Dataset Information

Does adding hip strengthening exercises to manual therapy and segmental stabilization improve outcomes in patients with nonspecific low back pain? A randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The literature is unclear on the need for hip strengthening in persons with low back pain (LBP).

Objectives

To investigate the effectiveness of hip strengthening exercises when added to manual therapy and lumbar segmental stabilization in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP.

Methods

Seventy patients with chronic nonspecific LBP were randomly assigned to either the manual therapy and lumbar segmental stabilization group or the manual therapy and lumbar segmental stabilization plus specific hip strengthening group. A 10 cm visual analogue scale and the Rolland-Morris Questionnaire were the primary clinical outcome measures at baseline, at the end of treatment (posttreatment), and 6- and 12-months posttreatment. Hip strength and kinematics were measured as secondary outcomes .

Results

While within-group improvements in pain, disability, and hip extensors strength occurred in both groups, there were no significant between-group differences at posttreatment or follow-ups. Mean difference in changes in pain level between groups at posttreatment and at 6- and 12-month follow-up were 0.5 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.5, 1.5), 0.3 points (95% CI: -0.9, 1.5), and 0.0 points (95% CI: -1.1, 1.1), respectively. The mean differences in changes in disability were 0.8 points (95% CI: -1.3, 2.7), 0.0 points (95% CI: -2.4, 2.4), and 0.4 points (95% CI: -2.0, 2.8), respectively. Finally, we did not observe any between-group differences for any of the other outcomes at any timepoint.

Conclusion

The addition of specific hip strengthening does not appear to result in improved clinical outcomes for patients with nonspecific LBP.

SUBMITTER: Fukuda TY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8721074 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA central element in the current debate about best practice management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the efficacy of targeted versus generic (non-targeted) treatment. Many clinicians and researchers believe that tailoring treatment to NSLBP subgroups positively impacts on patient outcomes. Despite this, there are no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of targeted versus non-targeted manual therapy and/or exercise. This systematic review was undertaken in order to determine the efficacy of such targeted treatment in adults with NSLBP.MethodMEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, AMED and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were electronically searched, reference lists were examined and citation tracking performed. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLPB that used trial designs capable of providing robust information on targeted treatment (treatment effect modification) for the outcomes of activity limitation and pain. Included trials needed to be hypothesis-testing studies published in English, Danish or Norwegian. Method quality was assessed using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group.ResultsFour high-quality randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLBP met the inclusion criteria. One study showed statistically significant effects for short-term outcomes using McKenzie directional preference-based exercise. Research into subgroups requires much larger sample sizes than traditional two-group trials and other included studies showed effects that might be clinically important in size but were not statistically significant with their samples sizes.ConclusionsThe clinical implications of these results are that they provide very cautious evidence supporting the notion that treatment targeted to subgroups of patients with NSLBP may improve patient outcomes. The results of the studies included in this review are too patchy, inconsistent and the samples investigated are too small for any recommendation of any treatment in routine clinical practice to be based on these findings. The research shows that adequately powered controlled trials using designs capable of providing robust information on treatment effect modification are uncommon. Considering how central the notion of targeted treatment is to manual therapy principles, further studies using this research method should be a priority for the clinical and research communities.

Project description:BackgroundThere is some evidence that high-load lumbar stabilization exercises, such as back bridge, can recruit both local and global muscles.HypothesisTherapeutic exercises would optimize gluteus maximus (GMax), gluteus medius (GMed), multifidus (MF), and transversus abdominis (TrA) activation, while minimizing the activation of the tensor fascia latae (TFL) and erector spinae (ES) muscles in healthy individuals.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingResearch laboratory.Level of evidenceLevel 4.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, surface electromyography (EMG) of GMax, GMed, TFL, TrA, MF, and ES was used to quantify the gluteal-to-TFL muscle activation (GTA) index and a ratio of local to global (L/G) lumbar muscles during (1) the elbow-toe exercise in the prone position, (2) the elbow-toe with right left lifted, (3) the hand-knee with left arm and right leg lifted, (4) the back bridge, (5) the back bridge with right leg lifted, (6) the back bridge with left leg lifted, (7) the side bridge with left leg lifted, (8) the side bridge with right leg lifted, and (9) the elbow-toe with right leg horizontally lifted exercises in healthy individuals (20 men, 20 women; age, 25 ± 4 years).ResultsThe back bridge exercise with left leg lift generated the highest L/G muscles activity ratio (L/G = 3.35) while the hand-knee exercise yielded the lowest L/G muscles activity ratio (L/G = 1.21). The side bridge exercise with left elbow and foot and lifting the right leg (GTA = 63.78), hand-knee exercise (GTA = 49.62), back bridge (GTA = 28.05), and elbow-toe exercise with left leg horizontally lifted (GTA = 23.02) generated the highest GTA indices, respectively. Meanwhile, the normalized EMG amplitude for GMax was significantly less than the TFL, for elbow-toe exercise (P < 0.001), back bridge with left leg lift (P = 0.001), side bridge exercise with the right elbow and foot and lifting the left leg (P = 0.002), and elbow-toe exercise with right leg horizontally lifted (P < 0.001).ConclusionThe highest GTA indexes were observed during (1) the side bridge lifting the dominant leg and (2) the hand-knee horizontally lifting dominant leg, respectively. The L/G ratio was highest during (1) the back bridge lifting nondominant leg, (2) back bridge, and (3) back bridge lifting dominant leg, respectively. This study supports the use of back bridge exercises to strengthen the MF and side bridges to improve gluteal muscle activation.Clinical relevanceThe highest GTA index was observed in the side bridge lifting the right leg. Highest L/G ratio was in the back bridge with nondominant leg lifted. This study supports the use of back bridge exercises to strengthen the MF. This study supports the use of side bridges to improve gluteal muscle activation.

Project description:BackgroundTherapeutic exercises are used in clinical practice for patients with low back pain (LBP). Core stabilization exercises can retrain the important function of local trunk muscles and increase the accuracy of the sensory integration process for stability of the spine in individuals with LBP. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two different exercise regimes, Core stabilization exercises (CSE) and Strengthening exercise (STE), on proprioception, balance, muscle thickness and pain-related outcomes in patients with subacute non-specific low back pain (NSLBP).MethodsThirty-six subacute NSLBP patients, [mean age, 34.78 ± 9.07 years; BMI, 24.03 ± 3.20 Kg/m2; and duration of current pain, 8.22 ± 1.61 weeks], were included in this study. They were randomly allocated into either CSE (n = 18) or STE groups (n = 18). Exercise training was given for 30 min, three times per week, for up to 4 weeks. Proprioception, standing balance, muscle thickness of transversus abdominis (TrA) and lumbar multifidus (LM), and pain-related outcomes, comprising pain, functional disability and fear of movement, were assessed at baseline and after 4 weeks of intervention.ResultsThe CSE group demonstrated significantly more improvement than the STE group after 4 weeks of intervention. Improvements were in: proprioception [mean difference (95% CI): - 0.295 (- 0.37 to - 0.2), effect size: 1.38, (p < 0.001)], balance: single leg standing with eyes open and eyes closed on both stable and unstable surfaces (p < 0.05), and percentage change of muscle thickness of TrA and LM (p < 0.01). Although both exercise groups gained relief from pain, the CSE group demonstrated greater reduction of functional disability [effect size: 0.61, (p < 0.05)] and fear of movement [effect size: 0.80, (p < 0.01)]. There were no significant adverse effects in either type of exercise program.ConclusionDespite both core stabilization and strengthening exercises reducing pain, core stabilization exercise is superior to strengthening exercise. It is effective in improving proprioception, balance, and percentage change of muscle thickness of TrA and LM, and reducing functional disability and fear of movement in patients with subacute NSLBP.Trial registrationThai Clinical Trial Registry ( TCTR20180822001 ; August 21, 2018).

Project description:Background:Patellofemoral joint (PFJ) osteoarthritis (OA) is prevalent in middle-aged and older adults. Despite this, there are minimal studies which have examined conservative interventions for PFJ OA. Weakness of proximal lower extremity muscles is associated with PFJ OA. It is unknown if a hip muscle strengthening and lumbopelvic-hip core stabilization program will improve symptoms and function in persons with PFJ OA. This study examined the feasibility and impact of a 6-week hip muscle strengthening and core stabilization program on pain, symptoms, physical performance, peak muscle torques, and quality of life in persons with PFJ OA. Methods:Ten females with PFJ OA and ten age- and sex-matched controls participated in baseline tests. PFJ OA participants attended ten twice-a-week hip strengthening and core stabilization exercise sessions. Outcome measures included questionnaires, the Timed-Up-and-Go, and peak isometric torque of hip and quadriceps muscles. Data were tested for normality; parametric and non-parametric tests were used as appropriate. Results:At baseline, the PFJ OA group had significantly worse symptoms, slower Timed-Up-and-Go performance, and lower muscle torques than control participants. PFJ OA group adherence to supervised exercise sessions was adequate. All PFJ OA participants attended at least nine exercise sessions. Five PFJ OA participants returned 6-month follow-up questionnaires, which was considered fair retention. The PFJ OA participants' self-reported pain, symptoms, function in daily living, function in sport, and quality of life all improved at 6 weeks (P?<?0.05). Timed-Up-and-Go time score improved at 6 weeks (P?=?0.005). Peak hip external rotator torque increased (P?=?0.01). Improvements in pain and self-reported function were no longer significant 6 months following completion of the intervention. Conclusions:PFJ OA participants were adherent to the supervised sessions of the intervention. Improvement in symptoms, physical performance, and muscle torque were found after 6 weeks. Participant retention at 6 months was fair, and significant changes were no longer present. Our findings suggest that a hip strengthening and core stabilization program may be beneficial to improve symptoms, function, and physical performance in persons with PFJ OA. Future studies are needed, and additional measures should be taken to improve long-term adherence to exercise. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02825238. Registered 6 July 2016 (retrospectively registered).

Project description:BackgroundLow back and neck pain are the most common musculoskeletal disorders worldwide, and imply suffering and substantial societal costs, hence effective interventions are crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy compared with advice to stay active for working age persons with nonspecific back and/or neck pain.MethodsThe two interventions were: a maximum of 6 manual therapy sessions within 6 weeks, including spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage and stretching, performed by a naprapath (index group), respectively information from a physician on the importance to stay active and on how to cope with pain, according to evidence-based advice, at 2 occasions within 3 weeks (control group). A cost-effectiveness analysis with a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial including 409 persons followed for one year, in 2005. The outcomes were health-related Quality of Life (QoL) encoded from the SF-36 and pain intensity. Direct and indirect costs were calculated based on intervention and medication costs and sickness absence data. An incremental cost per health related QoL was calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsThe difference in QoL gains was 0.007 (95% CI - 0.010 to 0.023) and the mean improvement in pain intensity was 0.6 (95% CI 0.068-1.065) in favor of manual therapy after one year. Concerning the QoL outcome, the differences in mean cost per person was estimated at - 437 EUR (95% CI - 1302 to 371) and for the pain outcome the difference was - 635 EUR (95% CI - 1587 to 246) in favor of manual therapy. The results indicate that manual therapy achieves better outcomes at lower costs compared with advice to stay active. The sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results.ConclusionsOur results indicate that manual therapy for nonspecific back and/or neck pain is slightly less costly and more beneficial than advice to stay active for this sample of working age persons. Since manual therapy treatment is at least as cost-effective as evidence-based advice from a physician, it may be recommended for neck and low back pain. Further health economic studies that may confirm those findings are warranted. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56954776. Retrospectively registered 12 September 2006, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56954776 .