Effectiveness of Spinal Stabilization Exercises on Movement Performance in Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain

Abstract

Introduction Low back pain (LBP) is a musculoskeletal disorder that affects more than 80% of people in the United States at least once in their lifetime. LBP is one of the most common complaints prompting individuals to seek medical care. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of spinal stabilization exercises (SSEs) on movement performance, pain intensity, and disability level in adults with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods Forty participants, 20 in each group, with CLBP were recruited and randomly allocated into one of two interventions: SSEs and general exercises (GEs). All participants received their assigned intervention under supervision one to two times per week for the first four weeks and then were asked to continue their program at home for another four weeks. Outcome measures were collected at baseline, two weeks, four weeks, and eight weeks, including the Functional Movement ScreenTM (FMSTM), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (OSW) scores. Results There was a significant interaction for the FMSTM scores (p = 0.016), but not for the NPRS and OSW scores. Post hoc analysis showed significant between-group differences between baseline and four weeks (p = 0.005) and between baseline and eight weeks (p = 0.026) favor SSEs over GEs. Further, the results demonstrated that all participants, regardless of group, had significant improvements in movement performance, pain intensity, and disability level over time. Conclusion The results of the study favor SSEs over GEs in improving movement performance for individuals with CLBP, specifically after four weeks of the supervised SSE program.

Effects of Core Stability Exercise on Functional Performance among Adults with Low Back Pain

“…The effectiveness of CSE in relieving pain in CLBP patients over other therapies is debatable. Seven studies have found that CSE is more helpful than other therapy in relieving pain in persons with CLBP (Alkhathami et al, 2023;Andrusaitis et al, 2011;Khodadad et al, 2020;Kim et al, 2015;Rhee et al, 2012;Salik Sengul et al, 2021;Sarker et al, 2020). However, eight studies concluded that CSE was similarly effective in improving pain in patients with CLBP compared with other therapies (Alp et al, 2014;Alshehre et al, 2023;Chan et al, 2020;Hwangbo et al, 2015;Khodadad et al, 2020;Salavati et al, 2016;Ulger et al, 2023;H.…”

“…Whether CSE is more effective than other treatments in improving motor control in patients with CLBP is controversial. Three studies believe that CSE can be more effective than other treatments in improving motor control in CLBP patients (Alkhathami et al, 2023;Khodadad et al, 2020). However, three studies concluded that there was little difference in the effectiveness of CSE in improving motor control in CLBP patients (Khodadad et al, 2020;Salik Sengul et al, 2021;H.…”

“…Low back pain (LBP), a leading cause of medical consultations (Alkhathami et al, 2023), refers to pain between the 12th rib and the inferior gluteal fold (Zahari et al, 2023). Categorized as non-specific (90%), specific (10%), acute (up to 6 weeks), sub-acute (6-12 weeks), or chronic (over 12 weeks) (Frizziero et al, 2021), non-specific LBP (NSLBP) impacts about two-thirds of the population (Areeudomwong et al, 2019).…”

“…Categorized as non-specific (90%), specific (10%), acute (up to 6 weeks), sub-acute (6-12 weeks), or chronic (over 12 weeks) (Frizziero et al, 2021), non-specific LBP (NSLBP) impacts about two-thirds of the population (Areeudomwong et al, 2019). Functional performance examination holds particular importance in chronic NSLBP care, assessing balance, motor control, functionality, proprioception, metabolic capacity, and postural sway (Van Dijk et al, 2017;Alkhathami et al, 2023).…”

Comparing the Scores of The Functional Movement Screen™ in Individuals with Low Back Pain versus Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The study subjects were patients with LBP, and either athletes, or healthy controls without LBP. The study design varied among the articles; one study was a double-blinded randomized clinical trial, 18 one was a reliability and validity study, 19 one was a cross-sectional study, 20 and Four were prospective studies. 7,21–23 Some studies included either males or females, and others included both genders.…”