Mid-term Effect of Lumbar Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides in Patients with Non-specific Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Eurasian Journal of Medicine Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.5152/eurasianjmed.2023.0202
Şule Şimşek, Nesrin Yağcı, Merve Bergin Korkmaz
{"title":"Mid-term Effect of Lumbar Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides in Patients with Non-specific Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Şule Şimşek,&nbsp;Nesrin Yağcı,&nbsp;Merve Bergin Korkmaz","doi":"10.5152/eurasianjmed.2023.0202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare the standalone and combined mid-term effects of conventional physiotherapy and lumbar sustained natural apophyseal glides on pain, range of motion, fear avoidance belief, and functional status in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This randomized clinical study was conducted in a state hospital. Fifty-five patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (mean age: 40.69 ± 6.27 years) were divided into 3 groups. Group I (n=18) received conventional physiotherapy (electrotherapy and heat application) 5 days a week for 3 weeks, group II (n=19) received lumbar sustained natural apophyseal glides 3 days a week for 3 weeks. Group III (n = 18) received conventional physiotherapy plus lumbar sustained natural apophyseal glides. Pain (visual analog scale), flexion range of motion (back range of motion II), functional status (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), and fear avoidance belief (Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire) were assessed at baseline, third week, and 6-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After 3 weeks of intervention, all outcome measures improved in groups II and III. These improve- ments remained significant until 6-month follow-up (P < .05), except fear avoidance belief (P=.06) and flexion range of motion (P=.764) scores of group III. Flexion range of motion (P=.001), functional status (P = .001), and fear avoidance belief (P = .03) differed significantly between the 3 groups at 6-month follow- up; post-hoc analysis revealed that flexion range of motion (P < .0001), functional status (P = .037), and fear avoidance belief (P = .002) scores were significantly improved in group II compared to group I.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with conventional physiotherapy, lumbar sustained natural apophyseal glides improved mid-term range of motion, functional status, and fear avoidance belief, but there was no differ- ence in pain. Conventional physiotherapy added to lumbar sustained natural apophyseal glides provided no additional benefit.</p>","PeriodicalId":53592,"journal":{"name":"Eurasian Journal of Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10440974/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eurasian Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/eurasianjmed.2023.0202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the standalone and combined mid-term effects of conventional physiotherapy and lumbar sustained natural apophyseal glides on pain, range of motion, fear avoidance belief, and functional status in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.

Materials and methods: This randomized clinical study was conducted in a state hospital. Fifty-five patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (mean age: 40.69 ± 6.27 years) were divided into 3 groups. Group I (n=18) received conventional physiotherapy (electrotherapy and heat application) 5 days a week for 3 weeks, group II (n=19) received lumbar sustained natural apophyseal glides 3 days a week for 3 weeks. Group III (n = 18) received conventional physiotherapy plus lumbar sustained natural apophyseal glides. Pain (visual analog scale), flexion range of motion (back range of motion II), functional status (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), and fear avoidance belief (Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire) were assessed at baseline, third week, and 6-month follow-up.

Results: After 3 weeks of intervention, all outcome measures improved in groups II and III. These improve- ments remained significant until 6-month follow-up (P < .05), except fear avoidance belief (P=.06) and flexion range of motion (P=.764) scores of group III. Flexion range of motion (P=.001), functional status (P = .001), and fear avoidance belief (P = .03) differed significantly between the 3 groups at 6-month follow- up; post-hoc analysis revealed that flexion range of motion (P < .0001), functional status (P = .037), and fear avoidance belief (P = .002) scores were significantly improved in group II compared to group I.

Conclusion: Compared with conventional physiotherapy, lumbar sustained natural apophyseal glides improved mid-term range of motion, functional status, and fear avoidance belief, but there was no differ- ence in pain. Conventional physiotherapy added to lumbar sustained natural apophyseal glides provided no additional benefit.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非特异性慢性腰痛患者腰部持续自然棘突滑动的中期效果:一项随机临床试验。
目的:本研究的目的是比较常规物理治疗和腰椎持续自然棘突滑动对非特异性慢性腰痛患者疼痛、活动范围、恐惧回避信念和功能状态的单独和联合中期影响。材料和方法:本随机临床研究在一家国立医院进行。55例非特异性慢性腰痛患者(平均年龄40.69±6.27岁)分为3组。ⅰ组(n=18)采用常规物理治疗(电疗+热敷),每周5天,连续3周;ⅱ组(n=19)采用腰椎持续自然椎体滑动治疗,每周3天,连续3周。第三组(n = 18)接受常规物理治疗加腰椎持续自然棘突滑动。在基线、第三周和6个月的随访中评估疼痛(视觉模拟量表)、屈曲活动范围(背部活动范围II)、功能状态(Roland-Morris残疾问卷)和恐惧回避信念(恐惧回避信念问卷)。结果:干预3周后,II组和III组的各项指标均有所改善。这些改善一直持续到6个月的随访(P < 0.05),除了第三组的恐惧避免信念(P=.06)和屈曲活动范围(P=.764)得分。在6个月的随访中,3组患者的屈曲活动度(P=.001)、功能状态(P=.001)和恐惧回避信念(P= .03)差异有统计学意义;事后分析显示,与i组相比,II组屈曲活动度(P < 0.0001)、功能状态(P = 0.037)和恐惧回避信念(P = 0.002)评分显著改善。结论:与常规物理治疗相比,腰椎持续自然椎体滑动改善了中期运动范围、功能状态和恐惧回避信念,但疼痛无差异。常规物理治疗加在腰椎持续自然棘突滑动中没有提供额外的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Eurasian Journal of Medicine
Eurasian Journal of Medicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
59
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Eurasian Journal of Medicine (Eurasian J Med) is an international, scientific, open access periodical published by independent, unbiased, and triple-blinded peer-review principles. The journal is the official publication of Atatürk University School of Medicine and published triannually in February, June, and October. The publication language of the journal is English. The aim of the Eurasian Journal of Medicine is to publish original research papers of the highest scientific and clinical value in all medical fields. The Eurasian J Med also includes reviews, editorial short notes and letters to the editor that either as a comment related to recently published articles in our journal or as a case report. The target audience of the journal includes researchers, physicians and healthcare professionals who are interested or working in in all medical disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Oral and Dental Health Results and Competition Stress Levels of Adolescent Athletes in Different Winter Sports Branches. Potential Using of Resveratrol and Its Derivatives in Medicine. The Involvement of the Serotonergic System in Ketamine and Fluoxetine Combination-induced Cognitive Impairments in Mice. The Utility of [18]F-Fluorocholine Positron Emission Computed Tomography and [18]F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography in Evaluating Breast Cancer Phenotypes: A Pilot Study. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy with Low-Energy Flux Density Treatment Applied to Hemiplegia Patients on Somatosensory Functions and Spatiotemporal Parameters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1