Effect of Global Postural Reeducation in Patients with Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain - a Pilot Study.

Q3 Medicine
Selma Bouden, Syrine Zanned, Leila Rouached, Aicha Ben Tekaya, Siwar Ben Dhia, Ines Mahmoud, Rawdha Tekaya, Olfa Saidane, Leila Abdelmoula
{"title":"Effect of Global Postural Reeducation in Patients with Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain - a Pilot Study.","authors":"Selma Bouden, Syrine Zanned, Leila Rouached, Aicha Ben Tekaya, Siwar Ben Dhia, Ines Mahmoud, Rawdha Tekaya, Olfa Saidane, Leila Abdelmoula","doi":"10.5604/01.3001.0055.2407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Global postural reeducation (GPR) has been developed over recent decades and has shown success in the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP). The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of GPR associated with a conventional reeducation protocol to that of the conventional reeducation protocol alone on pain, mobility, function and psychological symptoms in patients with non-specific LBP.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This randomized controlled trial enrolled patients diagnosed with chronic LBP. The patients were randomized into two groups: a GPR group who received GPR associated with a conventional reeducation protocol and a control group who received conventional reeducation alone. Two evaluations were performed for both groups: at baseline (T0) and at the end of the 4-week session period (T1). The parameters evaluated comprised pain (measured using the Visual Analog Scale, VAS), mobility (by the Fingertip-to-floor test (FFT) and the Schober index), muscle endurance (by the Shirado and the Sorensen tests), function (by the Oswestry Disability index (ODI)) and anxiety-depressive symptoms (by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADs)).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 26 patients were enrolled, with 13 in the GPR group and 13 in the control group. At the 4 weeks' evaluation, the GPR group showed significantly greater improvements in pain (p=0.04), lumbar mobility (p=0.007) and functional disability (p=0.02) compared to the control group. No differences between the two groups were found regarding muscular endurance and anxiety-depressive symptoms at the 4-weeks evaluation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggested that GPR combined with conventional reeducation methods holds promise as an effective treatment approach for common LBP, particularly in improving pain levels, lumbar mobility and functional disability.</p>","PeriodicalId":19622,"journal":{"name":"Ortopedia, traumatologia, rehabilitacja","volume":"27 2","pages":"53-58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ortopedia, traumatologia, rehabilitacja","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0055.2407","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Global postural reeducation (GPR) has been developed over recent decades and has shown success in the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP). The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of GPR associated with a conventional reeducation protocol to that of the conventional reeducation protocol alone on pain, mobility, function and psychological symptoms in patients with non-specific LBP.

Material and methods: This randomized controlled trial enrolled patients diagnosed with chronic LBP. The patients were randomized into two groups: a GPR group who received GPR associated with a conventional reeducation protocol and a control group who received conventional reeducation alone. Two evaluations were performed for both groups: at baseline (T0) and at the end of the 4-week session period (T1). The parameters evaluated comprised pain (measured using the Visual Analog Scale, VAS), mobility (by the Fingertip-to-floor test (FFT) and the Schober index), muscle endurance (by the Shirado and the Sorensen tests), function (by the Oswestry Disability index (ODI)) and anxiety-depressive symptoms (by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADs)).

Results: A total of 26 patients were enrolled, with 13 in the GPR group and 13 in the control group. At the 4 weeks' evaluation, the GPR group showed significantly greater improvements in pain (p=0.04), lumbar mobility (p=0.007) and functional disability (p=0.02) compared to the control group. No differences between the two groups were found regarding muscular endurance and anxiety-depressive symptoms at the 4-weeks evaluation.

Conclusion: Our findings suggested that GPR combined with conventional reeducation methods holds promise as an effective treatment approach for common LBP, particularly in improving pain levels, lumbar mobility and functional disability.

全面体位再教育对非特异性慢性腰痛患者的影响-一项初步研究。
背景:近几十年来,全球体位再教育(GPR)已经发展起来,并在治疗慢性腰痛(LBP)方面取得了成功。本研究的目的是比较GPR联合常规再教育方案与常规再教育方案在非特异性腰痛患者疼痛、活动能力、功能和心理症状方面的有效性。材料和方法:本随机对照试验纳入诊断为慢性腰痛的患者。患者被随机分为两组:GPR组接受GPR联合常规再教育方案,对照组只接受常规再教育。两组均进行了两次评估:基线(T0)和4周疗程结束时(T1)。评估的参数包括疼痛(使用视觉模拟量表,VAS),活动能力(通过指尖到地板测试(FFT)和Schober指数),肌肉耐力(通过Shirado和Sorensen测试),功能(通过Oswestry残疾指数(ODI))和焦虑抑郁症状(通过医院焦虑和抑郁量表(HADs))。结果:共纳入26例患者,其中GPR组13例,对照组13例。在4周的评估中,与对照组相比,GPR组在疼痛(p=0.04),腰椎活动(p=0.007)和功能障碍(p=0.02)方面表现出更大的改善。在4周的评估中,两组在肌肉耐力和焦虑抑郁症状方面没有发现差异。结论:我们的研究结果表明,GPR联合传统的再教育方法有望成为治疗常见腰痛的有效方法,特别是在改善疼痛水平、腰椎活动能力和功能障碍方面。
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
Ortopedia, traumatologia, rehabilitacja
Ortopedia, traumatologia, rehabilitacja Medicine-Rehabilitation
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
×
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