe readers about the grade, the higher grade was selected. To evaluate the degree of degeneration of the facet joints, each MR image was independently analyzed by two radiologists. Each radiologist read half of total MR images of subjects. A total four radiologists participated in reading MR images. The gamma values were compared in all spine segments in either left or right between the two radiologists. Kruskal’s gamma is a measure of rank correlation. It measures the strength of association of the cross table data. Value range from −1(100% negative association) to +1(100% positive association) [29]. The agreement among readings was a gamma value of 0.458–0.77.

Outcome

With respect to the primary outcome, this study aimed to determine the odds ratio of occurrence of FJD at each lumbar level of the FFs, with the HOWs serving as the control group. The occurrence of FJD was defined if Pathria facet joint degeneration grade is 1, 2 or 3 in either right or left side at spine segment.

Statistical analyses

To compare the risk factors for FJD (age, height, weight, body mass index, frequent exercise, working period, back pain experience, smoking, drinking) between FFs and HOWs, the t-test and chi-squared test were used. The chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney test, and ANOVA were used to compare FJD between age groups.

The odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of FJD among FFs as compared to HOWs was evaluated by binary logistic regression after controlling for age, BMI, smoking, and physical exercise.

To compare the risk factors for FJD (age, BMI, and frequent physical exercise) between the FFs and HOWs, we chose FJD as a dependent variable and age, BMI, and frequent exercise as independent variables in the ttest, chi-square test, Mann-Whitney test, ANOVA, and multiple logistic regression analysis. With the HOWs as the control group, the FJD of the FFs was adjusted forage, BMI, smoking, and frequent physical exercise, and then compared for the odds ratio at a 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical significance was determined as a pvalue of <0.05. R version 3.1.0 with moonBook packages was used for all the data analyses.

Results

General characteristics of the participants

The general characteristics of the participants in this study are shown in Table 1. There was no statistically significant difference in the age, body mass index, frequency of exercise, working period, or alcohol consumption between the two groups. The proportion of FFs who reported that they felt back pain for more than 1 day was significantly higher than that of HOWs (68.1% versus 55.0%, p=0.027).
Table 1

General characteristics of study participants

Variables

Firefighters(N = 341)

Office workers(N = 80)

p-value

n

%

n

%

Age (years)

20–29

89

26.0

20

25

0.832

30–39

96

28.4

20

25

 

40–49

86

25.1

20

25

 

50–59

70

20.5

20

25

 

Height (cm)

Mean ± SD

174.0 ± 5.12

174.7 ± 10.43

0.391

Weight (kg)

Mean ± SD

74.0 ± 8.11

74.2 ± 10.11

0.376

BMI

Mean ± SD

24.4 ± 2.49

25.0 ± 3.12

0.137

Physical exercise(times/week)

<1

112

32.9

23

28.8

0.703

1~2

113

33.1

30

37.5

 

≥3

116

34.0

27

33.7

 

Duration of

employment(years)

<5

112

32.8

21

26.2

0.771

5–9

48

14.1

14

17.5

 

10–14

32

9.4

8

10.0

 

15–19

51

15.0

11

13.8

 

≥20

98

28.7

26

32.5

 

Alcohol consumption

Healthy drinker

93

27.2

15

18.8

0.116

High

risk drinker

248

72.8

65

81.2

 

Smoking status

Non-smoker

119

34.9

31

38.7

0.397

Ex-smoker

121

35.5

22

27.5

 

Current smoker

101

29.6

27

33.8

 

Episode of back pain

No

109

31.9

36

45.0

0.027

Yes

232

68.1

44

55.0

 

SD standard deviation, BMI body mass index, Episode of back pain: 1 day with complaint from the lower back during the previous 1 year; Physical exercise: the number of exercises for more than 30 minutes per week; Healthy drinker: drink less than 72 grams of alcohol per week; High risk drinker: drink more than 72 grams of alcohol per week

Comparison of the prevalence of FJD in FFs and HOWs

There was a significant difference in the prevalence of FJD between FFs and HOWs at the L1–2 level (30.5%vs 17.5%, p=0.018) and the L2–3 level (51.0% versus 38.8%, p= 0.048).The difference in the prevalence of FJD between two groups at the L3–4, L4–5, and L5-S1 levels was not statistically significant (Table 2).
Table 2

Prevalence of facet joint degeneration (FJD) stratified by occupation in each spine segments

Segment

Firefighters

Office workers

p-value

n

%

n

%

L12

105

30.5

14

17.5

0.018

L23

174

51.0

31

38.8

0.048

L34

200

58.7

44

55.0

0.585

L45

257

75.4

55

68.8

0.225

L5S1

217

63.6

42

52.5

0.066

L12 lumbar spine levels 1–2, L23 lumbar spine levels 2–3, L34 lumbar spine levels 3–4, L45 lumbar spine levels 4–5, L5S1 lumbar spine level 5 and sacral spine level 1, FJD FJD was defined if Pathria facet joint degeneration grade is 1, 2 or 3 in either right or left side

As compared to the HOWs, the odds ratios of FJD prevalence among the FFs were not significant. The odds ratios adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, and frequent exercise, all of which are known to be risk factors for FJD. Except for FJD at the L3–4 level, the odds ratios of FJD at the L1–2, L2–3, L4–5, and L5-S1 levels were statistically significantly higher in the FFs than in the HOWs (Table 3).
Table 3

Odds ratio for facet joint degeneration (FJD) at various spine levels, measuring risk in emergency responders compared to risk in hospital office workers

Segment

Unadjusted odds ratio (95% CI)

p-value

Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI)

p-value

L12

1.78 (0.97–3.30)

0.071

2.64 (1.32–5.31)

0.006

L23

1.49 (0.91–2.41)

0.125

2.29 (1.30–4.01)

0.004

L34

1.08 (0.67–1.74)

0.778

1.41 (0.81–2.46)

0.228

L45

1.27 (0.76–2.11)

0.384

1.92 (1.04–3.54)

0.038

L5S1

1.41 (0.87–2.26)

0.171

1.81 (1.03–3.18)

0.039

CI confidence interval, L12 lumbar spine levels 1–2, L23 lumbar spine levels 2–3, L34 lumbar spine level 3–4, L45 lumbar spine levels 4–5, L5S1 lumbar spine level 5 and sacral spine level 1, FJD FJD was defined if Pathria facet joint degeneration grade is 1, 2 or 3 in either right or left side; Adjusted factors: age, body mass index, frequency of physical exercise

Discussion and conclusions

We analyzed and compared the prevalence of FJD in FFs and HOWs according lumbar level. The results showed that, the FJD prevalence was higher among the FFs than among the HOWs at all lumbar levels, except for the L3–4 level, and this difference were significant. These findings were noted after adjustment for age, BMI, and frequent physical exercise, which are potential risk factors for FJD; moreover, the odds ratio of FJD was 1.81 to 2.64 times higher for the FFs than for the HOWs.

There is the suspected reason of indifference in L3-L4 level between two groups. There are two reasons for these findings. First, there would be a significant difference affecting lower lumbar segment between FF and HOW’s working environment. Second, the main difference between FFs and office workers (OWs) may be both manual material handling (lifting) and lumbar bending or twisting [7], which might affects upper lumbar levels more than lower lumbar levels. Considering that FJD at the lower lumbar levels is common in both groups (FFs and OWs), it is reasonable that a remarkable difference exists in the upper lumbar levels. L3–4 is neither the upper part nor the lower part. L3–4 load, twisting motion was not enough to cause the FJD difference between two groups. However, data that support these assumptions are still lacking, and further study is needed.

Risk factors known to cause FJD include age, sex, race, anatomically abnormal lumbar structure (e.g., scoliosis), individual genetic predisposition, overweight, long-time sedentary posture, occupation, nutrition, and lifestyle habits [3, 30, 31].

According to Panjabi, FJD exacerbated as it became closer to the bottom of the lumbar, and L45 was worse than L5S1 [31, 32]. In this study, both the FFs and OWs showed that as FJD became closer to the bottom of the lumbar, its prevalence increased. The results revealed that degeneration atL45 was more advanced than at L5S1, which were consistent with the results of the aforementioned study. This could be because as it went down near the bottom, the height of the disk lowered and the caudal segment motion of the lumbar increased, placing more loads, which was heaviest at L45.

The authors of a previous study [30] argued that FJD occurs when the load in facet joints increases due to a lowering disk height and spinal segmental instability arising from vertebral disk degeneration. However, other researchers suggested a weak correlation between disk degeneration and FJD [3335]. Nevertheless, greater physical load on facet joints means that nearby disks, ligaments, muscles, and other supporting systems weaken, or as segmental instability increases in the spine, it applies more mechanical load to facet joints. Even without medical history of disk diseases or abnormalities in ligaments and muscles near the lumbar, repeated motion could increase segmental instability in the spine. We think field activity of FFs represents the stress on lumbar spine. We believe that an ergonomic study will be needed in the future to investigate whether repeated labor increases spinal segmental instability and accordingly places greater physical lumbar load in facet joints.

This study has some limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study and hence, we could not track change of individual FFs and HOWs. Second, the FF group might have had a healthy worker effect as that noted in FFs involved in the World Trade Center collapse [36]. FFs are selected people with certain level of performance. If FFs are injured, they could change task or quit their job. For this reason, the differences between the two groups in this study might have been diluted. Third, we did not quantify lumbar burden for each duty and did not determine each of their correlations with FJD. Fourth, we did not evaluate the objective evidence of lumbar loading. Fifth, we did not include the duration of job employment as an adjusting factor, although working duration may be an important consideration when comparing firefighters and hospital office workers. Lastly There was no statistically significant difference in simple prevalence between the two groups because the number of HOW was small. If there were a large number of HOW’s, there would have been a difference because of the increase in statistical power.

This study has several advantages as compared to previous studies. First, the study was well designed, and used a stratified random sampling method. Second, while the existing studies examined differences in lumbar diseases among occupations, mainly with respect to LBP prevalence, this study evaluated lumbar changes using MRI, an objective diagnostic tool. FJD differences between the two groups were clearly observed by MRI. This is in contrast to previous studies that explained differences in occupational burden based on LBP alone [3742], and to a study that used MRI and compared nurses according to each duty to determine the presence or absence of LBP or severe disk degeneration [43]. This study selected FFs with a high lumbar load and HOWs, who were believed to have relatively lower lumbar loads, and demonstrated that occupational lumbar load could lead to FJD. Third, the study included a sufficient number of subjects, which was >400; however, to the author’s knowledge, other study that looked at the relationship between occupation and lumbar degeneration through MRI were 109 cases [43]. Fourth, by matching stratified random samples with the control group, we reduced the selection bias in this study. Fifth, this study did not include women who were at risk of developing FJD while adjusting for risk factors such as age, BMI, and frequent physical exercise to determine the odds ratio, thereby minimizing the effect of confounding factors that could affect the results of this study. Lastly, this study is the first to address FJD in FFs and is one of the rare studies to examine correlations between occupational lumbar load and FJD. This study is meaningful in that firefighting as an occupation was found to have a significant correlation with the development of FJD.

In conclusion, the development of FJD has significant relationship with occupational lumbar load. This study demonstrated that the prevalence of FJD was higher among FFs than among HOWs. This shows a clear correlation between FFs’ occupational lumbar load and the risk of developing FJD. However, additional studies are needed to investigate correlations between activities that confer lumbar burden and lumbar degenerative diseases, occupational lumbar burden (quantification), correlations between occupational lumbar load and FJD in occupations other than firefighting, and correlations between degenerative changes and LBP.

Abbreviation

BMI: 

Body mass index

CI: 

Confidence interval

EMS: 

Emergency medicalservices

FFs: 

Firefighters

FJD: 

Facet joint degeneration

FS: 

Fire suppression

HOWs: 

Hospital office workers

LBP: 

Low back pain

MRI: 

Magnetic resonance imaging

OR: 

Odds ratios

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This MRI research was supported by the Fire Fighting Safety & 119 Rescue Technology Research and Development Program, and funded by the Ministry of Public Safety and Security of Korea (2014–44). The funding source had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Funding

No funding received for this study.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

DHK and YSA de signed the study, drafted manuscript and analyzed data; YSA, HDK, YKK, HSS, CGL and JH Yoon collected data and analyzed data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted with the approval of the institutional review board of Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital (ID: 2014–82). We obtained informed consent from all the study participants.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Occupational Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital
(2)
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University
(3)
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Busan National University Yangsan Hospital
(4)
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine, Chosun University
(5)
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heaty Hospital
(6)
Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Yonsei University College of Medicine

References

  1. Patel VB, Wasserman R, Imani F: Interventional Therapies for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Focused Review (Efficacy and Outcomes).Anesthesiology and pain medicine 2015, 5.Google Scholar
  2. Bianchi M, Peterson CK, Pfirrmann CW, Hodler J, Bolton J. Are the presence of MODIC changes on MRI scans related to “improvement” in low back pain patients treated with lumbar facet joint injections? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Kim JS, Ahmadinia K, Li X, Hamilton JL, Andrews S, Haralampus CA, et al. Development of an Experimental Animal Model for Lower Back Pain by Percutaneous Injury-Induced Lumbar Facet Joint Osteoarthritis. J Cell Physiol. 2015;230:2837–47.Google Scholar
  4. Maataoui A, Vogl TJ, Middendorp M, Kafchitsas K, Khan MF. Association between facet joint osteoarthritis and the Oswestry Disability Index. World J Radiol. 2014;6:881–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Wen C, Li Y, Sun L, Xiao H, Yang B, Song L, et al. A clinical trial of ultrasound-guided facet joint block in the lumbar spine to treat facet joint related low back pain. Sichuan da xue xue bao Yi xue ban= Journal of Sichuan University Medical science edition. 2014;45:712–6.Google Scholar
  6. Proietti L, Schirò G, Sessa S, Scaramuzzo L. The impact of sagittal balance on low back pain in patients treated with zygoapophysial facet joint injection. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:628–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gentzler M, Stader S. Posture stress on firefighters and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) associated with repetitive reaching, bending, lifting, and pulling tasks. Work. 2010;37:227–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell A, Straker L, O’Sullivan P, Elliott B, Reid M. Lumbar loading in the elite adolescent tennis serve: link to low back pain. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45:1562–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Rajeswaran G, Turner M, Gissane C, Healy J. MRI findings in the lumbar spines of asymptomatic elite junior tennis players. Skelet Radiol. 2014;43:925–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Suri P, Hunter DJ, Boyko EJ, Rainville J, Guermazi A, Katz JN. Physical activity and associations with computed tomography–detected lumbar zygapophyseal joint osteoarthritis. Spine J. 2015;15:42–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Videman T, Nurminen M, Troup J. Lumbar Spinal Pathology in Cadaveric Material in Relation to History of Back Pain, Occupation, and Physical Loading. Spine. 1990;15:728–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Leischik R, Foshag P, Strauß M, Littwitz H, Garg P, Dworrak B, et al. Aerobic capacity, physical activity and metabolic risk factors in firefighters compared with police officers and sedentary clerks. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0133113.Google Scholar
  13. Lavender SA, Conrad KM, Reichelt PA, Kohok AK, Gacki-Smith J. Designing ergonomic interventions for emergency medical services workers—part III: bed to stairchair transfers. Appl Ergon. 2007;38:581–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Neesham-Smith D, Aisbett B, Netto K. Trunk postures and upper-body muscle activations during physically demanding wildfire suppression tasks. Ergonomics. 2014;57:86–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Broniecki M, Esterman A, May E, Grantham H. Musculoskeletal disorder prevalence and risk factors in ambulance officers. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2010;23:165–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Punakallio A, Lusa S, Luukkonen R, Airila A, Leino-Arjas P. Musculoskeletal pain and depressive symptoms as predictors of trajectories in work ability among Finnish firefighters at 13-year follow-up. J Occup Environ Med. 2014;56:367–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayer JM, Quillen WS, Verna JL, Chen R, Lunseth P, Dagenais S. Impact of a supervised worksite exercise program on back and core muscular endurance in firefighters. Am J Health Promot. 2015;29:165–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim MG, Kim K-S, Ryoo J-H, Yoo S-W. Relationship between occupational stress and work-related musculoskeletal disorders in Korean male firefighters. Annals of occupational and environmental medicine. 2013;25:1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim D-S, Moon M-K, Kim K-S. A Survey of musculoskeletal symptoms & risk factors for the 119 emergency medical services (EMS) activities. Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea. 2010;29:211–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Jang T-W, Ahn Y-S, Byun J, Lee J-I, Kim K-H, Kim Y, et al. Lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration and related factors in Korean firefighters. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e011587.Google Scholar
  21. Carragee E, Alamin T, Cheng I, Franklin T, van den Haak E, Hurwitz E. Are first-time episodes of serious LBP associated with new MRI findings? Spine J. 2006;6:624–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Takatalo J, Karppinen J, Niinimäki J, Taimela S, Näyhä S, Mutanen P, et al. Does lumbar disc degeneration on magnetic resonance imaging associate with low back symptom severity in young Finnish adults? Spine. 2011;36:2180–9.Google Scholar
  23. Chou D, Samartzis D, Bellabarba C, Patel A, Luk KD, Kisser JMS, Skelly AC: Degenerative magnetic resonance imaging changes in patients with chronic low back pain: a systematic review. Spine 2011, 36:S43-S53.Google Scholar
  24. Boden SD, Davis D, Dina T, Patronas N, Wiesel S. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:403–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Luoma K, Riihimäki H, Luukkonen R, Raininko R, Viikari-Juntura E, Lamminen A. Low back pain in relation to lumbar disc degeneration. Spine. 2000;25:487–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Leino-Arjas P, Hänninen K, Puska P. Socioeconomic variation in back and joint pain in Finland. Eur J Epidemiol. 1998;14:79–87.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pathria M, Sartoris D, Resnick D. Osteoarthritis of the facet joints: accuracy of oblique radiographic assessment. Radiology. 1987;164:227–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Park MS, Moon S-H, Kim T-H, Lee SY, Jo Y-G, Riew KD. Relationship between modic changes and facet joint degeneration in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:2999–3004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Goodman LA, Kruskal WH. Measures of association for cross classifications, IV: Simplification of asymptotic variances. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;67:415–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Kalichman L, Li L, Kim D, Guermazi A, Berkin V, O’Donnell CJ, et al. Facet joint osteoarthritis and low back pain in the community-based population. Spine. 2008;33:2560.Google Scholar
  31. Kalichman L, Hunter DJ: Lumbar facet joint osteoarthritis: a review. In Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism. Elsevier; 2007: 69-80.Google Scholar
  32. Ha K-Y, Chang C-H, Kim K-W, Kim Y-S, Na K-H, Lee J-S. Expression of estrogen receptor of the facet joints in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2005;30:562–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewin T. Osteoarthritis in lumbar synovial joints: a morphologic study. Acta Orthop Scand. 1964;35:1–112.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Swanepoel M, Adams L, Smeathers J. Human lumbar apophyseal joint damage and intervertebral disc degeneration. Ann Rheum Dis. 1995;54:182–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Videman T, Battié MC, Gill K, Manninen H, Gibbons LE, Fisher LD. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings and Their Relationships in the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine: Insights Into the Etiopathogenesis of Spinal Degeneration. Spine. 1995;20:928–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Prezant DJ, Weiden M, Banauch GI, McGuinness G, Rom WN, Aldrich TK, et al. Cough and bronchial responsiveness in firefighters at the World Trade Center site. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:806–15.Google Scholar
  37. Ko S, Vaccaro AR, Lee S, Lee J, Chang H. The prevalence of lumbar spine facet joint osteoarthritis and its association with low back pain in selected Korean populations. Clin Orthop Surg. 2014;6:385–91.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Abenhaim L, Suissa S. Importance and economic burden of occupational back pain: a study of 2,500 cases representative of Quebec. J Occup Environ Med. 1987;29:670–4.Google Scholar
  39. Hoogendoorn W, Bongers P, De Vet H, Ariens G, Van Mechelen W, Bouter L. High physical work load and low job satisfaction increase the risk of sickness absence due to low back pain: results of a prospective cohort study. Occup Environ Med. 2002;59:323–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Chaffin DB, PARK KS. A longitudinal study of low-back pain as associated with occupational weight lifting factors. The American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 1973;34:513–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Eriksen W. The prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in Norwegian nurses’ aides. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2003;76:625–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Smedley J, Egger P, Cooper C, Coggon D. Manual handling activities and risk of low back pain in nurses. Occup Environ Med. 1995;52:160–3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Schenk P, Läubli T, Hodler J, Klipstein A. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine: findings in female subjects from administrative and nursing professions. Spine. 2006;31:2701–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement