J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2021 Dec;51(12):581-601. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2021.10593. Epub 2021 Nov 16.
To determine whether adding hip treatment to usual care for low back pain (LBP) improved disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment.
Randomized controlled trial.
Seventy-six participants (age, 18 years or older; Oswestry Disability Index, 20% or greater; numeric pain-rating scale, 2 or more points) with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment were randomly assigned to a group that received treatment to the lumbar spine only (LBO group) (n = 39) or to one that received both lumbar spine and hip treatments (LBH group) (n = 37). The individual treating clinicians decided which specific low back treatments to administer to the LBO group. Treatments aimed at the hip (LBH group) included manual therapy, exercise, and education, selected by the therapist from a predetermined set of treatments. Primary outcomes were disability and pain, measured by the Oswestry Disability Index and the numeric pain-rating scale, respectively, at baseline, 2 weeks, discharge, 6 months, and 12 months. The secondary outcomes were fear-avoidance beliefs (work and physical activity subscales of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire), global rating of change, the Patient Acceptable Symptom State, and physical activity level. We used mixed-model 2-by-3 analyses of variance to examine group-by-time interaction effects (intention-to-treat analysis).
Data were available for 68 patients at discharge (LBH group, n = 33; LBO group, n = 35) and 48 at 12 months (n = 24 for both groups). There were no between-group differences in disability at discharge (-5.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -10.9, 0.89; = .09), 12 months (-1.0; 95% CI: -4.44, 2.35; = .54), and all other time points. There were no between-group differences in pain at discharge (-0.2; 95% CI: -1.03, 0.53; = .53), 12 months (0.1; 95% CI: -0.53, 0.72; = .76), and all other time points. There were no between-group differences in secondary outcomes, except for higher Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (work subscale) scores in the LBH group at 2 weeks (-3.35; 95% CI: -6.58, -0.11; = .04) and discharge (-3.45; 95% CI: - 6.30, -0.61; = .02).
Adding treatments aimed at the hip to usual low back physical therapy did not provide additional short- or long-term benefits in reducing disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. Clinicians may not need to include hip treatments to achieve reductions in low back disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. .
确定在治疗腰痛(LBP)患者的同时治疗髋关节是否能改善伴有髋关节功能障碍的 LBP 患者的残疾和疼痛。
随机对照试验。
76 名参与者(年龄 18 岁及以上;Oswestry 残疾指数 20%或更高;数字疼痛评分量表 2 分或更高)患有 LBP 且伴有髋关节功能障碍,随机分配到仅接受腰椎治疗的组(LBO 组)(n=39)或接受腰椎和髋关节治疗的组(LBH 组)(n=37)。负责治疗的临床医生决定为 LBO 组实施哪些具体的腰椎治疗。针对髋关节的治疗(LBH 组)包括由治疗师从预先确定的治疗方案中选择的手动治疗、运动和教育。主要结局指标是残疾和疼痛,分别用 Oswestry 残疾指数和数字疼痛评分量表在基线、2 周、出院、6 个月和 12 个月进行测量。次要结局指标包括恐惧回避信念(恐惧回避信念问卷的工作和身体活动分量表)、整体变化评分、患者可接受的症状状态和身体活动水平。我们使用混合模型 2×3 方差分析来检验组间时间交互效应(意向治疗分析)。
出院时(LBH 组 n=33;LBO 组 n=35)和 12 个月时(两组各 24 名)有 68 名患者的数据可用。出院时(-5.0;95%置信区间 [CI]:-10.9,0.89; =.09)、12 个月时(-1.0;95% CI:-4.44,2.35; =.54)和所有其他时间点,两组间的残疾均无差异。出院时(-0.2;95% CI:-1.03,0.53; =.53)、12 个月时(0.1;95% CI:-0.53,0.72; =.76)和所有其他时间点,两组间的疼痛均无差异。除了 LBH 组在 2 周时(-3.35;95% CI:-6.58,-0.11; =.04)和出院时(-3.45;95% CI:-6.30,-0.61; =.02)的 Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire(工作分量表)评分较高外,两组间的次要结局无差异。
在常规的低腰背物理治疗中增加针对髋关节的治疗并不能在减轻伴有髋关节功能障碍的 LBP 患者的残疾和疼痛方面提供短期或长期的额外益处。对于伴有髋关节功能障碍的 LBP 患者,临床医生可能不需要包括髋关节治疗来减轻腰痛的残疾和疼痛。