Different exposure times of flexion distraction technique in the L5-S1 distance and local pain of patients with chronic low back pain: A feasibility study

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Pub Date : 2024-01-24 DOI:10.1016/j.ijosm.2024.100714
Maria Alice Mainenti Pagnez , Maria Silveira Mello , Juliana Valentim Bittencourt , François Ricard , Leandro Alberto Calazans Nogueira
{"title":"Different exposure times of flexion distraction technique in the L5-S1 distance and local pain of patients with chronic low back pain: A feasibility study","authors":"Maria Alice Mainenti Pagnez ,&nbsp;Maria Silveira Mello ,&nbsp;Juliana Valentim Bittencourt ,&nbsp;François Ricard ,&nbsp;Leandro Alberto Calazans Nogueira","doi":"10.1016/j.ijosm.2024.100714","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Low back pain (LBP) is a worldwide public health problem. The flexion-distraction technique (FDT) has been considered to treat LBP. However, the adequate dosage and the treatment effects are not clearly understood. This feasibility study aimed to assess the effects of different exposure times with 5 and 10 min of the FDT on the L5-S1 distance and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of patients with chronic LBP.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A two-arm, examiner-blinded, randomized controlled feasibility trial with participants with chronic LBP enrolled in an outpatient clinic. Participants were randomly assigned to FDT-T5 (5 min) or FDT-T10 (10 min). The distance between the L5 lamina and the sacral promontory, and the PPT at the L5 spinous process was measured before and immediately after FDT. Ultrasound imaging was used to measure L5-S1 distance, and the pressure algometry examined the PPT. Pre- and post-intervention data were compared between two groups by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures. We also calculated the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the L5-S1 measurement.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Seventeen participants [10 (58.8 %) females, mean age 45 (±12) years] completed all procedures. Improvements in the intervertebral space [FDT-T5 mean change = 2.65 (95 %CI 1.45, 3.85) mm; FDT-T10 mean change = 1.88 (95 %CI -1.86, 5.63) mm] and decreases in PPT values [FDT-T5 mean change = −0.55 (95 %CI -1.35, 0.26) Kgf; FDT-T10 mean change = −0.79 (95 %CI -1.92, 0.34) Kgf] were observed, although there was no significant difference between the two groups for the distance between the L5 lamina and the sacral promontory (p = 0.595) or the spinous process L5 PPT (p = 0.672) after the intervention. Good reliability values were found for inter- and intra-rater measurements ranging between ICC = 0.81 to ICC = 0.88).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In this feasibility trial, both groups showed an increased distance between L5-S1 and decreased the PPT in the L5 spinous process, indicating greater pain sensitivity after the intervention. These quantitative methods may measure distance and pain in definitive studies.</p></div><div><h3>Implications for practice</h3><p></p><ul><li><span>•</span><span><p>This is the first study to compare the distance between the L5 lamina and the sacral promontory after the flexion-distraction technique (FDT) using ultrasound imaging (USI).</p></span></li><li><span>•</span><span><p>The present study could not determine the effect of a particular time of exposure to FDT (FDT-T5 or FDT-T10 min).</p></span></li><li><span>•</span><span><p>Both groups (FDT-T5 and FDT-T10 min) increased the lumbar distance, corresponding to mobilization of the lumbar region.</p></span></li><li><span>•</span><span><p>Both groups presented decreased values of PPT in the L5 spinous process immediately after the technique.</p></span></li><li><span>•</span><span><p>A single session of FDT showed improvements in the distance between L5 and S1 and reduced L5 pressure pain threshold in the feasibility study.</p></span></li></ul></div>","PeriodicalId":51068,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746068924000075","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a worldwide public health problem. The flexion-distraction technique (FDT) has been considered to treat LBP. However, the adequate dosage and the treatment effects are not clearly understood. This feasibility study aimed to assess the effects of different exposure times with 5 and 10 min of the FDT on the L5-S1 distance and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of patients with chronic LBP.

Methods

A two-arm, examiner-blinded, randomized controlled feasibility trial with participants with chronic LBP enrolled in an outpatient clinic. Participants were randomly assigned to FDT-T5 (5 min) or FDT-T10 (10 min). The distance between the L5 lamina and the sacral promontory, and the PPT at the L5 spinous process was measured before and immediately after FDT. Ultrasound imaging was used to measure L5-S1 distance, and the pressure algometry examined the PPT. Pre- and post-intervention data were compared between two groups by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures. We also calculated the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the L5-S1 measurement.

Results

Seventeen participants [10 (58.8 %) females, mean age 45 (±12) years] completed all procedures. Improvements in the intervertebral space [FDT-T5 mean change = 2.65 (95 %CI 1.45, 3.85) mm; FDT-T10 mean change = 1.88 (95 %CI -1.86, 5.63) mm] and decreases in PPT values [FDT-T5 mean change = −0.55 (95 %CI -1.35, 0.26) Kgf; FDT-T10 mean change = −0.79 (95 %CI -1.92, 0.34) Kgf] were observed, although there was no significant difference between the two groups for the distance between the L5 lamina and the sacral promontory (p = 0.595) or the spinous process L5 PPT (p = 0.672) after the intervention. Good reliability values were found for inter- and intra-rater measurements ranging between ICC = 0.81 to ICC = 0.88).

Conclusion

In this feasibility trial, both groups showed an increased distance between L5-S1 and decreased the PPT in the L5 spinous process, indicating greater pain sensitivity after the intervention. These quantitative methods may measure distance and pain in definitive studies.

Implications for practice

  • This is the first study to compare the distance between the L5 lamina and the sacral promontory after the flexion-distraction technique (FDT) using ultrasound imaging (USI).

  • The present study could not determine the effect of a particular time of exposure to FDT (FDT-T5 or FDT-T10 min).

  • Both groups (FDT-T5 and FDT-T10 min) increased the lumbar distance, corresponding to mobilization of the lumbar region.

  • Both groups presented decreased values of PPT in the L5 spinous process immediately after the technique.

  • A single session of FDT showed improvements in the distance between L5 and S1 and reduced L5 pressure pain threshold in the feasibility study.

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
屈曲牵引技术在慢性腰痛患者 L5-S1 距离和局部疼痛中的不同暴露时间:可行性研究
导言腰背痛是一个世界性的公共健康问题。屈曲牵引技术(FDT)一直被认为是治疗腰背痛的方法。然而,目前还不清楚适当的剂量和治疗效果。本可行性研究旨在评估 5 分钟和 10 分钟不同的 FDT 暴露时间对慢性腰椎间盘突出症患者 L5-S1 距离和压痛阈值(PPT)的影响。参与者被随机分配到 FDT-T5(5 分钟)或 FDT-T10(10 分钟)。在 FDT 之前和之后立即测量 L5 椎板与骶骨突出部之间的距离以及 L5 棘突处的 PPT。超声波成像用于测量 L5-S1 间距,压力算法用于检测 PPT。通过重复测量的双向方差分析(ANOVA)比较两组干预前后的数据。我们还计算了 L5-S1 测量的评分者内部和评分者之间的可靠性。结果17 名参与者[10(58.8%)名女性,平均年龄 45(±12)岁]完成了所有程序。椎间隙改善[FDT-T5 平均变化 = 2.65 (95 %CI 1.45, 3.85) mm;FDT-T10 平均变化 = 1.88 (95 %CI -1.86, 5.63) mm],PPT 值下降[FDT-T5 平均变化 = -0.55 (95 %CI -1.35, 0.26) Kgf;FDT-T10 平均变化 = -0.79 (95 %CI -1.92, 0.34) Kgf],但干预后,两组间 L5 椎板与骶骨突出部之间的距离(P = 0.595)或棘突 L5 PPT(P = 0.672)无显著差异。结论在这项可行性试验中,两组均显示 L5-S1 之间的距离增加,L5 棘突的 PPT 下降,表明干预后疼痛敏感性提高。这些定量方法可在确定性研究中测量距离和疼痛。
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
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
36.80%
发文量
42
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine is a peer-reviewed journal that provides for the publication of high quality research articles and review papers that are as broad as the many disciplines that influence and underpin the principles and practice of osteopathic medicine. Particular emphasis is given to basic science research, clinical epidemiology and health social science in relation to osteopathy and neuromusculoskeletal medicine. The Editorial Board encourages submission of articles based on both quantitative and qualitative research designs. The Editorial Board also aims to provide a forum for discourse and debate on any aspect of osteopathy and neuromusculoskeletal medicine with the aim of critically evaluating existing practices in regard to the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with neuromusculoskeletal disorders and somatic dysfunction. All manuscripts submitted to the IJOM are subject to a blinded review process. The categories currently available for publication include reports of original research, review papers, commentaries and articles related to clinical practice, including case reports. Further details can be found in the IJOM Instructions for Authors. Manuscripts are accepted for publication with the understanding that no substantial part has been, or will be published elsewhere.
期刊最新文献
Osteopathic manual treatment in women with endometriosis: A scoping review on clinical symptoms, fertility and quality of life The effectiveness of neuromuscular spinal manipulation- an updated systematic review and meta-analysis Osteopathic treatment of a person with Arnold-Chiari malformation and Syringomyelia: A case report Is visceral osteopathy therapy effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis Professional skill priorities: Comparison views of osteopathy industry professionals and osteopathy students
×
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