Dataset Information

Myofascial release versus Mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides' immediate and short-term effects on pain, function, and mobility in non-specific low back pain.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Myofascial release (MFR) and Mulligan Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides (SNAGs) are manual therapy techniques routinely practiced in the management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). As a solo intervention or along with other therapies, both methods have reported positive results for individuals with NSLBP. However, which technique improves NSLBP-related pain, restricted range of motion (ROM) and disability, warrants further research.

Objective

To study the comparative effects of MFR and SNAGs on pain, disability, functional ability, and lumbar ROM in NSLBP.

Method

A parallel-group study was conducted at tertiary care hospitals. Sixty-five Sub-acute or chronic NSLBP patients were allocated to receive strengthening exercises along with either MFR (n = 33) or SNAGs (n = 32) for six treatment sessions over one week. An independent assessor evaluated outcome measures such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Patient-Specific Function Scale (PSFS), and ROM at baseline, immediate (after 1st treatment), and short-term (post-sixth day of the intervention). The Modified Oswestry disability index (MODI) was assessed at baseline and short-term.

Results

Within-group analysis found clinically and statistically significant (p < 0.05) changes for VAS and PSFS at immediate and short-term for both the groups. The lumbar extension also showed improvement immediately and in the short-term. Improvement in Lumbar flexion was seen only in the SNAGs group over the short-term. A statistically significant improvement was seen for MODI in both the groups but was not clinically significant in the MFR group. The analysis observed no statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the groups at both the immediate and short-term.

Conclusions

Pain and restricted function associated with NSLBP can be improved using SNAGs or MFR, along with strengthening exercises. For limited lumbar flexion ROM, Mulligan SNAGs have a better outcome than MFR over the short-term. Hence, both manual therapy techniques can be incorporated along with exercises for immediate and short-term management of sub-acute to chronic NSLBP.Clinical Trial Registration. CTRI/2018/12/016787 (http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/).

SUBMITTER: Bhat P V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7971081 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal diseases in the elderly, which has a severe impact on the health of the elderly. However, CLBP treatment is very challenging, and more effective treatment methods are needed. Myofascial release may be an effective therapy for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. It is widely used clinically to treat CLBP, but its clinical efficacy is still controversial. Objective: This study aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of myofascial release for patients with CLBP. Methods: We selected PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE database, and Web of Science database articles published until April 5, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of myofascial release for CLBP were included. Outcome measures included pain, physical function, quality of life, balance function, pain pressure-threshold, trunk mobility, and mental health. For each outcome, Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: Eight RCTs (n = 375) were included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that the overall efficacy of myofascial release for CLBP was significant, including two aspects: pain [SMD = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.67, -0.08), I 2 = 46%, P = 0.01] and physical function [SMD = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.75, -0.12), I 2 = 44%, P = 0.007]. However, myofascial release did not significantly improve quality of life [SMD = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.38, 0.64), I 2 = 53%, P = 0.62], balance function [SMD = 0.58, 95% CI (-0.49, 1.64), I 2 = 82%, P = 0.29], pain pressure-threshold [SMD = 0.03,95% CI (-0.75, 0.69), I 2 = 73%, P = 0.93], trunk mobility [SMD = 1.02, 95% CI (-0.09, 2.13), I 2 = 92%, P = 0.07] and mental health [SMD = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.83, 0.71), I 2 = 73%, P = 0.88]. Conclusions: In this study, we systematically reviewed and quantified the efficacy of myofascial release in treating CLBP. The meta-analysis results showed that myofascial release significantly improved pain and physical function in patients with CLBP but had no significant effects on balance function, pain pressure-threshold, trunk mobility, mental health, and quality of life. However, due to the low quality and a small number of included literature, more and more rigorously designed RCTs should be included in the future to verify these conclusions.

Project description:Background:Nocturnal symptoms are common in Parkinson's disease (PD), which greatly affect the quality of life but are often overlooked in clinical settings. Treatment strategies that provide sustained dopaminergic stimulation may have sleep benefits. Objective:To investigate the treatment effects of pramipexole (PPX) sustained release (SR) versus PPX immediate release (IR) on nocturnal symptoms in advanced PD patients with sleep disturbances. Materials and methods:In this study, the PPX clinical trial (NCT00466167) was retrospectively analyzed for PD Sleep Scale (PDSS) total and domain scores in patients with advanced idiopathic PD receiving either PPX SR or PPX IR, who experienced motor fluctuations while on stable levodopa with a baseline PDSS total score of <90, indicating sleep disturbances. Analysis of covariance test was used to compare the adjusted mean changes at week 18 from baseline between treatment groups, after adjusting for pooled country and baseline scores. Results:A total of 119 patients with PD reported sleep disturbances at baseline (PDSS <90; SR, n=59; IR, n=60). At week 18, patients receiving PPX SR reported numerically greater improvement of sleep disturbance than those receiving PPX IR, although the difference of 6.8 points was not statistically significant (adjusted mean changes in PDSS total score, SR=28.5 versus IR=21.7 points, P=0.165). Patients receiving PPX SR observed a numerically greater adjusted mean change in all PDSS domains compared with PPX IR. The overall proportions of patients with any adverse event were similar between both PPX SR and IR groups (62.7% versus 70.0%). Conclusion:Both the PPX formulations showed improvements in nocturnal symptoms in advanced PD patients with sleep disturbances and were generally well tolerated. Given the known pharmacokinetic profile of an SR formulation and numerical advantage in PDSS mean change over IR formulation, these preliminary evidences support future prospectively designed studies to investigate the effects of PPX SR for improved sleep.