Alongamento muscular na dor lombar crônica inespecífica: uma estratégia do método GDS

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.

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.

Effectiveness of stretching exercise program among nurses with neck pain: Palestinian perspective

The study aimed to assess the effect of muscle stretching exercise on neck pain and disability among nurses in Palestine. A quasi-experimental, pre-post design with a convenience sample of 90 nurses with moderate-to-severe neck pain from two hospitals in Palestine participated in the study. The hospitals were randomly selected to be an experimental and the other one as a control group. The experimental group received the instruction to perform structured neck and around shoulder stretching exercises two sessions/day for 5 days/week for 1 month. The control group was told to maintain their current level of physical activity. Results showed that the magnitude of improvement in neck pain and disability was greater in the experimental group than in the control group (t(88) = 8.5, P = 0.001).

Influence of stretching exercises in musculoskeletal pain in nursing professionals

Abstract Introduction: Nursing professionals (NPs) experience musculoskeletal pain that leads them to leave work. Objective: To analyze the effects of muscle stretching exercises (MSE) on pain among NPs. Method: This is a randomized controlled parallel experiment, in which 28 NPs (7 men and 21 women) were allocated into experimental (EG, n = 15; 47.4 years ± 9.5) and control (CG, n = 13; 39.15 years ± 9.6) groups. MSEs were performed for two months, three days a week, 40 min per session. A visual numeric scale was used, for which the intensity ranged from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain). The research was registered at the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry website (TRIAL: RBR- 8chg6q). For statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk, T-independent and two-way ANOVA tests were applied for repeated measures with Tukey’s post-hoc test (P ≤ 0.05). Results: Most NPs work on weekends (68%) and/or have other professional activities (60.7%); 42.9% had to miss work at least once in the year prior to the survey and 66.7% of those were due to medical reasons; 42.9% work more than 10 hours/day. Of the NPs, 89.3% of the volunteers in both groups lived daily with pain in some region of the body. Pain decreased after the MSE program was initiated in the EG (p = 0.001) and differed from the CG (p = 0.002). Conclusion: MSEs were beneficial for pain reduction in NPs.

Which specific modes of exercise training are most effective for treating low back pain? Network meta-analysis

Objective

Examine the effectiveness of specific modes of exercise training in non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP).

Design

Network meta-analysis (NMA).

Data sources

MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, CENTRAL.

Eligibility criteria

Exercise training randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with NSCLBP.

Results

Among 9543 records, 89 studies (patients=5578) were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 70 (pain), 63 (physical function), 16 (mental health) and 4 (trunk muscle strength) for NMA. The NMA consistency model revealed that the following exercise training modalities had the highest probability (surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA)) of being best when compared with true control: Pilates for pain (SUCRA=100%; pooled standardised mean difference (95% CI): −1.86 (–2.54 to –1.19)), resistance (SUCRA=80%; −1.14 (–1.71 to –0.56)) and stabilisation/motor control (SUCRA=80%; −1.13 (–1.53 to –0.74)) for physical function and resistance (SUCRA=80%; −1.26 (–2.10 to –0.41)) and aerobic (SUCRA=80%; −1.18 (–2.20 to –0.15)) for mental health. True control was most likely (SUCRA≤10%) to be the worst treatment for all outcomes, followed by therapist hands-off control for pain (SUCRA=10%; 0.09 (–0.71 to 0.89)) and physical function (SUCRA=20%; −0.31 (–0.94 to 0.32)) and therapist hands-on control for mental health (SUCRA=20%; −0.31 (–1.31 to 0.70)). Stretching and McKenzie exercise effect sizes did not differ to true control for pain or function (p>0.095; SUCRA<40%). NMA was not possible for trunk muscle endurance or analgesic medication. The quality of the synthesised evidence was low according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.

Summary/conclusion

There is low quality evidence that Pilates, stabilisation/motor control, resistance training and aerobic exercise training are the most effective treatments, pending outcome of interest, for adults with NSCLBP. Exercise training may also be more effective than therapist hands-on treatment. Heterogeneity among studies and the fact that there are few studies with low risk of bias are both limitations.

Relation between posture and spine and pelvis flexibility: a systematic review

Abstract Introduction: Changes in body structure positioning are associated with muscle flexibility and joint mobility, but evidence of this relationship is still incipient. Objective: To identify evidences of correlation between parameters regarding static body posture in orthostasis and spine and pelvis flexibility and/or mobility. Methods: Systematic review guided by the PRISMA Statement and the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration (PROSPERO: CRD42015026298). A search of the BIREME, EMBASE, PubMed and Science Direct databases was carried out, considering the beginning of the databases until January 16, 2017, with the terms and Boolean operators “posture” AND “spine” OR “pelvis” AND “range of motion, articular” OR “movement”. To be included in the review, studies should present observational or clinical trial methodological designs, have sampled healthy individuals, present correlation or association test results between static posture and mobility/flexibility in the sagittal plane, and be published in Spanish, English or Portuguese. The methodological quality was evaluated by the Downs & Black scale and evidence by the GRADE system. Results: A total of 5,326 studies were obtained, seven of which were included after the establishment of the eligibility criteria. All studies presented high methodological quality, although a considerable heterogeneity regarding the choice of instruments and evaluation protocols was noted, reflecting contradictory results. Therefore, the present systematic review presents a moderate strength of evidence. Conclusion: No definitive evidence is yet available concerning the possible relationship between body posture and spine and pelvis flexibility and mobility.

Posterior chain flexibility and lower back pain in farm workers

Abstract Introduction: Flexibility is an essential component of physical aptitude that reduces the incidence of muscle distention and improves movement efficiency and posture. Objective: To analyze posterior chain flexibility and lower back pain (LBP) in farm workers from a city in western Santa Catarina state, Brazil. Methods: Quantitative and cross-sectional study conducted with 185 rural workers, average age of 44.24 (±10.83) years. The Rural Worker Health Questionnaire, containing individual issues related to work; sit and reach box, goniometer, visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry and Roland-Morris questionnaires were used to evaluate posterior chain flexibility, hamstring muscle length, pain and lumbar spine dysfunction, respectively. Flexibility was compared with the degree of dysfunction using one-way ANOVA followed by the Bonferroni post hoc test. Results: 181 (97.8%) workers reported LBP symptoms: 100% of the women and 95.2% of the men. The average Oswestry score was 7.09 (±8.25), Roland-Morris 1.22 (±1.63), and VAS 5.81 (±2.5). Average flexibility by the sit and reach test (SRT) was 23.91cm (±18.81); straight leg raise (SLR), 66° (±11.77) and popliteal angle 123.21° (±12.45). There was a significant difference in the popliteal angle (p = 0.003) and SLR (0.001) when compared with the degree of dysfunction. Women showed significant differences in all tests; however, the post hoc test showed a significant difference only in the SRT (p = 0.013), and women with minimal dysfunction had greater flexibility in relation to those with severe dysfunction. Conclusion: Self-reported LBP was severe and women with higher levels of dysfunction exhibited less posterior chain flexibility.