Effectiveness of Pilates compared with home-based exercises in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain: Randomised controlled trial

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q1 REHABILITATION

Clinical Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-09-14 DOI:10.1177/02692155241277041

Caroline Ribeiro Tottoli, Ângela Jornada Ben, Everton Nunes da Silva, Judith E Bosmans, Maurits van Tulder, Rodrigo Luiz Carregaro

{"title":"Effectiveness of Pilates compared with home-based exercises in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain: Randomised controlled trial","authors":"Caroline Ribeiro Tottoli, Ângela Jornada Ben, Everton Nunes da Silva, Judith E Bosmans, Maurits van Tulder, Rodrigo Luiz Carregaro","doi":"10.1177/02692155241277041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of a Pilates exercise program compared with home-based exercises in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain.DesignA randomised controlled trial with a six-month follow-up.SettingRehabilitation clinic.ParticipantsOne hundred and forty-five individuals (18–50 years of age) with low back pain for ≥ 12 consecutive weeks were enrolled and randomly allocated to either Pilates ( n = 72) or home-based exercise groups ( n = 73).InterventionsMethod Pilates (Mat Pilates exercises using accessories) versus home-based exercise (postural exercises, muscle stretching and strengthening, and spine stabilisation/mobilisation), twice a week, for 6 weeks.Main measuresAssessments were performed at baseline, post-intervention, and six months follow-up. Outcomes were pain intensity, disability, and health-related quality of life.ResultsAt post-intervention, the Pilates group had significantly lower pain intensity (mean difference = −1.14; 95% CI −2.05; −0.23), less disability (mean difference = −6.7; 95% CI −11.3; −2.0), and higher health-related quality of life (mean difference = 0.102; 95% CI 0.054; 0151) compared to the home-based exercise group. At follow-up, the Pilates group had a significantly higher health-related quality of life (mean difference = 0.055; 95% CI 0.003; 0.106) compared with the home-based exercise group but there were no significant differences in pain and disability. A significant overall effect of Pilates compared to home-based exercise was found for disability (mean difference = −4.4; 95% CI −7.6; −1.1), and health-related quality of life (mean difference = 0.049; 95% CI 0.022; 0.076), but not for pain.ConclusionAlthough Pilates was significantly superior to home exercise for pain and disability, the differences were not considered clinically relevant. However, Pilates did provide significant and clinically relevant differences in utility.","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155241277041","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of a Pilates exercise program compared with home-based exercises in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain.DesignA randomised controlled trial with a six-month follow-up.SettingRehabilitation clinic.ParticipantsOne hundred and forty-five individuals (18–50 years of age) with low back pain for ≥ 12 consecutive weeks were enrolled and randomly allocated to either Pilates ( n = 72) or home-based exercise groups ( n = 73).InterventionsMethod Pilates (Mat Pilates exercises using accessories) versus home-based exercise (postural exercises, muscle stretching and strengthening, and spine stabilisation/mobilisation), twice a week, for 6 weeks.Main measuresAssessments were performed at baseline, post-intervention, and six months follow-up. Outcomes were pain intensity, disability, and health-related quality of life.ResultsAt post-intervention, the Pilates group had significantly lower pain intensity (mean difference = −1.14; 95% CI −2.05; −0.23), less disability (mean difference = −6.7; 95% CI −11.3; −2.0), and higher health-related quality of life (mean difference = 0.102; 95% CI 0.054; 0151) compared to the home-based exercise group. At follow-up, the Pilates group had a significantly higher health-related quality of life (mean difference = 0.055; 95% CI 0.003; 0.106) compared with the home-based exercise group but there were no significant differences in pain and disability. A significant overall effect of Pilates compared to home-based exercise was found for disability (mean difference = −4.4; 95% CI −7.6; −1.1), and health-related quality of life (mean difference = 0.049; 95% CI 0.022; 0.076), but not for pain.ConclusionAlthough Pilates was significantly superior to home exercise for pain and disability, the differences were not considered clinically relevant. However, Pilates did provide significant and clinically relevant differences in utility.

查看原文本刊更多论文

普拉提与在家练习对慢性非特异性腰背痛患者的疗效比较：随机对照试验

研究人员145名（18-50岁）连续12周腰痛的患者，随机分配到普拉提组（72人）或家庭锻炼组（73人）。干预方法普拉提（使用配件进行垫上普拉提练习）与家庭锻炼（姿势练习、肌肉拉伸和强化以及脊柱稳定/活动），每周两次，为期 6 周。结果与家庭锻炼组相比，干预后普拉提组的疼痛强度明显降低（平均差异=-1.14；95% CI -2.05；-0.23），残疾程度降低（平均差异=-6.7；95% CI -11.3；-2.0），健康相关生活质量提高（平均差异=0.102；95% CI 0.054；0151）。在随访中，普拉提组的健康相关生活质量（平均差异=0.055；95% CI 0.003；0.106）明显高于在家锻炼组，但在疼痛和残疾方面没有明显差异。普拉提与家庭锻炼相比，在残疾（平均差异 = -4.4；95% CI -7.6；-1.1）和健康相关生活质量（平均差异 = 0.049；95% CI 0.022；0.076）方面具有明显的整体效果，但在疼痛方面没有明显效果。然而，普拉提确实在实用性方面提供了显著的临床相关性差异。

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

Clinical Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学

CiteScore

5.60

自引率

6.70%

发文量

117

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)