Lakkadsha Tasneem M, Qureshi Moh'd Irshad, Kovela Rakesh K, Saifee Sakina S, Lalwani Shivani S
Department of Physiotherapy, Ravi Nair Physiotherapy College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Science, Wardha, IND.
Physiotherapy, Nitte Institute of Physiotherapy, NITTE (Deemed to be University), Mangalore, IND.
Cureus. 2022 Aug 12;14(8):e27916. doi: 10.7759/cureus.27916. eCollection 2022 Aug.
Background and objectives One of the most frequent conditions for which people seek physiotherapy treatment is low back pain (LBP). When the aetiology of low back pain is whittled down to mechanical factors, pelvic tilting becomes apparent. The iliopsoas muscle is the key to relieving LBP in such circumstances, and since it is tightened, we concentrated on stretching it adequately in this study. Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) and muscle energy technique (MET) are two stretching techniques that we have compared for this purpose. There are many other stretching techniques available, but the evidence has proven these two to be the most effective. Methods The participants in the study were those between the ages of 18 and 60 who had exaggerated lumbar lordosis, or LBP, and met the inclusion criteria. There were two groups created: A and B. PNF and traditional physiotherapy was used to manage the participants in group A, and MET and traditional physiotherapy were used to manage the participants in group B. Each group underwent the same pre-and post-tests, which included the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) to assess pain intensity; a universal goniometer to measure hip joint extension range of motion (ROM) to assess iliopsoas flexibility; and a side-lying X-ray to measure the lumbosacral angle (LSA) to determine the angle of lumbar lordosis. Result In both the stretching interventions, i.e., PNF and MET, there were statistically significant differences in pain, hip extension range of motion, and lumbar lordosis angle (P > 0.0001). However, for the PNF group, the difference between the pre-and post-test was greater than that for the MET group. Conclusion The current study, which included 100 participants, demonstrated that both PNF and MET are remarkably effective for loosening the tight iliopsoas. A comparison of both techniques showed that the PNF group had benefited significantly more than the MET group.
背景与目的 人们寻求物理治疗的最常见病症之一是腰痛（LBP）。当将腰痛的病因归结为机械因素时，骨盆倾斜就会显现出来。在这种情况下，髂腰肌是缓解腰痛的关键，由于它处于紧张状态，我们在本研究中专注于对其进行充分拉伸。本体感觉神经肌肉促进法（PNF）和肌肉能量技术（MET）是我们为此目的比较的两种拉伸技术。还有许多其他可用的拉伸技术，但证据表明这两种是最有效的。方法 研究参与者为年龄在18至60岁之间、有腰椎前凸过度或腰痛且符合纳入标准的人。创建了两组：A组和B组。A组参与者采用PNF和传统物理治疗，B组参与者采用MET和传统物理治疗。每组都进行相同的测试前和测试后评估，包括用数字疼痛评分量表（NPRS）评估疼痛强度；用通用测角仪测量髋关节伸展活动范围（ROM）以评估髂腰肌柔韧性；以及用侧卧位X线测量腰骶角（LSA）以确定腰椎前凸角度。结果 在两种拉伸干预，即PNF和MET中，疼痛、髋关节伸展活动范围和腰椎前凸角度均有统计学显著差异（P>0.0001）。然而，PNF组测试前和测试后的差异大于MET组。结论 本研究纳入了100名参与者，结果表明PNF和MET在放松紧张的髂腰肌方面都非常有效。两种技术的比较表明，PNF组比MET组受益显著更多。
