The Efficacy of Spinal Decompression via DRX3000 Combined with a Spinal Mobilization and a Lumbar Stabilization Exercise Program for Patients with Discogenic Low Back Pain

Effects of non-surgical decompression therapy in addition to routine physical therapy on pain, range of motion, endurance, functional disability and quality of life versus routine physical therapy alone in patients with lumbar radiculopathy; a randomized controlled trial

Background

Lumbar radiculopathy is an extensively common complaint reported by patients of low back pain (LBP), resulting in several impairments. A comparatively novel technique, non-surgical spinal decompression (NSD), is introduced, which uses a sensitive computerized feedback mechanism and decompresses the spinal nerve roots through segmental distraction. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of NSD therapy in addition to routine physical therapy on pain, lumbar range of motion (ROM), functional disability, back muscle endurance (BME), and quality of life (QOL) in patients with lumbar radiculopathy.

Methods

A total of sixty patients with lumbar radiculopathy were randomly allocated into two groups, an experimental (n = 30) and a control (n = 30) group, through a computer-generated random number table. Baseline values were recorded before providing any treatment by using a visual analogue scale (VAS), Urdu version of Oswestry disability index (ODI-U), modified-modified Schober’s test (MMST), prone isometric chest raise test, and Short Form 36-Item Survey (SF-36) for measuring the pain at rest, functional disability, lumbar ROM, BME, and QOL, respectively. All patients received twelve treatment sessions over 4 weeks, and then all outcome measures were again recorded.

Results

By using the ANCOVA test, a statistically significant (p < 0.05) between-group improvement was observed in VAS, ODI-U, BME, lumbar ROM, role physical (RP), and bodily pain (BP) domains of SF-36, which was in favour of NSD therapy group. The between-group difference was 1.07 ± 0.32 cm (p < .001) for VAS, 5.65 ± 1.48 points (p < .001) for ODI-U, 13.93 ± 5.85 s (p = 0.002) for BME, 2.62 ± 0.27 cm (p < .001) for lumbar flexion, 0.96 ± 0.28 (p < .001) for lumbar extension, 5.77 ± 2.39 (p = 0.019) for RP and 6.33 ± 2.52 (p = 0.016) for BP domain of SF-36. For these outcomes, a medium to large effect size (d = 0.61–2.47, 95% CI: 0.09–3.14) was observed.

Conclusion

It was concluded that a combination of non-surgical spinal decompression therapy with routine physical therapy is more effective, statistically and clinically, than routine physical therapy alone in terms of improving pain, lumbar range of motion, back muscle endurance, functional disability, and physical role domain of quality of life, in patients with lumbar radiculopathy, following 4 weeks of treatment.

Trial registration

WHO Iranian registry of clinical trials (IRCT20190717044238N1) Dated: 23.12.2019.

Regression of lumbar disc herniation by physiotherapy. Does non-surgical spinal decompression therapy make a difference? Double-blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study determining whether or not Non-invasive Spinal Decompression Therapy (NSDT) was effective in resorption of herniation, increasing disc height in patients with lumbar disc herniation (LHNP).

METHODS

A total of twenty patients diagnosed as LHNP and suffering from pain at least 8 weeks were enrolled to the study. Patients were allocated in study (SG) and control groups (CG) randomly. Both groups received combination of electrotherapy, deep friction massage and stabilization exercise for fifteen session. SG received additionally NSDT different from CG. Numeric Anolog Scale, Straight leg raise test, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were applied at baseline and after treatment. Disc height and herniation thickness were measured on Magnetic Resonance Imagination which performed at baseline and three months after therapy.

RESULTS

Both treatments had positive effect for improving pain, functional restoration and reduction in thickness of herniation. Although reduction of herniation size was higher in SG than CG, no significant differences were found between groups and any superiority to each other (p> 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that patients with LHNP received physiotherapy had improvement based on clinical and radiologic evidence. NSDT can be used as assistive agent for other physiotherapy methods in treatment of lumbar disc herniation.