Randomized controlled trial of specific spinal stabilization exercises and conventional physiotherapy for recurrent low back pain

Self-acknowledged limitations in exercise therapy trials for low back pain

RATIONALE

Despite the widespread recommendation to engage in therapeutic exercise for the treatment of low back pain (LBP), there is conflicting evidence regarding clinical outcomes and effectiveness. Poor methodological quality may be to blame for reducing the overall strength of evidence for this intervention, yet little is known about the difficulties researchers encounter when designing and implementing their study methods.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to characterize the extent and type of self-acknowledged limitations (SALs) in exercise therapy trials for LBP to gain a better understanding of challenges encountered when conducting this research.

METHODS

This is a methodological review of clinical trials in which SALs were extracted, categorized by theme and subcategorized within each theme. Counts and prevalence rates were tabulated for the number of SALs in each category and subcategory.

RESULTS

There were 914 SALs among the 312 included trials, with a mean of 2.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.77-3.09) per trial. Analysis of the data resulted in the development of 13 distinct categories of limitations, among which were 37 subcategories. The top three categories pertained to statistical power (14.3% of total SALs), study length and/or follow-up (14.3%) and inclusion criteria (14.2%). The top three subcategories were lack of long-term follow-up (13.8% of total SALs), inadequate sample size (13.3%) and inclusion of specific populations (12.3%).

CONCLUSION

Statistical power, study length and/or follow-up, and inclusion criteria were the three most commonly reported categories of SALs in exercise trials for LBP. Lack of long-term follow-up, inadequate sample size and inclusion of specific populations were the most common subcategories. Research protocols recognizing and avoiding these limitations will enhance the overall quality of evidence of exercise therapy trials for LBP.

Hip and Trunk Variables in University Students with and without Recurrent Low Back Pain

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability. Recurrent low back pain (rLBP) is defined as two or more episodes of LBP in a 12-month period, each lasting more than 24 hours and separated by at least one pain-free month. Many studies have shown that hip and trunk variables have an influence on LBP. However, most of these are studies of participants with acute or chronic LBP rather than rLBP.

Purpose

To examine the difference between hip and trunk variables of university students with and without rLBP.

Study Design

Cross-Sectional.

Methods

Participants with and without rLBP between 18 and 35 years of age not currently undergoing clinical orthopedic care were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Bilateral hip range of motion (ROM) and trunk ROM were measured with a goniometer or measuring tape (hip motions in all planes along with trunk flexion, extension, and lateral flexion). Strength of the hip extensors, abductors, and external rotators was measured using a handheld dynamometer, and a single-leg bridge endurance test was performed to assess differences and correlations between outcomes.

Results

Twenty-six subjects aged 18 to 35 years with rLBP (n=10) and without rLBP (n=16) participated. Statistically significant differences between the two groups were found for right and left hip flexion (p = 0.029 and 0.039, respectively), right hip adduction (p = 0.043), and right hip extension (p = 0.021). No significant differences were found between groups for strength, endurance, or other ROM measures.

Conclusion

The findings of this study show statistically significant although clinically non-meaningful differences in hip flexion, extension, and adduction ROM in the rLBP group compared to the control group. This lack of clinically meaningful difference may be relevant to testing procedures and treatment of patients or athletes with rLBP. This study also suggests that hip strength and endurance may not play a major role in the development or treatment of rLBP. Level of Evidence: 3.

Investigation of Real-Time Diagnostic Ultrasound as a Means of Biofeedback Training in Transversus Abdominus Re-Education of Patients with Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

Background: It is believed that ultrasound-guided imaging of activation/contraction of the deep abdominal muscles (such as transervsus abdominis) is useful for assisting deep muscle re-education, which is often dysfunctional in non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Thus, this pilot study aimed to evaluate the use of real-time ultrasound (US) as a feedback device for transverse abdominis (TrA) activation/contraction during an exercise program in chronic NSLBP patients. Methods: Twenty-three chronic NSLBP patients were recruited and randomly assigned to a US-guided (n = 12, 8 women, 47.6 ± 2.55 years) or control group (n = 11, 9 women, 46.9 ± 4.29 years). The same motor control-based exercise program was applied to both groups. All patients received physiotherapy twice per week for seven weeks. Outcome measures, tested at baseline and post-intervention, included Numeric Pain Rating Scale, TrA activation level (measured through a pressure biofeedback unit-based developed protocol), seven established motor control tests, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Results: For each group, all outcome variables yielded statistical differences post-intervention (p < 0.05), indicating significant improvements. However, there were no significant group x time interactions for any of the outcomes (p > 0.05), thus, indicating no superiority of the US-guided group over the control. Conclusions: The addition of US as a visual feedback device for TrA re-education during a motor control exercise program was not proven superior to traditional physiotherapy.

A Comparative Electromyographic Analysis of Flying Squirrel and 3-Point Quadripod Exercise for Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Activations among Healthy Female Subjects

Physical therapists employ several exercises to alleviate low back pain (LBP). Electromyography (EMG) examination of exercises can monitor muscle activation to help clinicians determine the exercise’s effect on stabilisation, endurance, or strength. This study evaluated surface EMG activity comparison for Flying Squirrel Exercise (FSE) and the novel 3-Point Quadripod Exercise (3-PQE) to find the most effective exercise for stimulating the lumbar multifidus (LM) muscle. The study recruited 64 healthy young females (19–24 years). Raw data were normalized and are expressed as the percentage of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (%MVIC). The test–retest reliability of the EMG recordings was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC3,1). One-way ANOVA was used to statistically analyse and compare the EMG amplitudes during the two exercises. The ICCs for 3-PQE and FSE were 0.94 (SEM, 21.7% MVIC) and 0.87 (SEM, 19.05% MVIC), respectively. The 3-PQE (69 ± 26% MVIC) demonstrated significantly higher activity than did FSE (30 ± 18% MVIC) (F = 15.573, p = 0.001). Thus, 3-PQE might be a feasible strategy for the prevention and rehabilitation of LBP in females.

An Updated Overview of Low Back Pain Management

We aimed to determine the recommendation level for the treatment of acute and chronic low back pain (LBP). A systematic review (SR) of the literature was performed and all English-language articles that discuss acute and chronic LBP, including MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were searched. Of the 873 searched literature reports, 259 articles, including 131 clinical trials, 115 SRs, nine meta-analyses, and four clinical guidelines were analyzed. In these articles, high-quality randomized controlled trials, SRs, and used well-written clinical guidelines were reviewed. The results indicated multiple acute and chronic LBP treatment methods in the literature, and these reports when reviewed included general behavior, pharmacological therapy, psychological therapy, specific exercise, active rehabilitation and educational interventions, manual therapy, physical modalities, and invasive procedures. The Trial conclusions and SRs were classified into four categories of A, B, C, and D. If there were not enough high-quality articles, it was designated as "I" (insufficient). This review and summary of guidelines may be beneficial for physicians to better understand and make recommendations in primary care.

Best Exercise Options for Reducing Pain and Disability in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: Pilates, Strength, Core-Based, and Mind-Body. A Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine which type of exercise is best for reducing pain and disability in adults with chronic low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Systematic review with a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

LITERATURE SEARCH

Six electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to July 2021.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs testing the effects of exercise on reducing self-perceived pain or disability in adults (aged 18-65 years) with chronic LBP.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We followed the PRISMA-NMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, incorporating NMAs of health care interventions) statement when reporting our NMA. A frequentist NMA was conducted. The probability of each intervention being the most effective was conducted according to surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

We included 118 trials (9710 participants). There were 28 head-to-head comparisons, 7 indirect comparisons for pain, and 8 indirect comparisons for disability. Compared with control, all types of physical exercises were effective for improving pain and disability, except for stretching exercises (for reducing pain) and the McKenzie method (for reducing disability). The most effective interventions for reducing pain were Pilates, mind-body, and core-based exercises. The most effective interventions for reducing disability were Pilates, strength, and core-based exercises. On SUCRA analysis, Pilates had the highest likelihood for reducing pain (93%) and disability (98%).

CONCLUSION

Although most exercise interventions had benefits for managing pain and disability in chronic LBP, the most beneficial programs were those that included (1) at least 1 to 2 sessions per week of Pilates or strength exercises; (2) sessions of less than 60 minutes of core-based, strength, or mind-body exercises; and (3) training programs from 3 to 9 weeks of Pilates and core-based exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(8):505-521. Epub: 19 June 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10671.

Effectiveness of lumbar stabilization exercise with real-time ultrasound imaging biofeedback on lumbar multifidus muscle cross-sectional area in individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Structural impairment of the lumbar multifidus muscle, such as reduced cross-sectional area, is evident among individuals with chronic low back pain. Real-time ultrasound imaging (RUSI) biofeedback has been reported to improve preferential activation of as well as retention in the ability to activate the lumbar multifidus muscle during lumbar stabilization exercises (LSE). However, evidence of the effectiveness of this treatment approach in individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) is still limited. The purpose of this study is, therefore, to determine the effectiveness of LSE with RUSI biofeedback on lumbar multifidus muscle cross-sectional area in individuals with NCLBP.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is a prospective, single-center, assessor-blind, three-arm, parallel randomized controlled trial to be conducted at National Orthopedic Hospital, Kano State, Nigeria. Ninety individuals with NCLBP will be randomized in a 1:1:1: ratio to receive LSE, LSE with RUSI biofeedback, or minimal intervention. All participants will receive treatment twice weekly for 8 weeks. The primary outcome will be the lumbar multifidus muscle cross-sectional area. The secondary outcomes will include pain (Numerical Pain Rating Scale), functional disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), and quality of life (12-Item Short-Form Health Survey). All outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 8 weeks post-intervention,  and 3 months follow-up.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this study will be the first powered randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of LSE training with and without RUSI biofeedback in individuals with NCLBP. The outcome of the study may provide evidence for the effectiveness of LSE with RUSI biofeedback on enhancing the recovery of the lumbar multifidus muscle in individuals with NCLBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Pan African Clinical Trials Registry ( PACTR201801002980602) . Registered on January 16, 2018.

Effects of Low Back Pain Exercises on Pain Symptoms and Activities of Daily Living: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Our objective in this paper was to systematically review evaluations of the effects of exercises on pain symptoms and activities of daily living (ADL) in middle-aged and elderly patients with low back pain (LBP). We searched Web of Science, PubMed, EBSCO, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic. We evaluated the methodological quality of included articles using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, and we statistically analyzed these studies using RevMan software. We reviewed 18 RCTs (23 comparison groups) with a total of 910 participants, and our meta-analysis confirmed that exercises significantly improved both pain and ADLs measured on visual analog scales (VAS) (SMD = -0.91, 95% CI: [-1.3, -0.52], p < 0.00001) and on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (SMD = -2.07, 95% CI: [-3.19, -0.96], p < 0.00001). We conclude that exercises can reduce pain severity and improve ADL capacity in middle-aged and elderly persons with LBP, confirming that exercise can serve as a medical intervention for these indivdiuals. However, given the high heterogeneity of responses among individual participants, there remains a need for further study.

Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain has been the leading cause of disability globally for at least the past three decades and results in enormous direct healthcare and lost productivity costs.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of exercise treatment on pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo and other conservative treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Back and Neck trials register), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), and conducted citation searching of relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies. The review includes data for trials identified in searches up to 27 April 2018. All eligible trials have been identified through searches to 7 December 2020, but have not yet been extracted; these trials will be integrated in the next update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed exercise treatment compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo or other conservative treatment on the outcomes of pain or functional limitations for a population of adult participants with chronic non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened and assessed studies independently, with consensus. We extracted outcome data using electronic databases; pain and functional limitations outcomes were re-scaled to 0 to 100 points for meta-analyses where 0 is no pain or functional limitations. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence. When required, we contacted study authors to obtain missing data. To interpret meta-analysis results, we considered a 15-point difference in pain and a 10-point difference in functional limitations outcomes to be clinically important for the primary comparison of exercise versus no treatment, usual care or placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 249 trials of exercise treatment, including studies conducted in Europe (122 studies), Asia (38 studies), North America (33 studies), and the Middle East (24 studies). Sixty-one per cent of studies (151 trials) examined the effectiveness of two or more different types of exercise treatment, and 57% (142 trials) compared exercise treatment to a non-exercise comparison treatment. Study participants had a mean age of 43.7 years and, on average, 59% of study populations were female. Most of the trials were judged to be at risk of bias, including 79% at risk of performance bias due to difficulty blinding exercise treatments. We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise treatment is more effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons for pain outcomes at earliest follow-up (MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2), a clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to heterogeneity. For the same comparison, there was moderate-certainty evidence for functional limitations outcomes (MD -6.8 (95% CI -8.3 to -5.3); this finding did not meet our prespecified threshold for minimal clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to some evidence of publication bias.  Compared to all other investigated conservative treatments, exercise treatment was found to have improved pain (MD -9.1, 95% CI -12.6 to -5.6) and functional limitations outcomes (MD -4.1, 95% CI -6.0 to -2.2). These effects did not meet our prespecified threshold for clinically important difference. Subgroup analysis of pain outcomes suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than education alone (MD -12.2, 95% CI -19.4 to -5.0) or non-exercise physical therapy (MD -10.4, 95% CI -15.2 to -5.6), but with no differences observed for manual therapy (MD 1.0, 95% CI -3.1 to 5.1). In studies that reported adverse effects (86 studies), one or more adverse effects were reported in 37 of 112 exercise groups (33%) and 12 of 42 comparison groups (29%). Twelve included studies reported measuring adverse effects in a systematic way, with a median of 0.14 (IQR 0.01 to 0.57) per participant in the exercise groups (mostly minor harms, e.g. muscle soreness), and 0.12 (IQR 0.02 to 0.32) in comparison groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise is probably effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo for pain. The observed treatment effect for the exercise compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons is small for functional limitations, not meeting our threshold for minimal clinically important difference. We also found exercise to have improved pain (low-certainty evidence) and functional limitations outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence) compared to other conservative treatments; however, these effects were small and not clinically important when considering all comparisons together. Subgroup analysis suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than advice or education alone, or electrotherapy, but with no differences observed for manual therapy treatments.

Gait Kinetic and Kinematic Changes in Chronic Low Back Pain Patients and the Effect of Manual Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Patients with chronic back pain as a result of degenerated disc disease, besides pain, also present with impaired gait. The purpose of the article was to evaluate kinetic and kinematic characteristics during gait analysis in patients with chronic low back pain as a result of degenerated disc disease, before and after the application of physiotherapy, including manual therapy techniques. Seventy-five patients suffering from chronic low back pain were randomly divided into 3 groups of 25 each. Each group received five sessions (one per week) of interventions with the first group receiving manual therapy treatment, the second a sham treatment and the third, classic physiotherapy (stretching exercises, TENS and massage). The effectiveness of each treatment was evaluated using an optoelectronic system for recording and analysis of gait (kinetic and kinematic data). Patients overall showed an impaired gait pattern with a difference in kinetic and kinematic data between the left and the right side. Following the application of the above-named interventions, only the group that received manual therapy showed a tendency towards symmetry between the right and left side. In patients suffering from chronic low back pain as a result of degenerated disc disease, the application of five manual therapy sessions seems to produce a tendency towards symmetry in gait.

The Effects of Core Stabilization Exercise with the Abdominal Drawing-in Maneuver Technique versus General Strengthening Exercise on Lumbar Segmental Motion in Patients with Clinical Lumbar Instability: A Randomized Controlled Trial with 12-Month Follow-Up

Trunk stability exercises that focus on either deep or superficial muscles might produce different effects on lumbar segmental motion. This study compared outcomes in 34 lumbar instability patients in two exercises at 10 weeks and 12 months follow up. Participants were divided into either Core stabilization (deep) exercise, incorporating abdominal drawing-in maneuver technique (CSE with ADIM), or General strengthening (superficial) exercise (STE). Outcome measures were pain, muscle activation, and lumbar segmental motion. Participants in CSE with ADIM had significantly less pain than those in STE at 10 weeks. They showed significantly more improvement of abdominal muscle activity ratio than participants in STE at 10 weeks and 12 months follow-up. Participants in CSE with ADIM had significantly reduced sagittal translation at L4-L5 and L5-S1 compared with STE at 10 weeks. Participants in CSE with ADIM had significantly reduced sagittal translations at L4-L5 and L5-S1 compared with participants in STE at 10 weeks, whereas STE demonstrated significantly increased sagittal rotation at L4-L5. However, at 12 months follow-up, levels of lumbar sagittal translation were increased in both groups. CSE with ADIM which focuses on increasing deep trunk muscle activity can reduce lumbar segmental translation and should be recommended for lumbar instability.

Effects of lumbar segmental stabilization exercise and respiratory exercise on the vital capacity in patients with chronic back pain

BACKGROUND

Trunk stabilization contributes to the efficient control of body movements in daily life, and it plays an important role in maintaining the proper alignment of the body and preventing low back pain.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify the effectiveness of breathing exercises and lumbar segmental exercises on the vital capacity of lumbar instability patients.

METHOD

Fifty-nine patients suffering from chronic low back pain participated in this study. They were randomly divided into three groups: experiment group 1 performed breathing and segmental stabilization exercises (n= 20), experiment group 2 performed segmental stabilization exercises (n= 20), and the control group performed the modality treatment (n= 19). The measurements were assessed on vital capacity.

RESULTS

The difference in the forced vital capacity, maximal expiratory pressure, and maximal inspiratory pressure at pre- and post-intervention was significant in the RE+LSSE and LSSE groups (p< 0.05) and among all groups (p< 0.05). The difference in the forced expiratory volume at one second of each group was significant (p< 0.05) but was not significant among groups (p> 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the lumbar segmental stabilization exercise activates the deep muscle and improves the respiratory function and respiratory pressure, when used for chronic low back pain patients with segmental instability.

Effects of specific muscle activation for low back pain on activity limitation, pain, work participation, or recurrence: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Specific muscle activation (SMA) is a commonly used treatment for people with low back pain (LBP) however there is variability in systematic reviews to date on effectiveness. This may be because of the use of eligibility criteria incongruent with original descriptions of the SMA approach.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of SMA on improving activity limitation, pain, work participation or recurrence for people with LBP.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review METHODS: Computer databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English up to September 6, 2019. Eligibility criteria were chosen to ensure all clinically relevant RCTs were included and trials of poorly defined or executed SMA excluded. Outcomes for activity limitation, pain, work participation or recurrence were extracted.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight RCTs were included in this review with 18 being considered high quality. GRADE quality assessment revealed low to high quality evidence that SMA was more effective than exercise, conservative medical management, multi-modal physiotherapy, placebo, advice and minimal intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review is the first to evaluate the effectiveness of SMA in accordance with the original clinical descriptions. We found significant evidence supporting the effectiveness of SMA for the treatment of LBP. Where significant results were demonstrated, the between-group differences were in many comparisons clinically important based on contemporary definitions and an effect size of 0.5 or more. Practitioners should consider SMA as a treatment component in their patients with LBP.

Treating low back pain - Bridging the gap between manual therapy and exercise

As therapists, we often recommend exercise to reduce patients' low-back pain, as well as increase their active range of motion and muscle strength. However, physical therapists face a challenge when recommending exercise to reduce low-back pain because the pain itself often inhibits the patient's ability to exercise or perform activities of daily living. This situation becomes even more challenging if the prescribed exercise program aggravates the individual's low-back pain. This article discusses a method which provides for the effective treatment of low back pain by allowing patients to exercise pain free earlier in the rehabilitation process. The method comprises a unique approach utilizing the following four components simultaneously from the onset of treatment: isometric muscle contraction (IMC); assisted active oscillatory mobilization; end-of-range passive stretch; and mindfulness.

Effects of core stabilization exercises on thickness and activity of trunk and hip muscles in subjects with nonspecific chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Changes in trunk and hip muscles are believed to be important in subjects with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP), but little is known about specific changes, or how they might be affected by core stabilization exercises. The aim of this study was to compare six key muscles before and after these exercises.

METHODS

Thirty two NSCLBP patients were assigned randomly into two groups: exercise (n = 17) and control (n = 15). On 5 days per week for 4 weeks, the Exercise group performed 16 core stabilization exercises and the Control group received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and a 'hot-pack'. Surface electromyography (EMG) was used to assess maximum bilateral activity of transversus abdominis (TrA), multifidus (MF) and gluteus maximus (Gmax) muscles. Ultrasound imaging was used to measure the rest and contracted thickness of these muscles. Pain and disability were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index.

RESULTS

When left and right-side muscle data were combined, two-way ANOVAs showed a nonsignificant interaction effect for all dependent variables (P > 0.05), significant time effects on resting muscle thickness for TrA (P = 0.01), MF (P = 0.041) and Gmax (P = 0.003), EMG signals of TrA (P = 0.038), pain and disability (P = 0.000). There were a significant group effect on contracted thickness for TrA (P = 0.032) and Gmax (P = 0.026) and disability (P = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Core stabilization exercises increased contracted thickness of TrA and Gmax muscles and decreased disability in subjects with NSCLBP.

Effect of different exercise programs on non-specific chronic low back pain and disability in people who perform sedentary work

BACKGROUND

This study compared the short- and long-term effects of different exercise programs on lumbar muscle function, cross-sectional area of the multifidus muscle, functional disability and low back pain in people who perform sedentary work.

METHODS

A total of 70 volunteer women with sedentary occupations suffering from low back pain were randomized to either the lumbar stabilization exercise program group or the lumbar muscle strengthening exercise program group. All subjects entered the 20-week exercise programs. The measurement of the cross-sectional area of the multifidus muscle was executed by using an ultrasound system, isokinetic peak torque was measured applying an isokinetic dynamometer.

FINDINGS

The results indicated that the 20-week exercise programs reduced low back pain and functional disability. Positive effects for the cross-sectional area of the multifidus muscle, functional disability and low back pain lasted for 4 weeks after the application of lumbar muscle strengthening exercise program and for 12 weeks after the application of lumbar stabilization exercise program. The lumbar muscle strength increased and lasted for 8 weeks after both exercise programs.

INTERPRETATION

The 20-week lumbar stabilization exercise and muscle strengthening exercise programs were efficacious in decreasing LBP and functional disability in people performing sedentary work, however the lumbar stabilization exercise program was more effective, and this effect lasted for 12 weeks after completion of the program.

A study on the paraspinal muscle surface electromyography in acute nonspecific lower back pain

Aim of this study was to determine if surface electromyography (sEMG) could provide objective data in monitoring the alteration of signal amplitude of myoelectric activity of the paraspinal muscles in the patients with acute nonspecific lower back pain (ANLBP), and to explore the correlation between sEMG data and symptom relief in the ANLBP patients before and after massage therapy.Forty-five ANLBP patients and 20 healthy subjects were enrolled into this study. Patients were given massage therapy for 1 week. The average electromyography (AEMG), visual analogue scale (VAS), and distance of finger to floor (DFTF) were measured before and after treatment.AEMG at flexion and maintained flexion positions were significantly higher in the ANLBP group compared to that in the control group. At extension position, in contrast, AEMG was significantly lower in the ANLBP patients than that of control group, and there was no significant difference between the 2 groups at upright position. After massage therapy for the ANLBP patients, AEMG was significantly reduced at flexion and maintained flexion positions, but significantly increased at extension position than that before treatment. VAS and DFTF were also significantly reduced after treatment. In addition, AEMG alteration at maintained flexion position was significantly correlated with improvement of VAS or DFTF.Myoelectric activity of the paraspinal muscles in the ANLBP patients was different from that of healthy subjects. Massage therapy not only relived patients' symptoms, but also normalized myoelectric activity of the paraspinal muscles in the ANLBP patients.

Neuromuscular exercise reduces low back pain intensity and improves physical functioning in nursing duties among female healthcare workers; secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is common among healthcare workers, whose work is physically strenuous and thus demands certain levels of physical fitness and spinal control. Exercise is the most frequently recommended treatment for LBP. However, exercise interventions targeted at sub-acute or recurrent patients are scarce compared to those targeted at chronic LBP patients. Our objective was to examine the effects of 6 months of neuromuscular exercise on pain, lumbar movement control, fitness, and work-related factors at 6- and 12-months’ follow-up among female healthcare personnel with sub-acute or recurrent low back pain (LBP) and physically demanding work.

Methods

A total of 219 healthcare workers aged 30–55 years with non-specific LBP were originally allocated to four groups (exercise, counselling, combined exercise and counselling, control). The present study is a secondary analysis comparing exercisers (n = 110) vs non-exercisers (n = 109). Exercise was performed twice a week (60 min) in three progressive stages focusing on controlling the neutral spine posture. The primary outcome was intensity of LBP. Secondary outcomes included pain interfering with work, lumbar movement control, fitness components, and work-related measurements. Between-group differences were analysed with a generalised linear mixed model according to the intention-to-treat principle. Per-protocol analysis compared the more exercised to the less exercised and non-exercisers.

Results

The mean exercise attendance was 26.3 (SD 12.2) of targeted 48 sessions over 24 weeks, 53% exercising 1–2 times a week, with 80% (n = 176) and 72% (n = 157) participating in 6- and in 12-month follow-up measurements, respectively. The exercise intervention reduced pain (p = 0.047), and pain interfering with work (p = 0.046); improved lumbar movement control (p = 0.042), abdominal strength (p = 0.033) and physical functioning in heavy nursing duties (p = 0.007); but had no effect on other fitness and work-related measurements when compared to not exercising. High exercise compliance resulted in less pain and better lumbar movement control and walking test results.

Conclusion

Neuromuscular exercise was effective in reducing pain and improving lumbar movement control, abdominal strength, and physical functioning in nursing duties compared to not exercising.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-019-2678-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effects of a Progressive Stabilization Exercise Program Using Respiratory Resistance for Patients with Lumbar Instability: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

This study investigated the effects of progressive stabilization exercise program carried out with respiratory resistance in patients with lumbar instability.

Material/Methods

Forty-three patients with lumbar instability were randomly assigned to experimental (n=20) and control groups (n=23). The experimental group performed progressive lumbar stabilization exercises along with respiratory resistance, and the control group only performed progressive lumbar stabilization exercises, for 40 min per session, 3 sessions a week, for 4 weeks. Numeric rating scale (NRS), Korean-Oswestry disability index (K-ODI), static balance ability, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), and pulmonary function test (PFT) were performed before and after the intervention program for comparison.

Results

The 2 groups showed significant differences in NRS, K-ODI, balance ability, and FABQ after the interventions (p<0.05), but greater improvements were shown by the experimental group in balance ability and FABQ values. PFT results in the experimental group showed a significant increase (p<0.05) in forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV). The experimental group showed a greater improvement (p<0.05) in FVC and MVV compared to the control group.

Conclusions

Progressive stabilization exercise program with respiratory resistance is an effective method with clinical significance in pain reduction, psychosocial stability, and enhancement of motor and respiratory functions.

Effect of core stability exercises on postpartum lumbopelvic pain: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Core stability exercises have been widely advocated for management of patients with different musculoskeletal conditions, even though its effect on postpartum Lumbopelvic Pain (LPP) has not been fully investigated.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to investigate the effect of core stability exercises on postpartum LPP.

METHODS

Thirty four women suffering from postpartum LPP were randomly assigned to the study or control group. The control group (n= 17) received traditional treatment (infrared radiation and continuous ultrasound) on lumbosacral region (L1-S5), whereas the study group (n= 17) received core stability exercises in addition to traditional treatment three sessions a week for six weeks. Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were assessed for all participants in both groups before and after the treatment program.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement in PPT, VAS and ODI post-treatment compared with the pre-treatment in both groups (p= 0.001). There was a significant improvement in participants who received core stability exercises in addition to traditional treatment as compared to participants treated with the traditional treatment only in PPT (P= 0.001), VAS (P= 0.001) and ODI (P= 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Core stability exercises in addition to traditional treatment significantly decreased pain and improved function for women with postpartum LPP.

Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies.

PURPOSE

The present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events.

METHODS

We identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912.

RESULTS

Fifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=-0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.09, p=.004; I2=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=-0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03, p=.03; I2=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=-0.43, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I2=79%; SMD=-0.86, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.45; p<.0001, I2=46%). Mobilization interventions, compared with other active comparators including exercise regimens, significantly reduced pain (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; p=.01; I2=0%) but not disability (SMD=-0.10, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07; p=.25; I2=21%). Studies comparing manipulation or mobilization with sham or no treatment were too few or too heterogeneous to allow for pooling as were studies examining relationships between dose and outcomes. Few studies assessed health-related quality of life. Twenty-six of 51 trials were multimodal studies and narratively described.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate-quality evidence that manipulation and mobilization are likely to reduce pain and improve function for patients with chronic low back pain; manipulation appears to produce a larger effect than mobilization. Both therapies appear safe. Multimodal programs may be a promising option.

Effects of McGill stabilization exercises and conventional physiotherapy on pain, functional disability and active back range of motion in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain

[Purpose] The aim of this study was to compare the effects of “McGill stabilization exercises” and “conventional physiotherapy” on pain, functional disability and active back flexion and extension range of motion in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. [Subjects and Methods] Thirty four patients with chronic non-specific low back pain were randomly assigned to McGill stabilization exercises group (n=17) and conventional physiotherapy group (n=17). In both groups, patients performed the corresponding exercises for six weeks. The visual analog scale (VAS), Quebec Low Back Pain Disability Scale Questionnaire and inclinometer were used to measure pain, functional disability, and active back flexion and extension range of motion, respectively. [Results] Statistically significant improvements were observed in pain, functional disability, and active back extension range of motion in McGill stabilization exercises group. However, active back flexion range of motion was the only clinical symptom that statistically increased in patients who performed conventional physiotherapy. There was no significant difference between the clinical characteristics while compared these two groups of patients. [Conclusion] The results of this study indicated that McGill stabilization exercises and conventional physiotherapy provided approximately similar improvement in pain, functional disability, and active back range of motion in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. However, it appears that McGill stabilization exercises provide an additional benefit to patients with chronic non-specific low back, especially in pain and functional disability improvement.

Motor skill training in musculoskeletal pain: a case report in chronic low back pain

Purpose: Low back pain is a chronic condition that limits function. The chief reason individuals with low back pain seek care is difficulty performing functional activities. A novel approach to improving performance of painful and limited functional activities is motor skill training, defined as challenging practice of activities to learn or relearn a skill. The purpose of this report is to describe the design and application of a motor skill training intervention in a 26-year-old man with a 10-year history of low back pain. Methods: A motor skill training intervention was implemented to modify the altered alignment and movement patterns he used during the performance of his painful and limited activities. Results: The patient was seen for six visits in 12 weeks. The patient reported decreased pain and medication use, as well as improved function immediately, 3-, and 9-months post-intervention. Conclusion: Individuals with low back pain report limitation in ability to perform everyday functions and demonstrate altered patterns of movement and alignment during these activities. This case report describes an innovative motor skill training intervention that directly addresses the performance of functional activities and the application of motor learning principles. Implications for rehabilitation Low back pain is a chronic condition that limits function. The chief reason individuals with chronic low back pain seek care is difficulty performing everyday functional activities. Motor skill training is a novel approach that directly addresses the performance of painful and limited functional activities through challenging practice to improve performance and decrease pain.

The Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire: Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of a Dutch Language Version

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study is to translate the English version of the Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (MDQ) into a Dutch version and investigate its clinimetric properties for patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Fritz et al (2001) developed a modified version of the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI) to assess functional status and named it the MDQ. In this version, a question regarding employment and homemaking ability was substituted for the question related to sex life. Good clinimetric properties for the MDQ were identified but up until now it is not clear whether the clinimetric properties of the MDQ would change if it was translated into a Dutch version.

METHODS

Translation of the MDQ into Dutch was done in 4 steps. Test-retest reliability was investigated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) model. Validity was calculated using Pearson correlations and a 2-way analysis of variance for repeated measures. Finally, responsiveness was calculated with the area under the curve (AUC), minimal detectable change (MDC), and the standardized response mean (SRM).

RESULTS

A total of 80 completed questionnaires were collected in 3 different hospitals and a total of 43 patients finished a 9 weeks intervention period, completing the retest. Test-retest reliability was excellent with an ICC of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.95). To confirm the convergent validity, the MDQ answered all predefined hypothesises (r = -0.65-0.69/P = 0.01-0.00) and good results for construct validity were found (P = 0.02). The MDQ had an AUC of 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.81), an MDC of 8.80 points, and a SRM of 0.65.

CONCLUSION

The Dutch version of the MDQ shows good clinimetric properties and is shown to be usable in the assessment of the functional status of Dutch-speaking patients with nonspecific CLBP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Comparison of manipulation and stabilization exercises in patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction patients: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Manual therapy and exercise therapy are two common treatments for low back pain. Although their effects have been discussed in several studies, the superiority of one over the other for patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of manipulation (M) and stabilization exercises (S) in patients with subacute or chronic sacroiliac joint dysfunction.

METHODS

The participants in this randomized controlled trial study were patients with subacute or chronic sacroiliac joint dysfunction for more than 4 weeks and less than 1 year. A total of 40 patients were randomized with a minimization method to the M (n = 20) or S (n = 20) group; 15 patients in each group received treatment. The treatment program lasted 2 week in group M and 4 weeks in group S. Pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were recorded before and immediately after the treatment period.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significant improvement in assessed pain and ODI (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in post-intervention assessed pain or ODI (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the improvements seen after both manipulation and stabilization exercise therapies in patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction, there was no significant between-group difference in the treatment effects. This result suggests that neither manual therapy nor stabilization exercise therapy is superior for treating subacute or chronic sacroiliac joint dysfunction.

Movement System Impairment-Based Classification Treatment Versus General Exercises for Chronic Low Back Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP) includes different forms of exercises, that to date have resulted in only small to moderate treatment effects. To enhance the treatment effects, different classification systems have been developed to classify people with LBP into more homogeneous subgroups leading to specific treatments for each subgroup.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of a treatment based on the Movement System Impairment (MSI) model with a treatment consisting of symptom-guided stretching and strengthening exercises in people with chronic LBP.

Design

The study was a 2-arm, prospectively registered, randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor.

Setting

The study setting was a university physical therapy clinic in Brazil.

Patients

A total of 148 participants with chronic LBP participated in the study.

Interventions

Participants were randomly allocated to an 8-week treatment of either treatment based on the MSI-based classification system or symptom-guided stretching and strengthening exercises.

Measurements

Measures of pain intensity, disability, and global impression of recovery were obtained by a blinded assessor at baseline and at follow-up appointments at 2, 4, and 6 months after randomization.

Results

There were no significant between-group differences for the primary outcomes of pain intensity at 2 months (mean difference = 0.05, 95% CI = –0.90 to 0.80) and disability at 2 months (mean difference = 0.00, 95% CI = –1.55 to 1.56). There also were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups for any of the secondary outcome measures.

Limitations

Participants and physical therapists were not masked.

Conclusions

People with chronic LBP had similar improvements in pain, disability, and global impression of recovery with treatment consisting of symptom-guided stretching and strengthening exercises and treatment based on the MSI model.

Six-Month Follow-up of Supervised Spinal Stabilization Exercises for Low Back Pain in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of 8 weeks of weekly spinal stabilization exercises compared with 1-time treatment in participants with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and low back pain at a 6-month follow-up.

METHODS

Thirty-two participants were evaluated at a 6-month follow-up. The supervised group received weekly spinal stabilization exercises. The unsupervised group received a 1-time treatment and home exercise program.

RESULTS

Both groups improved in all outcome measures. The supervised group had significantly reduced Numeric Pain Rating Scale and Improved Global Rating of Change scores, but had no differences in the revised Oswestry Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, or Patient-Specific Functional Scale scores in comparison with the unsupervised group.

Current and future perspectives on lumbar degenerative disc disease: a UK survey exploring specialist multidisciplinary clinical opinion

OBJECTIVES

Despite lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) being significantly associated with non-specific low back pain and effective treatment remaining elusive, specialist multidisciplinary clinical stakeholder opinion remains unexplored. The present study examines the views of such experts.

DESIGN

A reliable and valid electronic survey was designed to establish trends using theoretical constructs relating to current assessment and management practices. Clinicians from the Society of Back Pain Research (SBPR) UK were invited to take part. Quantitative data were collated and coded using Bristol Online Surveys (BOS) software, and content analysis was used to systematically code and categorise qualitative data.

SETTING

Specialist multidisciplinary spinal interest group in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

38/141 clinically active, multidisciplinary SBPR members with specialist spinal interest participated. Among them, 84% had >9 years postgraduate clinical experience.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency distributions were used to establish general trends in quantitative data. Qualitative responses were coded and categorised in relation to each theme and percentage responses were calculated.

RESULTS

LDDD symptom recurrence, in the absence of psychosocial influence, was associated with physical signs of joint stiffness (26%), weakness (17%) and joint hypermobility (6%), while physical factors (21%) and the ability to adapt (11%) were postulated as reasons why some experience pain and others do not. No one management strategy was supported exclusively or with consensus. Regarding effective modalities, there was no significant difference between allied health professional and medic responses (p=0.1-0.8). The future of LDDD care was expressed in terms of improvements in patient communication (35%), patient education (38%) and treatment stratification (24%).

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that multidisciplinary expert spinal clinicians appear to follow UK-based assessment guidelines with regard to recurrent LDDD; there are, however, inconsistencies in the management approaches supported. This reflects the current literature and the lack of specific, formalised guidance. LDDD treatment stratification and further research are explicitly supported.

Work-Related Low Back Pain Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial from Tehran, Iran, Comparing Multidisciplinary Educational Program versus Physiotherapy Education

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical trial.

PURPOSE

To compare the multidisciplinary educational program versus physiotherapy education among Iranian nurses.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Low back pain (LBP) can accompany significant occupational injuries in the nursing profession. There is no agreement on the most effective educational practice.

METHODS

This study was conducted from August 17, 2014 to September 22, 2014 in Tehran, Iran. Eligible nurses with chronic mechanical LBP (n=136) were classified into an intervention group (n=66) or the control group (n=70). The intervention group received physiotherapy education for 120-minutes followed by a 120-minute health education session based on predictive constructs of social cognitive theory (SCT). The control group received the 120-minute physiotherapy education. Disability rate, pain severity and back pain prevention behavior were measured at initially and 3 months after intervention using visual analogue scale, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and nursing low back pain preventive behaviors questionnaire.

RESULTS

The two groups were the same in terms of all studied variables at the initiation of the study. At the 3-month follow up, predictive constructs of LBP preventive behaviors of participants in the intervention were improved (p<0.001). Significant decreases were evident at 3 months in pain severity (p=0.03) and disability (p=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The designed multidisciplinary educational intervention could decrease chronic mechanical LBP in nurses.

Motor Control Exercise for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Cochrane Review

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of motor control exercise (MCE) in patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

MCE is a common form of exercise used for managing LBP. MCE focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and coordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles.

METHODS

We conducted electronic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases, and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias, and extracted the data. A third reviewer resolved any disagreement. We included randomized controlled trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment, or as a supplement to other interventions in patients with nonspecific LBP. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group 12-item criteria. We combined results in a meta-analysis expressed as mean difference and 95% confidence interval. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included 32 trials (n = 2628). Most included trials had a low risk of bias. For acute LBP, low to moderate quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy or other forms of exercise. There is very low-quality evidence that the addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvements. For recurrence at one year, there is very low-quality evidence that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence. For chronic LBP, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for reducing pain compared with minimal intervention. There is low to high-quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises or manual therapy. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPAs) or telerehabilitation for pain and disability.

CONCLUSION

MCE is probably more effective than a minimal intervention for reducing pain, but probably does not have an important effect on disability, in patients with chronic LBP. There was no clinically important difference between MCE and other forms of exercises or manual therapy for acute and chronic LBP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Spinal mobilization vs conventional physiotherapy in the management of chronic low back pain due to spinal disk degeneration: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to examine the efficacy of spinal mobilization in subjects with low back pain (LBP) and associated spinal disk degeneration.

METHODS

Seventy-five subjects suffering from chronic LBP (>3 months) were randomly allocated into 3 groups of 25 subjects each. Each group received five treatment sessions with the first group receiving manual therapy (MT) (spinal mobilization), the second a sham treatment, and the third conventional physiotherapy (CP) (stretching exercises, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and massage). Subjects were assessed for their pain intensity using the numerical pain rating scale and for their self-reported disability using the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Questionnaire at baseline and after the completion of the five treatment sessions.

RESULTS

Paired t-tests showed a significant improvement for all outcome measures in the MT and CP group (p < 0.05). Analysis of covariance revealed that the MT group had significant improvement in all outcome measures in comparison with the sham and CP group (p < 0.05), whereas no significant difference was observed between the sham and CP group (p > 0.05).

DISCUSSION

MT is preferable to CP in order to reduce the pain intensity and disability in subjects with chronic LBP and associated disk degeneration. The findings of this study may lead to the establishment of spinal mobilization as one of the most preferable approaches for the management of LBP due to disk degeneration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1b.

Comparison of a Stratified Group Intervention (STarT Back) With Usual Group Care in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

STUDY DESIGN

A nonrandomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore the effectiveness of group-based stratified care in primary care.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Stratified care based on psychosocial screening (STarT Back) has demonstrated greater clinical and cost-effectiveness in patients with low back pain. However, low back pain interventions are often delivered in groups and evaluating this system of care in a group setting is important.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from 60 general practices and linked physiotherapy services. A new group stratified intervention was compared with a historical nonstratified control group. Patients stratified as low, medium and high risk were offered risk-matched group care. Consenting participants completed self-report measures of functional disability (primary outcome measure), pain, psychological distress, and beliefs. The historical control received a generic group intervention. Analysis was by intention to treat.

RESULTS

In total, 251 patients in the new stratified intervention and 332 in the historical control were included in the primary analysis at 12 weeks. The mean age of patients was 43 ± 10.98 years. Overall adjusted mean changes in the RMDQ scores were higher in the stratified intervention than in the control arm at 12-week follow-up (P = 0.028). Exploring the risk groups, individually the high-risk stratified group, demonstrated better outcome over the controls (P = 0.031). The medium-risk stratified intervention demonstrated equally good outcomes (P = 0.125), and low-risk stratified patients, despite less intervention, did as well as the historical controls (P = 0.993).

CONCLUSION

Stratified care delivered in a group setting demonstrated superior outcomes in the high-risk patients, and equally good outcomes for the medium and low-risk groups. This model, embedded in primary care, provides an early and effective model of chronic disease management and adds another dimension to the utility of the STarT Back system of care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Improvements in tissue blood flow and lumbopelvic stability after lumbopelvic core stabilization training in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain

[Purpose] This study investigated the effects of lumbopelvic stabilization training on tissue blood flow changes in the lumbopelvic region and lumbopelvic stability compared to placebo treatment and controlled intervention among patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. [Subjects and Methods] A total of 25 participants (7 males, 18 females; mean age, 33.3 ± 14.4 years) participated in this within-subject, repeated-measures, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison trial. The participants randomly underwent three types of interventions that included lumbopelvic stabilization training, placebo treatment, and controlled intervention with 48 hours between sessions. Lumbopelvic stability and tissue blood flow were measured using a pressure biofeedback device and a laser Doppler flow meter before and after the interventions. [Results] The repeated-measures analysis of variance results demonstrated a significant increase in tissue blood flow over the lumbopelvic region tissues for post- versus pre-lumbopelvic stabilization training and compared to placebo and control interventions. A significant increase in lumbopelvic stability before and after lumbopelvic stabilization training was noted, as well as upon comparison to placebo and control interventions. [Conclusion] The current study supports an increase in tissue blood flow in the lumbopelvic region and improved lumbopelvic stability after core training among patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.

The inter-rater reliability of clinical tests that best predict the subclassification of lumbar segmental instability: structural, functional and combined instability

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the inter-rater reliability of three structural end range lumbar segmental instability tests with the highest positive likelihood ratio (+ LR) against flexion-extension radiographs, and three functional mid-range clinical tests that predict the success of lumbar stabilisation exercises in patients with recurrent or chronic low-back pain (R/CLBP). The study also investigated the reliability of lumbar segmental instability, subclassification as: functional, structural and combined instability.

METHOD

Forty adults with R/CLBP (30 men and 10 women), aged 21-71 years, underwent repeated measurements of specific clinical tests for structural or functional lumbar segmental instability.

RESULTS

All functional-instability tests: the prone instability test (PIT), the aberrant motion test and the average passive straight-leg raise (PSLR>91°) test showed a high percentage agreement (90, 97·5 and 95%, respectively) and a high kappa coefficient (0·71, 0·79 and 0·77, respectively). In addition, two structural tests: the lumbar flexion range of motion (ROM) >53° and the passive lumbar extension test (PLET) showed a high percentage agreement (82 and 73%, respectively), and a moderate kappa coefficient (0·48 and 0·46, respectively). The lack of hypomobility with the posteroanterior (PA) glide test was found to be unreliable (agreement = 25%; k = - 0·02). Locating the pain-provoking segment, as the first portion of PIT, was found to be moderately reliable (k = 0·41). The subclassification categories of lumbar segmental instability (functional, structural and combined) were found to be significantly reliable (PABAK) 0·90, 0·70 and 0·95, respectively).

DISCUSSION

All investigated tests (except the lack of hypomobility with the PA glide test), in addition to subclassifying the categories of lumbar segmental instability, were significantly reliable in the assessment of lumbar instability.

Motor control exercise for acute non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Motor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Motor control exercise for chronic non-specific low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is a common condition. It is reported to be a major health and socioeconomic problem associated with work absenteeism, disability and high costs for patients and society. Exercise is a modestly effective treatment for chronic LBP. However, current evidence suggests that no single form of exercise is superior to another. Among the most commonly used exercise interventions is motor control exercise (MCE). MCE intervention focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and co-ordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles. While there are previous systematic reviews of the effectiveness of MCE, recently published trials justify an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. We also performed citation tracking and searched the reference lists of reviews and eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. We included trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment or that added MCE as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We considered function, quality of life, return to work or recurrence as secondary outcomes. All outcomes must have been measured with a valid and reliable instrument.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. A third independent review author resolved any disagreement. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group expanded 12-item criteria (Furlan 2009). We extracted mean scores, standard deviations and sample sizes from the included trials, and if this information was not provided we calculated or estimated them using methods recommended in the Cochrane Handbook. We also contacted the authors of the trials for any missing or unclear information. We considered the following time points: short-term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation); and long-term (12 months or more after randomisation) follow-up. We assessed heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by calculating the Chi(2) test and the I(2) statistic. We combined results in a meta-analysis expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 trials (n = 2431) in this review. The study sample sizes ranged from 20 to 323 participants. We considered a total of 76.6% of the included trials to have a low risk of bias, representing 86% of all participants. There is low to high quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. When compared with minimal intervention, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for improving pain at short, intermediate and long-term follow-up with medium effect sizes (long-term, MD -12.97; 95% CI -18.51 to -7.42). There was also a clinically important difference for the outcomes function and global impression of recovery compared with minimal intervention. There is moderate to high quality evidence that there is no clinically important difference between MCE and manual therapy for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. Finally, there is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPA) for pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life with medium to large effect sizes (pain at short term, MD -30.18; 95% CI -35.32 to -25.05). Minor or no adverse events were reported in the included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low to moderate quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with a minimal intervention for chronic low back pain. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with exercise plus EPA. There is moderate to high quality evidence that MCE provides similar outcomes to manual therapies and low to moderate quality evidence that it provides similar outcomes to other forms of exercises. Given the evidence that MCE is not superior to other forms of exercise, the choice of exercise for chronic LBP should probably depend on patient or therapist preferences, therapist training, costs and safety.

The effect of journal impact factor, reporting conflicts, and reporting funding sources, on standardized effect sizes in back pain trials: a systematic review and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is a common and costly health complaint for which there are several moderately effective treatments. In some fields there is evidence that funder and financial conflicts are associated with trial outcomes. It is not clear whether effect sizes in back pain trials relate to journal impact factor, reporting conflicts of interest, or reporting funding.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of English-language papers reporting randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-specific low back pain, published between 2006-2012. We modelled the relationship using 5-year journal impact factor, and categories of reported of conflicts of interest, and categories of reported funding (reported none and reported some, compared to not reporting these) using meta-regression, adjusting for sample size, and publication year. We also considered whether impact factor could be predicted by the direction of outcome, or trial sample size.

RESULTS

We could abstract data to calculate effect size in 99 of 146 trials that met our inclusion criteria. Effect size is not associated with impact factor, reporting of funding source, or reporting of conflicts of interest. However, explicitly reporting 'no trial funding' is strongly associated with larger absolute values of effect size (adjusted β=1.02 (95 % CI 0.44 to 1.59), P=0.001). Impact factor increases by 0.008 (0.004 to 0.012) per unit increase in trial sample size (P<0.001), but does not differ by reported direction of the LBP trial outcome (P=0.270).

CONCLUSIONS

The absence of associations between effect size and impact factor, reporting sources of funding, and conflicts of interest reflects positively on research and publisher conduct in the field. Strong evidence of a large association between absolute magnitude of effect size and explicit reporting of 'no funding' suggests authors of unfunded trials are likely to report larger effect sizes, notwithstanding direction. This could relate in part to quality, resources, and/or how pragmatic a trial is.

Reorganized Trunk Muscle Activity During Multidirectional Floor Perturbations After Experimental Low Back Pain: A Comparison of Bilateral Versus Unilateral Pain

Low back pain changes trunk muscle activity after external perturbations but the relationship between pain intensities and distributions and their effect on trunk muscle activity remains unclear. The effects of unilateral and bilateral experimental low back pain on trunk muscle activity were compared during unpredictable multidirectional surface perturbations in 19 healthy participants. Pain intensity and distribution were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and pain drawings. Root mean square (RMS) of the electromyographic (EMG) signals from 6 trunk muscles bilaterally after each perturbation was extracted and averaged across perturbations. The difference (ΔRMS-EMG) and absolute difference (absolute ΔRMS-EMG) RMS from baseline conditions were extracted for each muscle during pain conditions and averaged bilaterally for back and abdominal muscle groups. Bilateral compared with unilateral pain induced higher VAS scores (P < .005) and larger pain areas (P < .001). Significant correlation was present between VAS scores and muscle activity during unilateral (P < .001) and bilateral pain (P < .001). Compared with control injections ΔRMS-EMG increased in the back (P < .03) and abdominal (P < .05) muscles during bilateral and decreased in the back (P < .01) and abdominal (P < .01) muscles during unilateral pain. Bilateral pain caused greater absolute ΔRMS-EMG changes in the back (P < .01) and abdominal (P < .01) muscle groups than unilateral pain.

PERSPECTIVE

This study provided novel observations of differential trunk muscle activity in response to perturbations dependent on pain intensity and/or pain distribution. Because of complex and variable changes the relevance of clinical examination of muscle activity during postural tasks is challenged.

The effect of six weeks of sling exercise training on trunk muscular strength and endurance for clients with low back pain

[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 6 weeks sling exercise training for clients with low back pain on the levels of pain, disability, muscular strength and endurance. [Subjects and Methods] Twelve chronic LBP subjects participated in this study. Subjects were randomly divided into a control group and a training group. Subjects in the training group performed sling exercise training for six weeks, and participants in the control group did not perform any exercise. [Results] Pain, disability levels and muscular strength significantly improved in the training group, but not in the control group. The left multifidus showed a significant improvement in muscular endurance, measured as the slope of the median frequency after training. [Conclusion] Six weeks of sling exercise training was effective at reducing pain intensity, and improving the disability level and trunk muscular strength of subjects with low back pain.

A comparison of water-based and land-based core stability exercises in patients with lumbar disc herniation: a pilot study

PURPOSE

To determine and compare the effects of core stability exercise programs performed in two different environments in lumbar disc herniation (LDH) patients.

METHOD

Thirty-one patients who were diagnosed with LDH and were experiencing pain or functional disability for at least 3 months were randomly divided into two groups as land-based exercises or water specific therapy. Also, 15 age-sex-matched healthy individuals were recruited as healthy controls. Both groups underwent an 8-week (3 times/week) core stabilization exercise program. Primary outcomes were pain, trunk muscle static endurance and perceived disability level. The secondary outcome was health-related quality of life.

RESULTS

Level of static endurance of trunk muscles was found to be lower in the patients compared to the controls at baseline (p < 0.05). Both treatment groups showed significant improvements in all outcomes (p < 0.05) after 8-week intervention. When two treatment groups were compared, no differences were found in the amount of change after the intervention (p > 0.05). After the treatment, static endurance of trunk muscles of the LDH patients became similar to controls (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

According to these results, core stabilization exercise training performed on land or in water both could be beneficial in LDH patients and there is no difference between the environments.

IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION

An 8-week core stabilization program performed in water or on land decrease pain level and improve functional status in LDH patients. Both programs seem beneficial to increase health-related quality of life and static endurance of trunk muscles. Core stability exercises could be performed in water as well, no differences were found between methods due to environment.

Movement System Impairment-Based Classification Versus General Exercise for Chronic Low Back Pain: Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is an important health problem in all developed countries and is associated with high levels of disability. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines usually recommend different physical therapy interventions to manage this condition. However, those interventions usually result in small to moderate clinical effects. Recent studies suggest that interventions based on subgroup classifications may improve the effect sizes compared with rehabilitation programs where the same interventions were applied to all patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study will investigate the efficacy of treatment based on a Movement System Impairment (MSI)-based classification model for patients with chronic LBP compared with general exercise. The primary outcomes will be pain intensity and disability at 2 months after randomization.

DESIGN

The study is a 2-arm, prospectively registered, randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor.

SETTING

The study setting will be a university physical therapy clinic in Brazil.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 148 individuals with chronic LBP will participate in the study.

INTERVENTION

Included individuals will be randomly allocated to participate in an 8-week treatment program based on the MSI-based classification or a general exercise program of stretching and strengthening exercises.

MEASUREMENTS

Pain intensity, disability, and global impression of recovery will be assessed by a blinded assessor at baseline and at follow-up appointments after treatment (2 months) and 4 and 6 months after randomization.

LIMITATIONS

Therapists will not be blinded.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study may contribute to a better understanding of the efficacy of treatments based on classification of participants with chronic LBP into subgroups.

Derivation and validation phase for the development of clinical prediction rules for rehabilitation in chronic nonspecific low back pain patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

There is a consensus that exercise therapy should be used as a therapeutic approach in chronic low back pain (CLBP) but little consensus has been reached about the preferential type of therapy. Due to the heterogeneity of the population no clear effect of specific therapy interventions are found. Probably a specific subgroup of the investigated population will benefit from the intervention and another subgroup will not benefit, looking at the total investigated population no significant effects can be found. Therefore there is a need for the development of clinical prediction rules (CPRs). Objectives for this trial are first, the derivation of CPRs to predict treatment response to three forms of exercise therapy for patients with nonspecific CLBP. Secondly, we aim to validate a CPR for the three forms of exercise therapy for patients with nonspecific CLBP.

Methods/Design

The study design is a randomized controlled trial. Patients with nonspecific CLBP of more than three months duration are recruited at the Antwerp University Hospital (Belgium) and Apra Rehabilitation Hospital. After examination, patients are randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: motor control therapy, general active exercise therapy and isometric training therapy. All patients will undergo 18 treatment sessions during nine weeks. Measurements will be taken at baseline, nine weeks, six months and at one year. The primary outcome used is the Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire score. For each type of exercise therapy a CPR will be derived and validated. For validation, the CPR will be applied to divide each treatment group into two subgroups (matched and unmatched therapy) using the baseline measurements. We predict a better therapeutic effect for matched therapy.

Discussion

A randomized controlled trial has not previously been performed for the development of a CPR for exercise therapy in CLBP patients. Only one CPR was described in a single-arm design for motor control therapy in sub-acute non-radicular LBP patients. In this study, a sufficiently large sample will be included in both the derivation and validation phase.

Trial registration

This trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov on 10 February 2014, registration number: NCT02063503.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-16-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An update of stabilisation exercises for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Background

Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is a large and costly problem. It has a lifetime prevalence of 80% and results in high levels of healthcare cost. It is a major cause for long term sickness amongst the workforce and is associated with high levels of fear avoidance and kinesiophobia. Stabilisation (or ‘core stability’) exercises have been suggested to reduce symptoms of pain and disability and form an effective treatment. Despite it being the most commonly used form of physiotherapy treatment within the UK there is a lack of positive evidence to support its use. The aims of this systematic review update is to investigate the effectiveness of stabilisation exercises for the treatment of NSLBP, and compare any effectiveness to other forms of exercise.

Methods

A systematic review published in 2008 was updated with a search of PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, Pedro and The Cochrane Library, October 2006 to October 2013. Two authors independently selected studies, and two authors independently extracted the data. Methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale. Meta-analysis was carried out when appropriate.

Results

29 studies were included: 22 studies (n = 2,258) provided post treatment effect on pain and 24 studies (n = 2,359) provided post treatment effect on disability. Pain and disability scores were transformed to a 0 to 100 scale. Meta-analysis showed significant benefit for stabilisation exercises versus any alternative treatment or control for long term pain and disability with mean difference of -6.39 (95% CI -10.14 to -2.65) and -3.92 (95% CI -7.25 to -0.59) respectively. The difference between groups was clinically insignificant. When compared with alternative forms of exercise, there was no statistical or clinically significant difference. Mean difference for pain was -3.06 (95% CI -6.74 to 0.63) and disability -1.89 (95% CI -5.10 to 1.33).

Conclusion

There is strong evidence stabilisation exercises are not more effective than any other form of active exercise in the long term. The low levels of heterogeneity and large number of high methodological quality of available studies, at long term follow-up, strengthen our current findings, and further research is unlikely to considerably alter this conclusion.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-416) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effects of Spinal Stabilization Exercise on the Cross-sectional Areas of the Lumbar Multifidus and Psoas Major Muscles, Pain Intensity, and Lumbar Muscle Strength of Patients with Degenerative Disc Disease

[Purpose] The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of using spinal stabilizing exercise to reduce atrophy of the multifidus and psoas major muscles, reduce the levels of pain and disability, and increase paraspinal muscle strength in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD). [Subjects and Methods] In 33 patients (Age range: 25–65 years) diagnosed with DDD, spinal stabilization exercise was conducted for 8 weeks. The levels of pain and disability were measured before and after exercise using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Paraspinal muscular strength in four directions was evaluated with a CENTAUR 3D Spatial Rotation Device. Cross-sectional areas (CSAs) of both the left and right multifidus and the psoas major at the upper endplate of L4 were measured before and after exercise using computed tomography (CT). [Results] After 8 weeks of spinal stabilization exercise, the pain and lumbar disability in subjects decreased significantly from 6.12±1.24 to 2.43±1.14. The ODI score also improved from 20.18±7.14 to 8.81±5.73. In addition, paraspinal muscle strength increased significantly, while the CSAs of the left and right multifidus and psoas major widened as compared with the pre-exercise size. [Conclusion] Spinal stabilization exercise was effective for reducing pain and disability in DDD patients. It was an effective adjunct to aid rehabilitation in these cases.

Core stabilization exercise prescription, part 2: a systematic review of motor control and general (global) exercise rehabilitation approaches for patients with low back pain

Context

Therapeutic exercises are frequently prescribed to patients with low back pain. Numerous exercise programs for patients with low back pain have been described. Many of these treatment programs are based on 1 of 2 popular rehabilitation strategies: a motor control exercise approach or a general exercise approach.

Data Sources

PubMed clinical queries from 1966 to March 2013 for keyword combinations including motor control exercise, core stability exercise, therapeutic exercise, general exercise, global exercise, local exercise, transversus abdominis, segmental stabilization, and low back pain.

Study Selection

Randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of a motor control exercise approach, a general exercise approach, or both for patients with low back pain that were published in scientific peer-reviewed journals.

Data Extraction

Included studies underwent appraisal for exercise intervention and outcomes.

Results

Fifteen studies were identified (8, motor control exercise approach without general exercise comparison; 7, general exercise approach with or without motor control exercise approach comparison). Current evidence suggests that exercise interventions may be effective at reducing pain or disability in patients with low back pain.

Conclusion:

Stabilization exercises for patients with low back pain may help to decrease pain and disability. It may not be necessary to prescribe exercises purported to restore motor control of specific muscles.

The Effects of Stabilization and Mckenzie Exercises on Transverse Abdominis and Multifidus Muscle Thickness, Pain, and Disability: A Randomized Controlled Trial in NonSpecific Chronic Low Back Pain

[Purpose] This study compared the effectiveness of stabilization and McKenzie exercises on pain, disability, and thickness of the transverse abdominis and multifidus muscles in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. [Subjects] Thirty patients were randomly assigned into two groups: the McKenzie and stabilization exercise groups. [Methods] Before and after intervention, pain, disability, and thickness of the transverse abdominis and multifidus muscles were evaluated by visual analogue scale, functional rating index, and sonography, respectively. The training program was 18 scheduled sessions of individual training for both groups. [Results] After interventions, the pain score decreased in both groups. The disability score decreased only in the stabilization group. The thickness of the left multifidus was significantly increased during resting and contracting states in the stabilization group. The thickness of the right transverse abdominis during the abdominal draw-in maneuver, and thickness of the left transverse abdominis during the active straight leg raising maneuver were significantly increased in the stabilization group. The intensity of pain, disability score, thickness of the right transverse abdominis during the abdominal draw-in manouver, and thickness of the left transverse abdominis during active straight leg raising in the stabilization group were greater than those on the Mackenzie. [Conclusion] Stabilization exercises are more effective than McKenzie exercises in improving the intensity of pain and function score and in increasing the thickness of the transverse abdominis muscle.