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