Departamento de Fisioterapia, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.
Motion in Brains Research Group, Institute of Neuroscience and Sciences of the Movement (INCIMOV), Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.
J Mot Behav. 2020;52(4):444-455. doi: 10.1080/00222895.2019.1645087. Epub 2019 Jul 30.
The objective was to compare two different instruction modes used to teach patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) to perform a lumbar motor control task. The three intervention instruction modes used were: common verbal explanation of a motor task based on a motor control therapeutic exercise (MCTE-control group), MTCE instructed using motor imagery (MI) and MCTE instructed using tactile feedback (TF). The main outcome measure was lumbar motor control of the neutral position test. Forty-eight patients with CLBP were randomly allocated into three groups of 16 patients per group. The MI strategy was the most effective mode for developing the motor control task in an accurate and controlled manner, obtaining better outcomes than TF or verbal instruction.
目的是比较两种不同的指导模式,用于教授患有非特异性慢性下腰痛(CLBP)的患者执行腰椎运动控制任务。所使用的三种干预指导模式为:基于运动控制治疗性运动(MCTE)的常见口头解释(MCTE-对照组)、使用运动想象(MI)指导的 MCTE 和使用触觉反馈(TF)指导的 MCTE。主要的结果测量是中立位测试中的腰椎运动控制。48 名 CLBP 患者被随机分配到三组,每组 16 名患者。MI 策略是一种最有效的方式,可以准确和受控地完成运动控制任务,比 TF 或口头指令获得更好的结果。