Dataset Information

Effects and limitations of home-based motor-control exercise for chronic low back pain: A single center prospective study.

ABSTRACT:

Study design

Prospective single-center observational study.

Objective

To investigate the effects and limitations of self-motor-control exercise in patients with chronic low back pain.

Summary of background data

Although exercise therapy and physical therapy have been shown to be effective in treating chronic low back pain, these therapies are often discontinued due to patients' non-compliance, and their effectiveness cannot be fully demonstrated.

Methods

Fifteen patients with low back pain, no apparent organic disease, who had been symptomatic for at least three months, and could continue motor-control exercise at home for at least six months were included in the study. Low back pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), locomotor 25, stand-up test, two-step test, trunk and total body muscle mass by the impedance method, and spinal sagittal alignment were examined before the intervention to establish a baseline, and at two and six months after the intervention.

Result

Significant improvement was observed in the back pain VAS (p<0.01), stand-up test (p = 0.03), two-step test (p = 0.01), and locomotor 25 (p = 0.04) before and after the intervention. In contrast, there were no significant changes in muscle mass and sagittal alignment. The effect of long-term exercise was more pronounced in patients without spinal deformity.

Conclusions

Self-exercise for patients with chronic low back pain was effective in improving pain and function, although it did not directly affect muscle mass or alignment. Moreover, strength training of the lumbar back muscles alone was not found to be effective in patients with spinal deformities.

SUBMITTER: Hirota R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10124855 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects and limitations of home-based motor-control exercise for chronic low back pain: A single center prospective study.

Hirota Ryosuke R Teramoto Atsushi A Murakami Takanori T Yoshimoto Mitsunori M Iesato Noriyuki N Yamashita Toshihiko T

PloS one 20230424 4

<h4>Study design</h4>Prospective single-center observational study.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate the effects and limitations of self-motor-control exercise in patients with chronic low back pain.<h4>Summary of background data</h4>Although exercise therapy and physical therapy have been shown to be effective in treating chronic low back pain, these therapies are often discontinued due to patients' non-compliance, and their effectiveness cannot be fully demonstrated.<h4>Methods</h4>Fifteen pati ...[more]

PMID: 37093878

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundChronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal problems worldwide. Even though regular exercise is recommended as the primary conservative approach in treating this condition, significant part of patients lead sedentary lifestyle. Motivation to exercise is one of the variables that effects the adherence of exercise-based treatments. This study aimed to characterize the motives for exercise, as posited by self-determination theory, in persons with CLBP, and to identify subgroups (clusters) of motivational profiles in combination with socioeconomic and clinical characteristics using k-means cluster analysis.MethodsData were collected between September 2022 and September 2023. A total of 103 adults with CLBP completed the paper-pencil Exercise Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-E) and provided self-reported measures on anthropometric and socio-economic characteristics. Inclusion criteria were age (≥ 18 years) and non-specific CLBP (lasting longer than 12 weeks). Exclusion criteria included specific lumbar spine pathology (e.g., fracture, cancer), worsening neurological symptoms, recent injection therapy (within 3 months), and current alcohol or drug misuse.ResultsThree distinct motivational clusters were identified among the 103 participants: two clusters were characterized by predominantly autonomous motivation (moderately motivated cluster: 31.1%; highly motivated cluster: 54.4%), while one cluster (controlled convinced cluster: 14.6%) showed a higher level of controlled motivation. Associations were observed between the controlled cluster and factors such as higher disability scores, longer duration of pain, greater number of completed physiotherapy sessions, and elevated BMI. Notably, the controlled motivation cluster was linked with poorer clinical outcomes.ConclusionsThis study provides insights into the exercise motivation of patients with CLBP, revealing that while most patients were primarily autonomously motivated, a notable subgroup exhibited lower, controlled motivation. The presence of controlled motivation was associated with worse functioning, longer pain duration, and increased utilization of physiotherapy services. Although these findings suggest a link between motivational profiles and clinical outcomes, the cross-sectional design limits causal inferences. Further research is needed to explore these relationships longitudinally.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT05512338 (22.8.2022, NCT05512338).

Project description:ObjectiveTo review the effects of core stability exercise or general exercise for patients with chronic low back pain (LBP).Summary of background dataExercise therapy appears to be effective at decreasing pain and improving function for patients with chronic LBP in practice guidelines. Core stability exercise is becoming increasingly popular for LBP. However, it is currently unknown whether core stability exercise produces more beneficial effects than general exercise in patients with chronic LBP.MethodsPublished articles from 1970 to October 2011 were identified using electronic searches. For this meta-analysis, two reviewers independently selected relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating core stability exercise versus general exercise for the treatment of patients with chronic LBP. Data were extracted independently by the same two individuals who selected the studies.ResultsFrom the 28 potentially relevant trials, a total of 5 trials involving 414 participants were included in the current analysis. The pooling revealed that core stability exercise was better than general exercise for reducing pain [mean difference (-1.29); 95% confidence interval (-2.47, -0.11); P = 0.003] and disability [mean difference (-7.14); 95% confidence interval (-11.64, -2.65); P = 0.002] at the time of the short-term follow-up. However, no significant differences were observed between core stability exercise and general exercise in reducing pain at 6 months [mean difference (-0.50); 95% confidence interval (-1.36, 0.36); P = 0.26] and 12 months [mean difference (-0.32); 95% confidence interval (-0.87, 0.23); P = 0.25].ConclusionsCompared to general exercise, core stability exercise is more effective in decreasing pain and may improve physical function in patients with chronic LBP in the short term. However, no significant long-term differences in pain severity were observed between patients who engaged in core stability exercise versus those who engaged in general exercise.Systematic review registrationhttp://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO PROSPERO registration number: CRD42011001717.

Project description:BackgroundTrials on sling exercise (SE), commonly performed to manage chronic low back pain (LBP), yield conflicting results. This study aimed to review the effects of SE on chronic LBP.MethodsThe randomized controlled trials comparing SE with other treatments or no treatment, published up to August 2013, were identified by electronic searches. Primary outcomes were pain, function, and return to work. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated, using a random-effects model.ResultsRisk of bias was rated as high in 9 included trials, where some important quality components such as blinding were absent and sample sizes were generally small. We found no clinically relevant differences in pain or function between SE and other forms of exercise, traditional Chinese medical therapy, or in addition to acupuncture. Based on two trials, SE was more effective than thermomagnetic therapy at reducing pain (short-term: WMD -13.90, 95% CI -22.19 to -5.62; long-term: WMD -26.20, 95% CI -31.32 to -21.08) and improving function (short-term: WMD -10.54, 95% CI -14.32 to -6.75; long-term: WMD -25.75, 95% CI -30.79 to -20.71). In one trial we found statistically significant differences between SE and physical agents combined with drug therapy (meloxicam combined with eperisone hydrochloride) but of borderline clinical relevance for pain (short-term: WMD -15.00, 95% CI -19.64 to -10.36) and function (short-term: WMD -10.00; 95% CI -13.70 to -6.30). There was substantial heterogeneity among the two trials comparing SE and thermomagnetic therapy; both these trials and the trial comparing SE with physical agents combined with drug therapy had serious methodological limitations.InterpretationBased on limited evidence from 2 trials, SE was more effective for LBP than thermomagnetic therapy. Clinically relevant differences in effects between SE and other forms of exercise, physical agents combined with drug therapy, traditional Chinese medical therapy, or in addition to acupuncture could not be found. More high-quality randomized trials on the topic are warranted.

Dataset Information

Effects and limitations of home-based motor-control exercise for chronic low back pain: A single center prospective study.

Study design

Objective

Summary of background data

Methods

Result

Conclusions

Publications

Effects and limitations of home-based motor-control exercise for chronic low back pain: A single center prospective study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets