The Effectiveness of Mechanical Traction Among Subgroups of Patients With Low Back Pain and Leg Pain: A Randomized Trial

The McKenzie method for (sub)acute non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

There is widespread agreement amongst clinicians that people with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) comprise a heterogeneous group and that their management should be individually tailored. One treatment known by its tailored design is the McKenzie method (e.g. an individualized program of exercises based on clinical clues observed during assessment).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in people with (sub)acute non-specific low back pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to 15 August 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in adults with (sub)acute (less than 12 weeks) NSLBP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included five RCTs with a total of 563 participants recruited from primary or tertiary care. Three trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Scotland. Three trials received financial support from non-commercial funders and two did not provide information on funding sources. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias. None of the included trials measured adverse events. McKenzie method versus minimal intervention (educational booklet; McKenzie method as a supplement to other intervention - main comparison) There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may result in a slight reduction in pain in the short term (MD -7.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -2.56; 2 trials, 377 participants) but not in the intermediate term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -14.3 to 4.3; 1 trial, 180 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -2.5, 95% CI -7.5 to 2.0; 2 trials, 328 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD -0.9, 95% CI -7.3 to 5.6; 1 trial, 180 participants). McKenzie method versus manual therapy There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce pain in the short term (MD -8.7, 95% CI -27.4 to 10.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) and may result in a slight increase in pain in the intermediate term (MD 7.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 13.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -15.0 to 5.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 4.3, 95% CI -0.7 to 9.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). McKenzie method versus other interventions (massage and advice) There is very low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD 4.0, 95% CI -15.4 to 23.4; 1 trial, 30 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 10.0, 95% CI -8.9 to 28.9; 1 trial, 30 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low- to very low-certainty evidence, the treatment effects for pain and disability found in our review were not clinically important. Thus, we can conclude that the McKenzie method is not an effective treatment for (sub)acute NSLBP.

Treatment-based classification for low back pain: systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effects of treatment-based classification (TBC) in patients with specific and nonspecific acute, subacute and chronic low back pain.

METHODS

The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Global Health, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro and WHO from inception up to December 2021. We used the PEDro scale, the TIDieR checklist and the GRADE approach to evaluate the risk of bias, quality on reporting and the certainty of the evidence, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-three trials (pooled n = 2,649) met the inclusion criteria. We have identified a total of 22 comparisons and 134 estimates of treatment effects. There was a very large heterogeneity with regards to the comparison groups. Most of individual trials had low risk of bias with a mean score of 6.8 (SD = 1.3) on a 0-10 scale. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons was low, which indicates that more high quality and robust trials are needed. We were able to pool the data using a meta-analysis approach for only two comparisons (TBC versus mobility exercises in patients with acute low back pain and traction for patients with sciatica). In general, the TBC approach seems to be useful for patients with acute low back pain, sciatica and with spinal stenosis. We strongly suggest readers to carefully read our summary of findings table for further details on each comparison.

CONCLUSION

The TBC approach seems to be useful for patients with acute low back pain, sciatica and with spinal stenosis.

Effects of traction therapy on atlantoaxial joint dislocation-induced cervical vertigo

Cervical vertigo is a common complication of atlantoaxial joint dislocation. However, there is no consensus on the effects of different therapies on the recovery of the patients suffering cervical vertigo. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate the effect of traction therapy on reducing cervical vertigo induced by atlantoaxial joint dislocation. A total of 96 patients were randomized to receive traction therapy or traditional therapy for two weeks. The overall clinical efficacy was measured based on the 30-point cervical vertigo symptom and function evaluation form. The therapeutic effects were also evaluated based on lateral atlantodental space (LADS), vertigo scale, neck and shoulder pain scale, headache scale, daily life and work scale, psychosocial adaptation scale, and quality of life. Compared with the traditional therapy group, the traction group demonstrated markedly higher overall clinical efficacy (P=0.038). Both the traction therapy group and the traditional therapy group showed significant decrease in LADS (P<0.001), but the traction therapy group had a greater reduction of LAD compared with the traditional group (P<0.01). Traction therapy consistently led to significantly greater relief of cervical vertigo symptoms, including dizziness, neck and shoulder pain, headache, inconvenience in daily living and work activities, impaired psychosocial adaptation, while improving quality of life. The efficacy of traction therapy for cervical vertigo surpasses that of traditional therapy, suggesting that traction therapy is potentially more clinically useful in treating these patients.

Precision rehabilitation: optimizing function, adding value to health care

Precision medicine efforts are underway in many medical disciplines; however, the power of precision rehabilitation has not yet been explored. Precision medicine aims to deliver the right intervention, at the right time, in the right setting, for the right person, ultimately, bolstering the value of the care that we provide. To date precision medicine efforts have rarely focused on function at the level of a person, but precision rehabilitation is poised to change this and bring the focus on function to the broader precision medicine enterprise. To do this, subgroups of individuals must be identified based on their level of function via precise measurement of their abilities in the physical, cognitive, and psychosocial domains. Adoption of electronic health records, advances in data storage and analytics, and improved measurement technology make this shift possible. Here we detail critical components of the precision rehabilitation framework, including 1) the synergistic use of various study designs, 2) the need for standardized functional measurements, 3) the importance of precise and longitudinal measures of function, 4) the utility of comprehensive databases, 5) the importance of predictive analyses, and 6) the need for system and team science. Precision rehabilitation has the potential to revolutionize clinical care, optimize function for all individuals, and magnify the value of rehabilitation in healthcare; however, to reap the benefits of precision rehabilitation, the rehabilitation community must actively pursue this shift.

Effect of Nonsurgical Spinal Decompression on Intensity of Pain and Herniated Disc Volume in Subacute Lumbar Herniated Disc

OBJECTIVE

Nonsurgical spinal decompression therapy (NSDT) is a conservative treatment for the lumbosacral herniated intervertebral disc (L-HIVD). This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the NSDT and change in disc volume through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in subacute L-HIVD.

METHODS

Sixty patients with subacute L-HIVD were randomized into either the decompression group (group D, n = 30) or the nondecompression group (group N, n = 30). In group D, NSDT was performed ten times in eight weeks. In group N, pseudodecompression therapy (no force) was performed with the same protocol. Lower back and lower leg pain intensities and functional improvements were measured by the visual analog scale and the Korean Oswestry Disability Index (K-ODI). The change in the lumbosacral disc herniation index (HI) was evaluated through a follow-up MRI three months after the therapy.

RESULTS

The lower leg pain intensity in group D was lower than that in group N at two months (p=0.028). Additionally, there were significantly lower K-ODI scores in group D at two and three months (p=0.023, 0.019) than in group N. The change in HI after the therapy was -27.6 ± 27.5 (%) in group D and -7.1 ± 24.9 (%) in group N, with a significant difference (p=0.017). Approximately 26.9% of patients in group D and no patients in group N showed over 50% reduction in HI (p=0.031).

CONCLUSION

NSDT may be a suitable treatment option for conservative treatment of subacute L-HIVD.

Lumbar disc disease: the effect of inversion on clinical symptoms and a comparison of the rate of surgery after inversion therapy with the rate of surgery in neurosurgery controls

[Purpose] We have previously shown inversion therapy to be effective in a small prospective randomised controlled trial of patients with lumbar disc protrusions. Our purpose now was to measure symptoms and to compare the surgery rate following inversion for 85 participants with the surgery rate in 3 control groups. [Participants and Methods] Each of the 85 inverted participants acted as their own control for the “symptomatic” part of the study. In the “Need for surgery” part of the study, one control group was made up of similar patients with leg pain and sciatica who were referred to the same clinic in the same year. Two additional control groups were examined: the original control group from the pilot trial and the lumbar disc surgery waiting list patients. [Results] Inversion therapy relieved symptoms: there were improvements in the Visual Analogue Score, Roland Morris and Oswestry Disease indices and Health Utility Score compared with their pre-treatment status. Also, the 2 year surgery rate in the inversion participants in the registry (21%) was significantly lower than in the matched control group (39% at two years and 43% at four years). It was also lower than the surgery rate in the other 2 control groups. [Conclusion] Inversion therapy relieved symptoms and avoided surgery.

Immediate effect of mechanical lumbar traction in patients with chronic low back pain: A crossover, repeated measures, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Lumbar traction is a treatment method traditionally used for chronic low back pain (CLBP) in many countries. However, its clinical effectiveness has not been proven in medical practice. The purpose is to conduct a multi-center, crossover, randomized controlled trial (RCT) to prove the efficacy and safety of traction on CLBP patients, using equipment capable of precise traction force control and of reproducibility of the condition based on the previous biomechanical and pre-clinical studies.

METHODS

Ninety-five patients with non-specific CLBP from 28 clinics and hospitals were randomly assigned to either the intermittent traction with vibration (ITV) first group (A: sequence ITV to ITO) or the intermittent traction only (ITO) first group (B: sequence ITO to ITV); the former was treated with repeated traction and vibration force added to preload. All patients were followed up weekly for 2 periods after study-initiation. The primary outcome measures were disability level including pain and quality of life (based on Japan Low back pain Evaluation Questionnaire; JLEQ), and JLEQ was measured repeatedly. Statistical analysis was performed using linear mixed model.

RESULTS

Comparing to pre-traction data, both traction modes significant improvement except the first intervention of ITO treatment. The differences in JLEQ scores over time showed significant improvements in the treatment to which vibrational force was added in contrast to the conventional traction treatment; Mean difference was significant to compare ITV treatment and ITO treatment (-1.75 (p = 0.001), 95% CI; -2.69 to -0.80). However, neither difference between the two sequences (p = 0.884) nor carryover effect (p = 0.527) was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Altogether, the results indicate that lumbar traction was able to improve the pain and functional status immediately in patients with CLBP. This study contributes to add some evidence of the efficacy of lumbar traction.

Interventions for the Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: Revision 2021

Low back pain (LBP) remains a musculoskeletal condition with an adverse societal impact. Globally, LBP is highly prevalent and a leading cause of disability. This is an update to the 2012 Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy (AOPT), formerly the Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), clinical practice guideline (CPG) for LBP. The overall objective of this update was to provide recommendations on interventions delivered by physical therapists or studied in care settings that included physical therapy providers. It also focused on synthesizing new evidence, with the purpose of making recommendations for specific nonpharmacologic treatments. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):CPG1-CPG60. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0304.

The Unknown Prevalence of Postrandomization Bias in 15 Physical Therapy Journals: A Methods Review

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of prospective clinical trial registration and postrandomization bias in published musculoskeletal physical therapy randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

A methods review.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Articles indexed in MEDLINE and published between January 2016 and July 2020 were included.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent blinded reviewers identified the RCTs using Covidence. We included RCTs related to musculoskeletal interventions that were published in International Society of Physiotherapy Journal Editors member journals.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted independently for the variables of interest from the identified RCTs by 2 blinded reviewers. The data were presented descriptively or in frequency tables.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight RCTs were identified. One third of RCTs were consistent with their prospectively registered intent (49/138); consistency with prospectively registered intent could not be determined for two thirds (89/138) of the RCTs. Four RCTs (8%)reported inconsistent results with the primary aims and 7 (14%) with the outcomes from the prospective clinical trial registry, despite high methodological quality (Physiotherapy Evidence Database [PEDro] scale score). Differences between prospectively registered and non-prospectively registered RCTs for PEDro scale scores had a medium effect size (r = 0.30). Two of 15 journals followed their clinical trial registration policy 100% of the time; in 1 journal, the published RCTs were consistent with the clinical trial registration.

CONCLUSION

Postrandomization bias in musculoskeletal physical therapy RCTs could not be ruled out, due to the lack of prospective clinical trial registration and detailed data analysis plans. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):542-550. Epub 21 Sep 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10491.

Effectiveness of Mechanical Traction for Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar radiculopathy (LR) is a pain syndrome caused by compression/irritation of the lumbar nerve root(s). Traction is a well-known and commonly used conservative treatment for LR, although its effectiveness is disputed. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was to evaluate the effects of different types of traction added to or compared with conservative treatments on pain and disability.

METHODS

Data were obtained from CENTRAL, PUBMED, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and PEDro from their inception to April 2020. All randomized controlled trials on adults with LR, using mechanical traction, and without any restriction regarding publication time or language were considered. Two reviewers selected the studies, evaluated the quality assessment, and extracted the results. Meta-analysis used a random-effects model. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, and 5 were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses of results from low-quality studies indicated that supine mechanical traction added to physical therapist treatments had significant effects on pain (g = -0.58 [95% confidence interval = -0.87 to -0.29]) and disability (g = -0.78 [95% confidence interval = -1.45 to -0.11]). Analyses of results from high-quality studies of prone mechanical traction added to physical therapist intervention for pain and disability were not significant. These results were also evident at short-term follow-up (up to 3 months after intervention).

CONCLUSION

The literature suggests that, for pain and disability in LR, there is short-term effectiveness of supine mechanical traction when added to physical therapist intervention.

IMPACT

This systematic review may be relevant for clinical practice due to its external validity because the treatments and the outcome measures are very similar to those commonly used in a clinical context.

Relevance of a novel external dynamic distraction device for treating back pain

Low back pain is a common, expensive, and disabling condition in industrialized countries. There is still no consensus for its ideal management. Believing in the beneficial effect of traction, we developed a novel external dynamic distraction device. The purpose of this work was to demonstrate that external distraction allows limiting the pressure exerted in standing-up position on the lower intervertebral discs. Numerical and cadaveric studies were used as complementary approaches. Firstly, we implemented the device into a numerical model of a validated musculoskeletal software (Anybody Modeling System) and we calculated the lower disc pressure while traction forces were applied. Secondly, we performed an anatomical study using a non-formalin preserved cadaver placed in a sitting position. A pressure sensor was placed in the lower discs under fluoroscopic control through a Jamshidi needle. The intradiscal pressure was then measured continuously at rest while applying a traction force of 200 N. Both numerical and cadaveric studies demonstrated a decrease in intradiscal pressures after applying a traction force with the external device. Using the numerical model, we showed that tensile forces below 500 N in total were sufficient. The application of higher forces seems useless and potentially deleterious. External dynamic distraction device is able to significantly decrease the intradiscal pressure in a sitting or standing position. However, the therapeutic effects need to be proven using clinical studies.

A multicentre randomized controlled follow-up study of the effects of the underwater traction therapy in chronic low back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most costly diseases in the developed world. This study aimed to investigate the effects of underwater traction therapy on chronic low back pain. The primary objective was to prove that underwater traction therapy has favorable effects on LBP. Our secondary objective was to evaluate whether it also leads to improvement in the quality of life. This is a prospective, multicenter, follow-up study. A total of 176 patients with more than 3 months of low back pain enrolled from outpatient clinics were randomized into three groups: underwater weight bath traction therapy and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); weight bath; and only NSAIDs. The following parameters were measured before, right after, and 9 weeks after the 3-week therapy: levels of low back pain in rest and during activity were tested using the visual analogue scale (VAS), the Oswestry Low Back Disability Questionnaire, and the EuroQol-5D-5L Questionnaire.The VAS levels improved significantly (p < 0.05) in both underwater weight bath traction therapy groups by the end of the treatment, whereas the improvement in the third group was not statistically significant. Furthermore, the improvements measured in the groups receiving traction therapy were persistent during the follow-up period. There were no significant changes in the Oswestry Index or the EuroQol-5D-5L without VAS parameters in any of the groups.Based on our results, for patients suffering from LBP pain who underwent underwater weight bath traction therapy, there were favorable impacts on the pain levels at rest or during activity. Clinical trial registration ID: NCT03488498, April 5, 2018.

Effect of Caudal Traction on Mechanical Nociceptive Thresholds of Epaxial and Pelvic Musculature on a Group of Horses With Signs of Back Pain

Direct muscular attachment from lumbar vertebrae to the caudal vertebrae of the tail suggests that caudal traction, also described as a tail pull, may affect lumbar vertebral segments and/or associated soft tissues in horses. Traction is a commonly used human manual therapy technique used for pain relief and anecdotally observed to relieve pain in horses. However, research is lacking validating the efficacy of manual caudal traction on the horse. The objective of this study was to determine if caudal traction has an effect on mechanical nociceptive thresholds (MNTs) in a group of horses with clinical signs of back pain. Pressure algometry was used to measure MNTs of five bilateral anatomical sites in the epaxial and pelvic musculature of 11 horses referred to physiotherapy because of clinical signs of back pain. Measurements were recorded both before and immediately after traction. A significant difference (P ≤ .05) was identified between mean before and after caudal traction algometry measurements in all described sites. The percentage of MNT increase was highest in the thoracic region (83%) compared with the lumbar (50%) and the pelvic (52.4%) regions. These results support an effect of caudal traction in increasing MNTs in the thoracolumbar and pelvic regions in horses. Further research to determine the clinical effect of this technique is warranted.

Functional Changes in Patients and Morphological Changes in the Lumbar Intervertebral Disc after Applying Lordotic Curve-Controlled Traction: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Study

Background and Objectives: Lumbar traction is widely used as a non-operative treatment for lumbar intervertebral disc disease. The effect of traditional traction (TT) using linear-type traction devices remains controversial for various reasons, including technical limitations. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of the newly developed lumbar lordotic curve-controlled traction (L-LCCT) and TT on functional changes in patients and morphological changes in the vertebral disc. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 patients with lumbar intervertebral disc disease at the L4/5 or L5/S1 level as confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging were recruited and divided into two groups (L-LCCT or TT). The comprehensive health status changes of the patients were recorded using pain and functional scores (the visual analogue scale, the Oswestry Disability Index, and the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire) and morphological changes (in the lumbar central canal area) before and after traction treatment. Results: Pain scores were significantly decreased after traction in both groups (p < 0.05). However, functional scores and morphological changes improved significantly after treatment in the L-LCCT group only (p < 0.05). Conclusions: We suggest that L-LCCT is a viable option for resolving the technical limitations of TT by maintaining the lumbar lordotic curve in patients with lumbar intervertebral disc disease.

Best Evidence Rehabilitation for Chronic Pain Part 4: Neck Pain

Neck pain, whether from a traumatic event such as a motor vehicle crash or of a non-traumatic nature, is a leading cause of worldwide disability. This narrative review evaluated the evidence from systematic reviews, recent randomised controlled trials, clinical practice guidelines, and other relevant studies for the effects of rehabilitation approaches for chronic neck pain. Rehabilitation was defined as the aim to restore a person to health or normal life through training and therapy and as such, passive interventions applied in isolation were not considered. The results of this review found that the strongest treatment effects to date are those associated with exercise. Strengthening exercises of the neck and upper quadrant have a moderate effect on neck pain in the short-term. The evidence was of moderate quality at best, indicating that future research will likely change these conclusions. Lower quality evidence and smaller effects were found for other exercise approaches. Other treatments, including education/advice and psychological treatment, showed only very small to small effects, based on low to moderate quality evidence. The review also provided suggestions for promising future directions for clinical practice and research.

The Functional and Morphological Changes of the Cervical Intervertebral Disc after Applying Lordotic Curve Controlled Traction: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Study

The newly developed cervical lordotic curve-controlled traction (C-LCCT) appears to be an ideal method to improve the treatment outcome in patients with cervical intervertebral disc disease. The purpose of this study was to investigate the treatment outcomes of C-LCCT including the functional and morphological changes of the cervical intervertebral disc compared to traditional traction (TT) with a randomized controlled trial design. A total of 40 patients with cervical intervertebral disc disease at the C5/6 level confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging were recruited and assigned to either the C-LCCT group or the TT group. The comprehensive health status changes of the patients were recorded using pain and functional scores (Visual Analogue Scale, Oswestry Disability Index) and morphological changes (cervical lordosis, cervical central canal area) before and after the traction treatment. Both groups showed a significant improvement in pain scores after traction (p < 0.05). The functional score and morphological changes improved significantly after treatment in the C-LCCT group. However, there was no significant improvement in the TT group (p < 0.05). The C-LCCT showed significant pain, functional, and morphological improvement compared to TT. C-LCCT could be effective in improving the treatment outcomes of the traction technique in patients with cervical intervertebral disc disease.

Lumbar mechanical traction: a biomechanical assessment of change at the lumbar spine

BACKGROUND

Lumbar traction is a traditional treatment modality for chronic low back pain (CLBP) in many countries. However, its effectiveness has not been demonstrated in clinical practice because of the following: (1) the lack of in vivo biomechanical confirmation of the mechanism of lumbar traction that occurs at the lumbar spine; (2) the lack of a precise delivery system for traction force and, subsequently, the lack of reproducibility; and (3) few randomized controlled trials proving its effectiveness and utility.

METHODS

This study was planned as a preparatory experiment for a randomized clinical trial, and it aimed (1) to examine the biomechanical change at the lumbar area under lumbar traction and confirm its reproducibility and accuracy as a mechanical intervention, and (2) to reconfirm our clinical impression of the immediate effect of lumbar traction. One hundred thirty-three patients with non-specific CLBP were recruited from 28 orthopaedic clinics to undergo a biomechanical experiment and to assess and determine traction conditions for the next clinical trial. We used two types of traction devices, which are commercially available, and incorporated other measuring tools, such as an infrared range-finder and large extension strain gauge. The finite element method was used to analyze the real data of pelvic girdle movement at the lumbar spine level. Self-report assessments with representative two conditions were analyzed according to the qualitative coding method.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight participants provided available biomechanical data. We could not measure directly what happened in the body, but we confirmed that the distraction force lineally correlated with the movement of traction unit at the pelvic girdle. After applying vibration force to preloading, the strain gauge showed proportional vibration of the shifting distance without a phase lag qualitatively. FEM simulation provided at least 3.0-mm shifting distance at the lumbar spine under 100 mm of body traction. Ninety-five participants provided a treatment diary and were classified as no pain, improved, unchanged, and worsened. Approximately 83.2% of participants reported a positive response.

CONCLUSION

Lumbar traction can provide a distractive force at the lumbar spine, and patients who experience the application of such force show an immediate response after traction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network - Clinical Trial Registration: UMIN-CTR000024329 (October 13, 2016).

The Effect of Spinal Mobilization With Leg Movement in Patients With Lumbar Radiculopathy-A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of spinal mobilization with leg movement (SMWLM) on low back and leg pain intensity, disability, pain centralization, and patient satisfaction in participants with lumbar radiculopathy.

DESIGN

A double-blind randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

General hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults (N=60; mean age 44y) with subacute lumbar radiculopathy.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly allocated to receive SMWLM, exercise and electrotherapy (n=30), or exercise and electrotherapy alone (n=30). All participants received 6 sessions over 2 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were leg pain intensity and Oswestry Disability Index score. Secondary variables were low back pain intensity, global rating of change (GROC), straight leg raise (SLR), and lumbar range of motion (ROM). Variables were evaluated blind at baseline, post-intervention, and at 3 and 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Significant and clinically meaningful improvement occurred in all outcome variables. At 2 weeks the SMWLM group had significantly greater improvement than the control group in leg pain (MD 2.0; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.4-2.6) and disability (MD 3.9; 95% CI, 5.5-2.2). Similarly, at 6 months, the SMWLM group had significantly greater improvement than the control group in leg pain (MD 2.6; 95% CI, 1.9-3.2) and disability (MD 4.7; 95% CI, 6.3-3.1). The SMWLM group also reported greater improvement in the GROC and in SLR ROM.

CONCLUSION

In patients with lumbar radiculopathy, the addition of SMWLM provided significantly improved benefits in leg and back pain, disability, SLR ROM, and patient satisfaction in the short and long term.

Assessment of variability in traction interventions for patients with low back pain: a systematic review

Background

Previous systematic reviews have concluded that lumbar traction is not effective for patients with low back pain (LBP), yet many clinicians continue to assert its clinical effectiveness.

Objective

To systematically identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traction and explore the variability of traction interventions used in each RCT.

Method

A literature search started in September 2016 to retrieve systematic reviews and individual RCTs of lumbar traction. The term “lumbar traction” and other key words were used in the following databases: Cochrane Registry, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. The retrieved systematic reviews were used to extract individual RCTs. The most current systematic review included RCTs from inception until August 2012. We performed an additional literature search to update this systematic review with newer RCTs published between September 2012 and December 2016. All of the identified RCTs were combined and summarized into a single evidence table.

Results

We identified a total of 37 traction RCTs that varied greatly in their method of traction intervention. The RCTs included several types of traction: mechanical (57%), auto-traction (16%), manual (10.8%), gravitational (8.1%) and aquatic (5.4%). There was also great variability in the types of traction force, rhythm, session duration and treatment frequency used in the RCTs. Patient characteristics were a mixture of acute, subacute and chronic LBP; with or without sciatica.

Conclusion

There is wide variability in the type of traction, traction parameters and patient characteristics found among the RCTs of lumbar traction. The variability may call into question the conclusion that lumbar traction has little no or value on clinical outcomes. Also, this variability emphasizes the need for targeted delivery methods of traction that match appropriate dosages with specific subgroups of patients with LBP.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

Case series, repeated measures.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

2016 JOSPT Awards: Additive Effects and Biological Mechanisms of Interventions Offer Important Insights

During the American Physical Therapy Association's Combined Sections Meeting in San Antonio, TX in February 2017, JOSPT recognized the authors of the most outstanding research and clinical practice manuscripts published in JOSPT during 2016. The 2016 JOSPT Excellence in Research Award was presented to Carol A. Courtney, Alana D. Steffen, César Fernández-de-las-Peñas, John Kim, and Samuel J. Chmell, MD, for their March 2016 article "Joint Mobilization Enhances Mechanisms of Conditioned Pain Modulation in Individuals With Osteoarthritis of the Knee." The 2016 George J. Davies-James A. Gould Excellence in Clinical Inquiry Award was presented to Seyda Toprak Celenay, Turkan Akbayrak, and Derya Ozer Kaya for their February 2016 article "A Comparison of the Effects of Stabilization Exercises Plus Manual Therapy to Those of Stabilization Exercises Alone in Patients With Nonspecific Mechanical Neck Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial." J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(4):225-227. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0104.

Clinical Prediction Rules That Don't Hold Up-Where to Go From Here?

Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are created to help guide clinical decision making. To do this, they use the presence or absence of certain factors that have been shown to meaningfully predict a patient's prognosis, diagnosis, or response to treatment. While representing a seminal methodological step forward in individualized care, one of the main drawbacks of CPRs continues to be validation studies that do not support the initially derived CPR. This is particularly important because validation of CPRs in an independent patient population prior to clinical implementation is essential. Why is it quite common for existing CPRs to fall down at the validation stage? And what does this mean for research that aims to individualize treatment? J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(7):502-505. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.0606.

Mechanical Lumbar Traction: What Is Its Place in Clinical Practice?

Summary evidence concludes that mechanical lumbar traction is not effective for treating acute or chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, many physical therapists continue to use it, primarily as an additional modality. Indeed, expert clinical opinion, theoretical models, and some research evidence suggest that certain patients with LBP respond positively to traction. A study published in the March 2016 issue of JOSPT investigates the effectiveness of traction in prone as an adjunct to an extension-oriented exercise program in patients with LBP and leg pain and explores whether a previously identified set of patient characteristics is associated with better outcomes from traction. In this Perspectives for Practice, the authors explain the impact of their findings for clinicians treating these patients.

Perspectives for Practice: A New JOSPT Feature to Facilitate Translation of Research Into Practice

In this month's issue, we introduce a new feature, Perspectives for Practice, which aims to interpret new research in the context of established best practice. This 2-page feature is designed to offer clinicians insight into the state of the art: what was known before, what research was done before, what new evidence the present study found, and how we should interpret this new evidence in light of what was known before. The second page of the Perspectives for Practice will provide additional material useful for teaching and discussion. The structure and content of these features will undergo continued development in response to reader feedback, which we welcome.