Outcomes after a prone lumbar traction protocol for patients with activity-limiting low back pain: a prospective case series study

Efficacy of intensive cervical traction on depression, insomnia, and quality of life in patients with cervical radiculopathy

BACKGROUND

Radiculopathy can cause pain and numbness along a pinched nerve.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how people with cervical radiculopathy respond to intense cervical traction in terms of depression, sleeplessness, and quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

Two equal groups of forty male patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy were randomly assigned. In addition to transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and other treatments, twenty individuals in group I received mechanical cervical traction. Group II consisted of twenty individuals who received only TENS treatment. Before and after treatment, every participant completed the Arabic versions of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36).

RESULTS

While there was no significant difference in group II, there was a significant decline in group I visual analog scale (P = 0.001), depression subscale of the hospital anxiety and depression score (P = 0.001), and ISI (P = 0.001). Eight domains of SF-36 showed a significant increase in group I. These domains included physical functioning (P = 0.001), role limitations due to physical health (P = 0.001), role limitations due to emotional problems (P = 0.001), and energy (P = 0.001). In group II, there was a non-significant increase nevertheless.

CONCLUSION

Cervical traction improved individuals' QoL, depression, and insomnia, suggesting the effectiveness of it with TENS for cervical radiculopathy patients.

The Real Time Geometric Effect of a Lordotic Curve-Controlled Spinal Traction Device: A Randomized Cross Over Study

Background: A standard spinal traction (ST) device was designed to straighten the spine without considering physiological lumbar lordosis. Using lordotic curve-controlled traction (LCCT), which maintains the lordotic curve during traction, the traction force would be applied to the posterior spinal structure effectively. Thus, the purpose of our study was to evaluate real-time biomechanical changes while applying the LCCT and ST. Methods: In this study, 40 subjects with mild non-radicular low back pain (LBP) were included. The participants underwent LCCT and ST in random order. Anterior and posterior intervertebral distance, ratios of anterior/posterior intervertebral distance (A/P ratio), and lordotic angles of intervertebral bodies (L2~L5) were measured by radiography. Results: Mean intervertebral distances were greater during LCCT than those measured prior to applying traction (p < 0.05). Mean A/P ratio was also significantly greater during LCCT than during ST or initially (p < 0.05). In particular, for the L4/5 intervertebral segment, which is responsible for most of the lordotic curve, mean LCCT angle was similar to mean lordotic angle in the standing position (10.9°). Conclusions: Based on measurements of radiologic geometrical changes with real-time clinical setting, the newly developed LCCT appears to be a useful traction device for increasing intervertebral disc spaces by maintaining lordotic curves.

Effect of spinal decompression therapy and core stabilization exercises in management of lumbar disc prolapse: A single blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Spinal decompression therapy (SDT) has recently been used as a conservative treatment for lumbar disc prolapse (LDP). The effectiveness of SDT when compared with other conservative techniques with a well-designed randomized controlled trials is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To find the efficacy of SDT and core stabilization exercises (CSE) on pain and functional disability in individuals with chronic LDP, and to compare with CSE alone.

METHODS

This single blind randomized controlled trial included thirty-one participants with a mean age of 38.68 ± 8.79 having chronic LDP with or without radiating symptoms were included in the study. The study group received SDT with CSE and control group received CSE alone along with interferential therapy for both groups. Pain and disability were estimated by Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Modified Oswestry Questionnaire (mOQ).

RESULTS

The results demonstrated significant within-group improvements in all outcomes in both groups, the mean differences between pre to post intervention in SDT with CSE group were (NRS: 4.75, t= 12.81, p⩽ 0.001) and (mOQ: 45.13, t= 29.34, p⩽ 0.001), while in CSE group (NRS: 2.60, t= 13.67, p⩽ 0.001) and (mOQ: 27.67, t= 24.52, p⩽ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of SDT with CSE has proven to be more significant when compared with CSE alone to reduce pain and disability in subjects with chronic LDP.

Mechanical Traction for Lumbar Radicular Pain: Supine or Prone? A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the effects of mechanical lumbar traction either in the supine or in the prone position with conventional physical therapy (PT) in patients with chronic low back pain and lumbosacral nerve root involvement in terms of disability, pain, and mobility.

DESIGN

Participants (N = 125) were randomly assigned to receive 15 sessions of PT with additional mechanical lumbar traction either in the supine position (supine traction group) or in the prone position (prone traction group) or only PT without traction (PT only group). Patients were assessed at baseline and at the end of the PT sessions in terms of disability, pain, and mobility. Disability was assessed using the modified Oswesty Disability Index; pain was assessed using a visual analog scale, and lumbar mobility was assessed using the modified lumbar Schober test.

RESULTS

One hundred eighteen patients completed the trial. All groups improved significantly in the Oswesty Disability Index, visual analog scale, and modified lumbar Schober test (P < 0.05). In the between-group analysis, improvements of Oswesty Disability Index and visual analog scale were found significantly better in the prone traction group compared with the PT only group (adjusted P = 0.031 and 0.006, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of traction in the prone position to other modalities resulted in larger immediate improvements in terms of pain and disability, and the results suggest that when using traction, prone traction might be first choice. Further research is needed to confirm the benefits of lumbar traction in the prone position.

Anxiety, depression, and quality of life in backache patients before and after spinal traction

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain has a negative impact on quality of life and psychological well-being. The objectives of this study are to investigate the psychological status and quality of life in backache patients before and after spinal traction and reflect how this maneuver is effective in treating backache.

METHODS

Forty-seven backache patients completed the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) and Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) before and after treatment with spinal traction. Forty-eight healthy controls, matched with patients for age and sex, completed the same questionnaires. Pain was assessed before and after the maneuver using a visual analog scale (VAS). Traction was added to patients' medications which were not enough to control patients' symptoms and did not change during the course of traction.

RESULTS

Before spinal traction, the mean VAS score was 7 ± 1.36, abnormal levels of anxiety and depression were found in 36.17% and 40.43%, respectively, of patients, and all SF-36 domains of the study population, except for physical functioning, showed mean scores < 50%. After spinal traction, the mean VAS score dropped significantly to 5.44 ± 1.51, abnormal levels of anxiety and depression became 14.9% and 21.3%, and all SF-36 domains improved significantly, with six of the eight domains showing mean scores > 50%. There were significant differences regarding all SF-36 domains, and anxiety and depression scores between patients and controls, in favor of controls, before traction. These differences disappeared after spinal traction.

CONCLUSION

Pain, psychological status, and quality of life improved when spinal traction was added to medications reflecting its efficacy for patients with backache.

Effects of Different Angles of the Traction Table on Lumbar Spine Ligaments: A Finite Element Study

Background

The traction bed is a noninvasive device for treating lower back pain caused by herniated intervertebral discs. In this study, we investigated the impact of the traction bed on the lower back as a means of increasing the disc height and creating a gap between facet joints.

Methods

Computed tomography (CT) images were obtained from a female volunteer and a three-dimensional (3D) model was created using software package MIMICs 17.0. Afterwards, the 3D model was analyzed in an analytical software (Abaqus 6.14). The study was conducted under the following traction loads: 25%, 45%, 55%, and 85% of the whole body weight in different angles.

Results

Results indicated that the loading angle in the L3–4 area had 36.8%, 57.4%, 55.32%, 49.8%, and 52.15% effect on the anterior longitudinal ligament, posterior longitudinal ligament, intertransverse ligament, interspinous ligament, and supraspinous ligament, respectively. The respective values for the L4–5 area were 32.3%, 10.6%, 53.4%, 56.58%, and 57.35%. Also, the body weight had 63.2%, 42.6%, 44.68%, 50.2%, and 47.85% effect on the anterior longitudinal ligament, posterior longitudinal ligament, intertransverse ligament, interspinous ligament, and supraspinous ligament, respectively. The respective values for the L4–5 area were 67.7%, 89.4%, 46.6%, 43.42% and 42.65%. The authenticity of results was checked by comparing with the experimental data.

Conclusions

The results show that traction beds are highly effective for disc movement and lower back pain relief. Also, an optimal angle for traction can be obtained in a 3D model analysis using CT or magnetic resonance imaging images. The optimal angle would be different for different patients and thus should be determined based on the decreased height of the intervertebral disc, weight and height of patients.

Age-related differences in the response of the L5-S1 intervertebral disc to spinal traction

BACKGROUND

Lumbar traction is a common treatment for low back pain; however its mechanisms of action are poorly understood. It has been hypothesized that a key effect of lumbar traction is its capacity to influence fluid movement within the intervertebral disc (IVD).

OBJECTIVES

To determine differences in the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) obtained with lumbar diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of the L5-S1 IVD before, and during, the application of lumbar traction.

DESIGN

Case series, repeated measures.

METHODS

A static traction load of ∼50% of body-weight was applied to the low back using a novel "MRI-safe" apparatus. DWI of the lumbar spine was performed prior to, and during the application of the traction load.

RESULTS

Participants were currently asymptomatic and included a young adult group (n = 18) and a middle-aged group (n = 15). The young adult group had a non-significant 2.2% increase in ADC (mean change = 0.03 × 10^-3 mm²/s, SD = 0.24, 95% CI = -0.09, 0.15). The ADC for the middle-aged group significantly increased by 20% (mean change of 0.18 × 10^-3 mm²/s, SD = 0.19; 95% CI = 0.07, 0.28; p = 0.003; effect size = 0.95). There was an inverse relationship between the ADC obtained before traction and the percent increase in ADC that was measured during traction.

CONCLUSION

Static traction was associated with an increase in diffusion of water within the L5-S1 IVDs of middle-age individuals, but not in young adults, suggesting age-related differences in the diffusion response. Further study is needed to assess the relationship between these findings and the symptoms of back pain.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

High-Force Versus Low-Force Lumbar Traction in Acute Lumbar Sciatica Due to Disc Herniation: A Preliminary Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the effects of high-force versus low-force lumbar traction in the treatment of acute lumbar sciatica secondary to disc herniation.

METHODS

A randomized double blind trial was performed, and 17 subjects with acute lumbar sciatica secondary to disc herniation were assigned to high-force traction at 50% body weight (BW; LT50, n = 8) or low force traction at 10% BW (LT10, n = 9) for 10 sessions in 2 weeks. Radicular pain (visual analogue scale [VAS]), lumbo-pelvic-hip complex motion (finger-to-toe test), lumbar-spine mobility (Schöber-Macrae test), nerve root compression (straight-leg-raising test), disability (EIFEL score), drug consumption, and overall evaluation of each patient were measured at days 0, 7, 1, 4, and 28.

RESULTS

Significant (P < .05) improvements were observed in the LT50 and LT10 groups, respectively, between day 0 and day 14 (end of treatment) for VAS (-44% and -36%), EIFEL score (-43% and -28%) and overall patient evaluation (+3.1 and +2.0 points). At that time, LT50 specifically improved in the finger-to-toe test (-42%), the straight-leg-raising test (+58), and drug consumption (-50%). No significant interaction effect (group-by-time) was revealed, and the effect of traction treatment was independent of the level of medication. During the 2-week follow-up at day 28, only the LT10 group improved (P < .05) in VAS (-52%) and EIFEL scores (-46%). During this period, no interaction effect (group-by-time) was identified, and the observed responses were independent of the level of medication.

CONCLUSIONS

For this preliminary study, patients with acute lumbar sciatica secondary to disc herniation who received 2 weeks of lumbar traction reported reduced radicular pain and functional impairment and improved well-being regardless of the traction force group to which they were assigned. The effects of the traction treatment were independent of the initial level of medication and appeared to be maintained at the 2-week follow-up.

Chiropractic Distraction Spinal Manipulation on Postsurgical Continued Low Back and Radicular Pain Patients: A Retrospective Case Series

PURPOSE

The purpose of this case series is to report on changes in pain levels experienced by 69 postsurgical continued pain patients who received Cox Technic Flexion Distraction (CTFD).

METHODS

Fifteen doctors of chiropractic collected retrospective data from the records of the postsurgical continued pain patients seen in their clinic from February to July 2012 who were treated with CTFD, which is a type of chiropractic distraction spinal manipulation. Informed consent was obtained from all patients who met the inclusion criteria for this study. Data recorded included subjective patient pain levels at the end of the treatments provided and at 24 months following the last treatment.

RESULTS

Fifty-four (81%) of the patients showed greater than 50% reduction in pain levels at the end of the last treatment, and 13 (19%) showed less than 50% improvement of pain levels at the end of active care (mean, 49 days and 11 treatments). At 24-month follow-up, of 56 patients available, 44 (78.6%) had continued pain relief of greater than 50% and 10 (18%) reported 50% or less relief. The mean percentage of relief at the end of active care was 71.6 (SD, 23.2) and at 24 months was 70 (SD, 25). At 24 months after active care, 24 patients (43%) had not sought further care, and 32 required further treatment consisting of chiropractic manipulation for 17 (53%), physical therapy, exercise, injections, and medication for 9 (28%), and further surgery for 5 (16%).

CONCLUSION

Greater than 50% pain relief following CTFD chiropractic distraction spinal manipulation was seen in 81% of postsurgical patients receiving a mean of 11 visits over a 49-day period of active care.

Manual unloading of the lumbar spine: can it identify immediate responders to mechanical traction in a low back pain population? A study of reliability and criterion referenced predictive validity

BACKGROUND

To date, no research has examined the reliability or predictive validity of manual unloading tests of the lumbar spine to identify potential responders to lumbar mechanical traction.

PURPOSE

To determine: (1) the intra and inter-rater reliability of a manual unloading test of the lumbar spine and (2) the criterion referenced predictive validity for the manual unloading test.

METHODS

Ten volunteers with low back pain (LBP) underwent a manual unloading test to establish reliability. In a separate procedure, 30 consecutive patients with LBP (age 50·86±11·51) were assessed for pain in their most provocative standing position (visual analog scale (VAS) 49·53±25·52 mm). Patients were assessed with a manual unloading test in their most provocative position followed by a single application of intermittent mechanical traction. Post traction, pain in the provocative position was reassessed and utilized as the outcome criterion.

RESULTS

The test of unloading demonstrated substantial intra and inter-rater reliability K = 1·00, P = 0·002, K = 0·737, P = 0·001, respectively. There were statistically significant within group differences for pain response following traction for patients with a positive manual unloading test (P<0·001), while patients with a negative manual unloading test did not demonstrate a statistically significant change (P>0·05). There were significant between group differences for proportion of responders to traction based on manual unloading response (P = 0·031), and manual unloading response demonstrated a moderate to strong relationship with traction response Phi = 0·443, P = 0·015.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The manual unloading test appears to be a reliable test and has a moderate to strong correlation with pain relief that exceeds minimal clinically important difference (MCID) following traction supporting the validity of this test.

Low back pain

The Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) has an ongoing effort to create evidence-based practice guidelines for orthopaedic physical therapy management of patients with musculoskeletal impairments described in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The purpose of these low back pain clinical practice guidelines, in particular, is to describe the peer-reviewed literature and make recommendations related to (1) treatment matched to low back pain subgroup responder categories, (2) treatments that have evidence to prevent recurrence of low back pain, and (3) treatments that have evidence to influence the progression from acute to chronic low back pain and disability.

No effect of traction in patients with low back pain: a single centre, single blind, randomized controlled trial of Intervertebral Differential Dynamics Therapy

Low back pain (LBP) poses a significant problem to society. Although initial conservative therapy may be beneficial, persisting chronic LBP still frequently leads to expensive invasive intervention. A novel non-invasive therapy that focuses on discogenic LBP is Intervertebral Differential Dynamics Therapy (IDD Therapy, North American Medical Corp. Reg U.S.). IDD Therapy consists of intermittent traction sessions in the Accu-SPINA device (Steadfast Corporation Ltd, Essex, UK), an FDA approved, class II medical device. The intervertebral disc and facet joints are unloaded through axial distraction, positioning and relaxation cycles. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of IDD Therapy when added to a standard graded activity program for chronic LBP patients. In a single blind, single centre, randomized controlled trial; 60 consecutive patients were assigned to either the SHAM or the IDD Therapy. All subjects received the standard conservative therapeutic care (graded activity) and 20 sessions in the Accu-SPINA device. The traction weight in the IDD Therapy was systematically increased until 50% of a person's body weight plus 4.45 kg (10 lb) was reached. The SHAM group received a non-therapeutic traction weight of 4.45 kg in all sessions. The main outcome was assessed using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for LBP. Secondary outcomes were VAS scores for leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-Form 36 (SF-36). All parameters were measured before and 2, 6 and 14 weeks after start of the treatment. Fear of (re)injury due to movement or activities (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia), coping strategies (Utrecht Coping List) and use of pain medication were recorded before and at 14 weeks. A repeated measures analysis was performed. The two groups were comparable at baseline in terms of demographic, clinical and psychological characteristics, indicating that the random allocation had succeeded. VAS low back pain improved significantly from 61 (+/-25) to 32 (+/-27) with the IDD protocol and 53 (+/-26) to 36 (+/-27) in the SHAM protocol. Moreover, leg pain, ODI and SF-36 scores improved significantly but in both groups. The use of pain medication decreased significantly, whereas scores for kinesiophobia and coping remained at the same non-pathological level. None of the parameters showed a difference between both protocols. Both treatment regimes had a significant beneficial effect on LBP, leg pain, functional status and quality of life after 14 weeks. The added axial, intermittent, mechanical traction of IDD Therapy to a standard graded activity program has been shown not to be effective.