Dataset Information

Lumbar manipulation and exercise for the treatment of acute low back pain in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition in adolescents. Although much has been written about the efficacy of lumbar manipulation for adults with LBP, little is known about its effectiveness in adolescents. This study had two primary aims: (1) to assess the efficacy of adding lumbar manipulation to an exercise program in adolescents with acute (<90 days) LBP and (2) to report and assess any adverse reactions associated with lumbar manipulation noted in this study.Patients were randomly assigned to receive lumbar manipulation or sham manipulation. All patients performed 4 weeks of physical therapy exercise. Pain, patient-specific functional scale (PSFS), and global rating of change (GROC) scores were measured at evaluation, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months. Relative risk was calculated for adverse reactions noted.We recruited 35 consecutive patients with acute LBP. One patient was excluded after being diagnosed with a spondylolysis, 34 patients remained for analysis. Both groups experienced significant improvement over time in all measures. There were no differences between groups for pain, PSFS, or GROC scores. No increased risk of adverse reaction from lumbar manipulation was noted.The addition of lumbar manipulation to exercise did not benefit adolescents with acute LBP. There was not an increased risk of an adverse reaction noted in this study from lumbar manipulation performed on adolescents. Further research needs to be done to identify factors that predict positive outcomes following lumbar manipulation in adolescents.

SUBMITTER: Selhorst M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4727736 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lumbar manipulation and exercise for the treatment of acute low back pain in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.

Selhorst Mitchell M Selhorst Brittany B

The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy 20150901 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition in adolescents. Although much has been written about the efficacy of lumbar manipulation for adults with LBP, little is known about its effectiveness in adolescents. This study had two primary aims: (1) to assess the efficacy of adding lumbar manipulation to an exercise program in adolescents with acute (<90 days) LBP and (2) to report and assess any adverse reactions associated with lumbar manipulation noted in this study.<h4>Methods< ...[more]

PMID: 26917941

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:According to the American Physical Therapy Association, there is strong evidence to show that vertebral mobilization and manipulation procedures can be used to improve spinal and hip mobility and reduce pain and incapacity in low back pain patients that fit the clinical prediction rule. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the immediate effects of high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation on pain and postural control parameters in individuals with nonspecific low back pain. METHODS:This study used a participant-blinded and assessor-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial involving a single session, in which 24 participants were randomly distributed into control (simulated manipulation) and intervention (HVLA lumbar manipulation) groups. The primary (pain: subjective pain intensity and pressure pain threshold) and secondary outcomes (postural control: ellipse area, center of pressure [COP] excursion, COP RMS velocity, and differences between the COP and center of projected gravity) were evaluated before and after the session using a numerical pain scale, algometer, and a force platform. For all outcomes, multiple mixed 2 (group) × 2 (time) ANOVAs were performed. RESULTS:For the subjective pain intensity, only time was significant as a main effect, where pre-intervention presented a greater value then post-intervention (F [1.44]?=?4.377; p =?0.042; r =?0.30). For the pressure pain threshold no significant effect was found. For the postural control parameters, as a main effect, only the ellipse area was significantly greater in the control group (F [1.44]?=?6.760; p =?0.013; effect size?=?0.36). CONCLUSIONS:There was a reduction in subjective pain intensity, evaluated using a numerical scale, in both the intervention and control groups immediately after the intervention, suggesting that the spinal manipulation had a similar effect to the placebo procedure. No effect of HVLA lumbar manipulation was identified for postural control variables in either the intervention or control groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT02312778, registered at 14 September 2014.

Project description:BackgroundMotor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.Search methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.Selection criteriaWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).Main resultsWe included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.Authors' conclusionsWe identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Project description:UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND:This pilot randomized controlled trial evaluated the feasibility of conducting a full scale study and compared the efficacy of exercise, spinal manipulation, and a mind-body therapy called Neuro Emotional Technique for the treatment of pregnancy-related low back pain, a common morbidity of pregnancy. METHODS:Healthy pregnant women with low back pain of insidious onset were eligible to enroll in the study at any point in their pregnancy. Once enrolled, they remained in the study until they had their babies. Women were randomly allocated into one of three treatment groups using opaque envelopes. The treatment schedule paralleled the prenatal care schedule and women received individualized intervention. Our null hypothesis was that spinal manipulation and Neuro Emotional Technique would perform no better than exercise in enhancing function and decreasing pain. Our primary outcome measure was the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and our secondary outcome measure was the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Intention to treat analysis was conducted. For the primary analysis, regression was conducted to compare groups on the outcome measure scores. In a secondary responder analysis, difference in proportions of participants in attaining 30% and 50% improvement were calculated. Feasibility factors for conducting a future larger trial were also evaluated such as recruitment, compliance to study protocols, cost, and adverse events. RESULTS:Fifty-seven participants were randomized into the exercise (n?=?22), spinal manipulation (n?=?15), and Neuro Emotional Technique (n?=?20) treatment arms. At least 50% of participants in each treatment group experienced clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms for the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. At least 50% of the exercise and spinal manipulation participants also experienced clinically meaningful improvement for the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. There were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences between groups in any analysis. CONCLUSIONS:This pilot study demonstrated feasibility for recruitment, compliance, safety, and affordability for conducting a larger study in the future. Spinal manipulation and exercise generally performed slightly better than did Neuro Emotional Technique for improving function and decreasing pain, but the study was not powered to detect the between-group differences as statistically significant. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT00937365).

Project description:Background contextThere have been no full-scale trials of the optimal number of visits for the care of any condition with spinal manipulation.PurposeTo identify the dose-response relationship between visits to a chiropractor for spinal manipulation and chronic low back pain (cLBP) outcomes and to determine the efficacy of manipulation by comparison with a light massage control.Study design/settingPractice-based randomized controlled trial.Patient sampleFour hundred participants with cLBP.Outcome measuresThe primary cLBP outcomes were the 100-point modified Von Korff pain intensity and functional disability scales evaluated at the 12- and 24-week primary end points. Secondary outcomes included days with pain and functional disability, pain unpleasantness, global perceived improvement, medication use, and general health status.MethodsOne hundred participants with cLBP were randomized to each of four dose levels of care: 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions of spinal manipulation from a chiropractor. Participants were treated three times per week for 6 weeks. At sessions when manipulation was not assigned, they received a focused light massage control. Covariate-adjusted linear dose effects and comparisons with the no-manipulation control group were evaluated at 6, 12, 18, 24, 39, and 52 weeks.ResultsFor the primary outcomes, mean pain and disability improvement in the manipulation groups were 20 points by 12 weeks and sustainable to 52 weeks. Linear dose-response effects were small, reaching about two points per six manipulation sessions at 12 and 52 weeks for both variables (p<.025). At 12 weeks, the greatest differences from the no-manipulation control were found for 12 sessions (8.6 pain and 7.6 disability points, p<.025); at 24 weeks, differences were negligible; and at 52 weeks, the greatest group differences were seen for 18 visits (5.9 pain and 8.8 disability points, p<.025).ConclusionsThe number of spinal manipulation visits had modest effects on cLBP outcomes above those of 18 hands-on visits to a chiropractor. Overall, 12 visits yielded the most favorable results but was not well distinguished from other dose levels.

Dataset Information

Lumbar manipulation and exercise for the treatment of acute low back pain in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Lumbar manipulation and exercise for the treatment of acute low back pain in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets