A Comparative Study on the Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation versus Intermittent Lumbar Traction in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain Combined with the Extensor Endurance Exercise Regime

Jagat Jaya Sharma, Priyabrata Dash, Dwarikanath Rout, Smrutiranjan Sahu, Swami Prabhu Ranjan, N. Mohanty
{"title":"A Comparative Study on the Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation versus Intermittent Lumbar Traction in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain Combined with the Extensor Endurance Exercise Regime","authors":"Jagat Jaya Sharma, Priyabrata Dash, Dwarikanath Rout, Smrutiranjan Sahu, Swami Prabhu Ranjan, N. Mohanty","doi":"10.36349/easjop.2024.v06i03.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The endeavor of this study was done to compare the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in subjects with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) as compared to intermittent lumbar traction (ILT) with simultaneous application of extensor endurance exercise with both the interventions. Methods: Quasi-experimental approach was chosen for conducting the study with pre-intervention and post-intervention evaluation of the outcomes. Convenient sampling and random allocation to groups were used to select and assign the sample that comprised of 10 subjects each in the two experimental groups and 10 subjects in control group out of total sample size of 30. Standardized tools such as VAS for evaluating the pain, modified Oswestry LBP disability questionnaire for evaluating disability were utilized. Extensor endurance exercise with warm-up and cool down were administered to both the experimental groups in common and TENS and ILT were administered to subjects of first and second experimental group respectively. Control group subjects were only treated with hot packs. Results: The data were analyzed with help of Microsoft excel. Paired t-test was done for Intragroup analysis and un-paired t-test, ANOVA for intergroup analysis. The findings suggested that there was significant difference within group-A and group-B for pain and disability and for group-C; the significant difference was found only for pain. Conclusion: From this study we concluded that, with common intervention of extensor endurance exercise for both experimental groups; significant reductions were seen in disability of subjects with chronic non-specific low back pain after four weeks of intervention with intermittent lumbar traction than that of TENS but the reduction of pain was more significant in subjects intervened with TENS than that with intermittent lumbar traction.","PeriodicalId":496575,"journal":{"name":"EAS journal of orthopaedic and physiotherapy","volume":"27 15","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EAS journal of orthopaedic and physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36349/easjop.2024.v06i03.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The endeavor of this study was done to compare the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in subjects with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) as compared to intermittent lumbar traction (ILT) with simultaneous application of extensor endurance exercise with both the interventions. Methods: Quasi-experimental approach was chosen for conducting the study with pre-intervention and post-intervention evaluation of the outcomes. Convenient sampling and random allocation to groups were used to select and assign the sample that comprised of 10 subjects each in the two experimental groups and 10 subjects in control group out of total sample size of 30. Standardized tools such as VAS for evaluating the pain, modified Oswestry LBP disability questionnaire for evaluating disability were utilized. Extensor endurance exercise with warm-up and cool down were administered to both the experimental groups in common and TENS and ILT were administered to subjects of first and second experimental group respectively. Control group subjects were only treated with hot packs. Results: The data were analyzed with help of Microsoft excel. Paired t-test was done for Intragroup analysis and un-paired t-test, ANOVA for intergroup analysis. The findings suggested that there was significant difference within group-A and group-B for pain and disability and for group-C; the significant difference was found only for pain. Conclusion: From this study we concluded that, with common intervention of extensor endurance exercise for both experimental groups; significant reductions were seen in disability of subjects with chronic non-specific low back pain after four weeks of intervention with intermittent lumbar traction than that of TENS but the reduction of pain was more significant in subjects intervened with TENS than that with intermittent lumbar traction.
经皮神经电刺激与间歇性腰椎牵引治疗慢性非特异性腰痛并结合伸展耐力锻炼计划的比较研究
研究背景本研究旨在比较经皮神经电刺激(TENS)与间歇性腰椎牵引(ILT)对慢性非特异性腰背痛(LBP)患者的疗效,并在两种干预措施中同时进行伸肌耐力锻炼。研究方法选择准实验方法进行研究,对干预前和干预后的结果进行评估。在 30 个样本中,两个实验组各 10 名受试者,对照组 10 名受试者。采用标准化工具,如用于评估疼痛的 VAS 和用于评估残疾的改良 Oswestry LBP 残疾问卷。实验组和对照组的受试者都进行了热身和冷却的伸展耐力锻炼,第一实验组和第二实验组的受试者分别进行了 TENS 和 ILT 治疗。对照组受试者只接受热敷治疗。结果:数据使用 Microsoft excel 进行分析。组内分析采用配对 t 检验,组间分析采用非配对 t 检验和方差分析。结果表明,A 组和 B 组在疼痛和残疾方面存在显著差异,而 C 组仅在疼痛方面存在显著差异。结论通过这项研究,我们得出结论:在对两个实验组进行伸展肌耐力锻炼的共同干预下,慢性非特异性腰背痛患者在接受间歇性腰椎牵引治疗四周后,其残疾程度比接受 TENS 治疗的患者明显减轻,但接受 TENS 治疗的患者的疼痛减轻程度比接受间歇性腰椎牵引治疗的患者更明显。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信