Suppr超能文献

针对慢性下腰痛的身体和自我报告结果,比较一般力量与体能训练与运动控制及手法治疗的随机试验。

Randomized Trial of General Strength and Conditioning Versus Motor Control and Manual Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain on Physical and Self-Report Outcomes.

作者信息

Tagliaferri Scott D, Miller Clint T, Ford Jon J, Hahne Andrew J, Main Luana C, Rantalainen Timo, Connell David A, Simson Katherine J, Owen Patrick J, Belavy Daniel L

机构信息

Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia.

Advance HealthCare, 157 Scoresby Rd, Boronia, VIC 3155, Australia.

出版信息

J Clin Med. 2020 Jun 3;9(6):1726. doi: 10.3390/jcm9061726.

Abstract

Exercise and spinal manipulative therapy are commonly used for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) in Australia. Reduction in pain intensity is a common outcome; however, it is only one measure of intervention efficacy in clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness of two common clinical interventions on physical and self-report measures in CLBP. Participants were randomized to a 6‑month intervention of general strength and conditioning (GSC; = 20; up to 52 sessions) or motor control exercise plus manual therapy (MCMT; =20; up to 12 sessions). Pain intensity was measured at baseline and fortnightly throughout the intervention. Trunk extension and flexion endurance, leg muscle strength and endurance, paraspinal muscle volume, cardio‑respiratory fitness and self-report measures of kinesiophobia, disability and quality of life were assessed at baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-up. Pain intensity differed favoring MCMT between-groups at week 14 and 16 of treatment (both, = 0.003), but not at 6-month follow‑up. Both GSC (mean change (95%CI): -10.7 (-18.7, -2.8) mm; = 0.008) and MCMT (-19.2 (-28.1, -10.3) mm; < 0.001) had within-group reductions in pain intensity at six months, but did not achieve clinically meaningful thresholds (20mm) within- or between‑group. At 6-month follow-up, GSC increased trunk extension (mean difference (95% CI): 81.8 (34.8, 128.8) s; = 0.004) and flexion endurance (51.5 (20.5, 82.6) s; = 0.004), as well as leg muscle strength (24.7 (3.4, 46.0) kg; = 0.001) and endurance (9.1 (1.7, 16.4) reps; = 0.015) compared to MCMT. GSC reduced disability (-5.7 (‑11.2, -0.2) pts; = 0.041) and kinesiophobia (-6.6 (-9.9, -3.2) pts; < 0.001) compared to MCMT at 6‑month follow-up. Multifidus volume increased within-group for GSC ( = 0.003), but not MCMT or between-groups. No other between-group changes were observed at six months. Overall, GSC improved trunk endurance, leg muscle strength and endurance, self-report disability and kinesiophobia compared to MCMT at six months. These results show that GSC may provide a more diverse range of treatment effects compared to MCMT.

摘要

在澳大利亚,运动疗法和脊柱推拿疗法常用于治疗慢性下腰痛(CLBP)。疼痛强度降低是常见的结果;然而,在临床实践中,这只是干预效果的一种衡量标准。因此,我们评估了两种常见临床干预措施对CLBP患者身体指标和自我报告指标的有效性。参与者被随机分为两组,分别接受为期6个月的一般力量和体能训练(GSC组;n = 20;最多52节课程)或运动控制训练加手法治疗(MCMT组;n = 20;最多12节课程)。在干预前及整个干预过程中,每两周测量一次疼痛强度。在干预前、干预3个月和6个月时,评估躯干伸展和屈曲耐力、腿部肌肉力量和耐力、椎旁肌体积、心肺适能,以及对运动恐惧、残疾和生活质量的自我报告指标。在治疗的第14周和16周,两组间疼痛强度差异有利于MCMT组(均为P = 0.003),但在6个月随访时无差异。6个月时,GSC组(平均变化(95%CI):-10.7(-18.7,-2.8)mm;P = 0.008)和MCMT组(-19.2(-28.1,-10.3)mm;P < 0.001)组内疼痛强度均有所降低,但两组内及组间均未达到临床有意义的阈值(20mm)。在6个月随访时,与MCMT组相比,GSC组的躯干伸展(平均差值(95%CI):81.8(34.8,128.8)秒;P = 0.004)和屈曲耐力(51.5(20.5,82.6)秒;P = 0.004),以及腿部肌肉力量(24.7(3.4,46.0)千克;P = 0.001)和耐力(9.1(1.7,16.4)次重复;P = 0.015)均有所增加。与MCMT组相比,GSC组在6个月随访时残疾程度降低(-5.7(-11.2,-0.2)分;P = 0.041),运动恐惧程度降低(-6.6(-9.9,-3.2)分;P < 0.001)。GSC组椎旁肌体积在组内增加(P = 0.003),MCMT组未增加,两组间也无差异。6个月时未观察到其他组间差异。总体而言,与MCMT组相比,6个月时GSC组在躯干耐力、腿部肌肉力量和耐力、自我报告的残疾程度和运动恐惧方面有所改善。这些结果表明,与MCMT相比,GSC可能提供更广泛的治疗效果。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bcbd/7355598/e3f03baa2b0f/jcm-09-01726-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验