scholarly journals High load lifting exercise and low load motor control exercises as interventions for patients with mechanical low back pain: A randomized controlled trial with 24-month follow-up

2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 456-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Michaelson ◽  
D Holmberg ◽  
B Aasa ◽  
U Aasa
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Motor Control ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
High Load ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Low Load

scholarly journals Motor Control Exercises, Sling Exercises, and General Exercises for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial With 1-Year Follow-up

2010 ◽  
Vol 90 (10) ◽  
pp. 1426-1440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Unsgaard-Tøndel ◽  
Anne Margrethe Fladmark ◽  
Øyvind Salvesen ◽  
Ottar Vasseljen
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Motor Control ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Randomized Controlled

BackgroundExercise benefits patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain; however, the most effective type of exercise remains unknown.ObjectiveThis study compared outcomes after motor control exercises, sling exercises, and general exercises for low back pain.DesignThis was a randomized controlled trial with a 1-year follow-up.SettingThe study was conducted in a primary care setting in Norway.PatientsThe participants were patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (n=109).InterventionsThe interventions in this study were low-load motor control exercises, high-load sling exercises, or general exercises, all delivered by experienced physical therapists, once a week for 8 weeks.MeasurementsThe primary outcome measure was pain reported on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale after treatment and at a 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were self-reported activity limitation (assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index), clinically examined function (assessed with the Fingertip-to-Floor Test), and fear-avoidance beliefs after intervention.ResultsThe postintervention assessment showed no significant differences among groups with respect to pain (overall group difference) or any of the outcome measures. Mean (95% confidence interval) group differences for pain reduction after treatment and after 1 year were 0.3 (−0.7 to 1.3) and 0.4 (−0.7 to 1.4) for motor control exercises versus sling exercises, 0.7 (−0.6 to 2.0) and 0.3 (−0.8 to 1.4) for sling exercises versus general exercises, and 1.0 (−0.1 to 2.0) and 0.7 (−0.3 to 1.7) for motor control exercises versus general exercises.LimitationsThe nature of the interventions made blinding impossible.ConclusionsThis study gave no evidence that 8 treatments with individually instructed motor control exercises or sling exercises were superior to general exercises for chronic low back pain.

scholarly journals Predicting Response to Motor Control Exercises and Graded Activity for Patients With Low Back Pain: Preplanned Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 94 (11) ◽  
pp. 1543-1554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luciana Gazzi Macedo ◽  
Christopher G. Maher ◽  
Mark J. Hancock ◽  
Steve J. Kamper ◽  
James H. McAuley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Motor Control ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Clinical Instability ◽  
Graded Activity

Background Current treatments for low back pain have small effects. A research priority is to identify patient characteristics associated with larger effects for specific interventions. Objective The aim of this study was to identify simple clinical characteristics of patients with chronic low back pain who would benefit more from either motor control exercises or graded activity. Design This study was a secondary analysis of the results of a randomized controlled trial. Methods One hundred seventy-two patients with chronic low back pain were enrolled in the trial, which was conducted in Australian physical therapy clinics. The treatment consisted of 12 initial exercise sessions over an 8-week period and booster sessions at 4 and 10 months following randomization. The putative effect modifiers (psychosocial features, physical activity level, walking tolerance, and self-reported signs of clinical instability) were measured at baseline. Measures of pain and function (both measured on a 0–10 scale) were taken at baseline and at 2, 6, and 12 months by a blinded assessor. Results Self-reported clinical instability was a statistically significant and clinically important modifier of treatment response for 12-month function (interaction: 2.72; 95% confidence interval=1.39 to 4.06). Participants with high scores on the clinical instability questionnaire (≥9) did 0.76 points better with motor control exercises, whereas those who had low scores (<9) did 1.93 points better with graded activity. Most other effect modifiers investigated did not appear to be useful in identifying preferential response to exercise type. Limitations The psychometric properties of the instability questionnaire have not been fully tested. Conclusions A simple 15-item questionnaire of features considered indicative of clinical instability can identify patients who respond best to either motor control exercises or graded activity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document