Responsiveness of pain, active range of motion, and disability in patients with acute nonspecific low back pain

Sakulsriprasert, Prasert; Vachalathiti, Roongtiwa; Vongsirinavarat, Mantana; Pichaisak, Witchate

doi:10.1016/j.hkpj.2011.02.003

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of this study contradict those of Sakulsriprasert et al [39], who found a reduction in pain level as well as improvements in lumbar range of motion and functional status in a group of NSLBP patients who received conventional therapy versus a group that received lumbar mobilization in addition to conventional therapy. They concluded that Maitland's mobilization had no additional effect [39]. This variation could be explained by the onset of LBP in their study, which was conducted on individuals who had acute NSLBP.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Effect of Maitland mobilization on lumbar proprioception, pain, and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain

Ibrahim¹,

Elkeblawy²,

Howeidy³

et al. 2023

Physiother Quart.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. To investigate the short-term effect of Maitland mobilization on lumbar proprioception, pain intensity, and functional disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP). Methods. Fifty-four subjects aged 18-30 years old with CNSLBP were randomly assigned into two groups. The experimental group received a selected exercise program (stretching, strengthening, and lumbar stabilization exercises) and Maitland posterior-anterior vertebral mobilization three sessions /week, whereas the control group received exercises only. Lumbar repositioning error (LRE), pain intensity, and function disability were measured using an isokinetic dynamometer, visual analog scale (VAS), and the Arabic version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), respectively. Measurements were taken at baseline and four weeks after intervention. Results. Within-group analysis showed a significant decrease in LRE, VAS, and ODI after treatment (p < 0.001). Between-group analysis revealed a significant difference between groups post-intervention favoring the Maitland mobilization group (p < 0.001) where the mean differences at 95% confidence interval were (-2.10, -1.36) for LRE, (-34.53, -25.61) for VAS and (-9, -7.07) for ODI Conclusions. Maitland lumbar mobilization is effective in improving lumbar proprioception, pain intensity, and functional disability in patients with CNSLBP.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Effect of Maitland mobilization on lumbar proprioception, pain, and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain

Ibrahim¹,

Elkeblawy²,

Howeidy³

et al. 2023

Physiother Quart.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Relationships based on cross‐sectional data between spinal amplitude and disability were available for 69 studies and 5899 participants (Adamu et al, 2019; Alschuler et al, 2009; Alves et al, 2020; Ansari et al, 2014; Atya, 2013; Aure & Kvåle, 2022; Bayar et al, 2003; Bazzaz‐Yamchi et al, 2021; Caporaso et al, 2012; Carrasco‐Martínez et al, 2019; Christe et al, 2016; Coyle et al, 2017; de Brito Macedo et al, 2019; Demoulin et al, 2013; Deyo, 1986; Dubois et al, 2016; Duray et al, 2018; Ekedahl et al, 2010; Fehrmann et al, 2017; Felicio et al, 2017; Garcia et al, 2013; Grönblad et al, 1997; Grosdent et al, 2023; Grotle et al, 2004; Hidalgo et al, 2015; Hofste et al, 2021; Hrkać et al, 2022; Hurri et al, 1995; Ibrahim et al, 2019; Jette et al, 2016; Joshi et al, 2021; Kang et al, 1995; Karayannis et al, 2023; Kiran et al, 2017; La Touche et al, 2019; Larivière et al, 2022; Lee et al, 2001; Lenoir dit Caron et al, 2022; Loisel et al, 1998; Louw et al, 2015; Louw, Farrell, et al, 2017; Mannion et al, 2001; Matheve et al, 2019; Melikoglu et al, 2009; Miyachi et al, 2021; Nattrass et al, 1999; Nemcić et al, 2013; Nordstoga et al, 2019; Ostelo et al, 2003; Ozkaraoglu et al, 2020; Parks et al, 2003; Rainville et al, 1994; Sakulsriprasert et al, 2011; Sasani et al, 2008; Satpute et al, 2019; Scharovsky et al,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationships between spinal amplitude of movement, pain and disability in low back pain: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Nzamba

Damme

Favre

et al. 2023

European Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and ObjectivesThe role of spinal movement alterations in low back pain (LBP) remains unclear. This systematic review and meta‐analyses examined the relationships between spinal amplitude of movement, disability and pain intensity in patients with LBP.Databases and Data TreatmentWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Pedro and Web of Science for relevant articles until 14th March 2023. Risk of bias was assessed with the Quality in Prognostic Studies Tool. We analysed the relationships between amplitude of movement, disability and pain intensity with standard correlational meta‐analyses and meta‐analytic structural equation modelling (MASEM) in cross‐sectional and longitudinal data.ResultsA total of 106 studies (9001 participants) were included. In cross‐sectional data, larger amplitude of movement was associated with lower disability (pooled coefficient: −0.25, 95% confidence interval: [−0.29 to −0.21]; 69/5899 studies/participants) and pain intensity (−0.13, [−0.17 to −0.09]; 74/5806). An increase in amplitude of movement was associated with a decrease in disability (−0.23, [−0.31 to −0.15]; 33/2437) and pain intensity (−0.25, [−0.33 to −0.17]; 38/2172) in longitudinal data. MASEM revealed similar results and, in addition, showed that amplitude of movement had a very small influence on the pain intensity–disability relationship.ConclusionsThese results showed a significant but small association between amplitude of movement and disability or pain intensity. Moreover, they demonstrated a direct association between an increase in amplitude of movement and a decrease in pain intensity or disability, supporting interventions aiming to reduce protective spinal movements in patients with LBP.SignificanceThe large meta‐analyses performed in this work revealed an association between reductions in spinal amplitude of movement and increased levels of disability and pain intensity in people with LBP. Moreover, it highlighted that LBP recovery is associated with a reduction in protective motor behaviour (increased amplitude of movement), supporting the inclusion of spinal movement in the biopsychosocial understanding and management of LBP.

show abstract

“…Lee et al [ 66 ] and Mobeen et al [ 72 ] observed an increase in lumbar ROM in the NSD therapy group after four and 2 weeks of treatment using a 3D motion analyzer and universal goniometer, respectively. None of the studies on the effects of NSD therapy assessed lumbar ROM through MMST, which is a highly reliable and valid test and an easy, fast, safe, and inexpensive test to be used clinically [ 73 ]. On the other hand, in most studies, straight leg raise (SLR) was assessed instead of directly measuring the lumbar ROM [ 3 , 21 , 30 , 31 , 64 , 71 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Amjad

Mohseni-Bandpei

Gilani

et al. 2022

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Responsiveness of pain, active range of motion, and disability in patients with acute nonspecific low back pain

Cited by 11 publications

References 16 publications

Effect of Maitland mobilization on lumbar proprioception, pain, and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain

Effect of Maitland mobilization on lumbar proprioception, pain, and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain

The relationships between spinal amplitude of movement, pain and disability in low back pain: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About