Estudo comparativo entre exercícios com dinamômetro isocinético e bola terapêutica na lombalgia crônica de origem mecânica

Isokinetic trunk training on pain, disability, and strength in non-specific low back pain patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability globally, with a high economic and social burden. A decrease or imbalance in trunk strength has been associated with the occurrence of low back pain and its severity. Trunk strength training is helpful in the treatment of Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) patients. However, we do not know the effects of trunk isokinetic training (IKT) on pain intensity, disability, and trunk strength.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to determine the effects of trunk IKT in NSLBP patients on pain intensity, disability, and trunk flexor and extensor isokinetic strength.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL, and PEDro, from January 2001 until March 2021 and updated to November 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effect of IKT in adult participants with NSLBP on pain intensity, disability, or isokinetic trunk strength were included. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for pain. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and evidence certainty via Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Among 1750 retrieved articles, eight were included in this review. Meta-analysis comparing IKT (trunk isokinetic training, n= 134) with control groups (conventional exercises, n= 133) revealed that IKT decreases pain intensity (MD -1.50 (95% CI: -2.60; -0.39)) immediately post-intervention, and one month (MD -1.97 (95% CI: -2.92; -1.03)) and at six months follow-up (MD -2.48 (95% CI: -2.77; -2.19)), although with a very low to low quality according to the GRADE rating. Besides, IKT decreases disability and increases isokinetic trunk strength, but with scant evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Trunk IKT could be a novel clinical tool for pain management in patients with NSLBP, although evidence is scarce. In addition, few RCTs exist for IKT on disability or trunk isokinetic strength in patients with NSLBP. Therefore, further research on this topic is needed.

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.

Sleep quality in patients with chronic low back pain

Abstract Introduction : Sleep performs a restorative function for the body. Medical conditions such as Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) may cause sleep changes and impair sleep quality. Objectives : To identify the prevalence of sleep disorders among individuals with CLBP, and investigate whether there is an association between these disorders and perceived functional disability. Materials and methods : This observational, descriptive study was conducted with 51 patients seen at the Clinic of the School of Physical Therapy of Santa Catarina State University. Data were collected through interviews addressing socio-demographic and clinical data, and administration of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Results : Participants had high levels of functional disability (mean, 16.71 ± 4.16 score points). 82.35% of patients had poor sleep quality (mean, 10.22 ± 4.84 score points). The PSQI components with the highest mean scores were: sleep latency and sleep disturbances. There was also a weak association between functional disability and sleep quality (Spearman = 0.31; p = 0.025), i.e., the higher the disability, the worse the quality of sleep. Conclusion : We found a high prevalence of sleep disorders among patients with CLBP, and a weak association with the level of perceived disability. It is important to conduct further studies on the relationship between these factors and sleep quality. Moreover, there is a need for a multidisciplinary approach in the treatment of CLBP, in order to treat sleep disorders and improve patients' quality of life.

Pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of aquatic and land physical therapy on musculoskeletal dysfunction of sickle cell disease patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of aquatic and land-based physiotherapy in reducing musculoskeletal hip and lower back pain and increasing overall physical capabilities of sickle cell disease patients.

METHODS

Informed written consent was obtained from all volunteers who were submitted to evaluations using different functional scales: Lequesne's Algofunctional Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index, trunk and hip range of motion, goniometry, trunk and hip muscle strength assessment using load cell, and surface electromyography of the iliocostalis, long dorsal (longissimus), gluteus maximus, gluteus medius and tensor fasciae latae muscles. Ten patients were randomized into two groups: aquatic physiotherapy with a mean age of 42 years (range: 25-67) and conventional physiotherapy with a mean age of 49 years (range: 43-59). Both groups were submitted to a twelve-week program of two sessions weekly.

RESULTS

After the intervention, significant improvements were observed regarding the Lequesne index (p-value=0.0217), Oswestry Disability Index (p-value=0.0112), range of motion of trunk extension (p-value=0.0320), trunk flexion muscle strength (p-value=0.0459), hip extension and abduction muscle strength (p-value=0.0062 and p-value=0.0257, respectively). Range of motion of trunk and hip flexion, extension, adduction and abduction, trunk extensor muscle strength and all surface electromyography variables showed no significant statistical difference.

CONCLUSION

Physical therapy is efficient to treat musculoskeletal dysfunctions in sickle cell disease patients, irrespective of the technique; however, aquatic therapy showed a trend toward improvement in muscle strength. Further studies with a larger patient sample and longer periods of therapy are necessary to confirm these results.

Isokinetic performance, functionality, and pain level before and after lumbar and pelvic estabilization exercise in individuals with chronic low back pain

Introduction Chronic low back pain with a mechanical and degenerative origin is among the most common symptoms experienced by people all over the world. Objective To analyze the effects of a protocol for lumbar and pelvic segmental stabilization with regard to isokinetic variables, functionality, and pain in patients with low back pain. Materials and methods The sample consisted of 21 subjects, 8 female and 13 male, with a mean age of 42.6 ± 12.5 years. We used tests for mobility (modified Schober index), flexibility (finger-floor distance), functionality (Roland-Morris questionnaire), pain (Visual Analog Scale of Pain), and the isokinetic variables torque peak, work, flexors/extensors ratio before and after application of a protocol for segmental stabilization in subjects with chronic low back pain with a mechanical and degenerative origin. This protocol was used for two months, being applied twice a week. The data were statistically tested by means of the software Statistica, version 8.0. Results There were significant improvements for the variables flexibility (p = 0.014), functionality (p < 0.001), pain level (p < 0.001), torque peak flexion (p = 0.008), torque peak range (p < 0.001), torque flexion (p = 0.001), torque range (p < 0.001), and flexors/extensors ratio (p = 0.001). Conclusion Even with the improved levels of trunk muscles strength, both flexors and extensors, it was not possible to rebalance the segment according to data available in the literature. It is believed that there is a need for a protocol with a longer application period, maintaining the recruitment of extensor muscles. Regarding mobility of the lumbar segment, the protocol showed no significant differences in post-treatment (p = 0.520). This may be attributed to improved muscle control, providing the increased passive stiffness required to promote stability.