A high-intensity lumbar extensor strengthening program is little better than a low-intensity program or a waiting list control group for chronic low back pain: a randomised clinical trial
Chris C. Harts , Pieter H. Helmhout , Rob A. de Bie , J. Bart Staal
{"title":"A high-intensity lumbar extensor strengthening program is little better than a low-intensity program or a waiting list control group for chronic low back pain: a randomised clinical trial","authors":"Chris C. Harts , Pieter H. Helmhout , Rob A. de Bie , J. Bart Staal","doi":"10.1016/S0004-9514(08)70062-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Question</h3><p>Is eight weeks of high-intensity strengthening of the isolated lumbar extensors more effective than low-intensity strengthening or no strengthening? Are any gains maintained 16 weeks later?</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Randomised, three-arm trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding, and intention-to-treat-analysis. Participants in the waiting list control group were randomised again, after the first 8 weeks, to either the high-intensity or the low-intensity strengthening program.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>Sixty-five army personnel with non-specific chronic low back pain.</p></div><div><h3>Intervention</h3><p>The high-intensity training group received 10 sessions of 15 to 20 repetitions for the isolated lumbar extensor muscles. The low-intensity training group received a nonprogressive, low-intensity resistance protocol.</p></div><div><h3>Outcome measures</h3><p>Primary outcomes were global perceived effect and disability. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, fear of movement/(re-)injury, and isometric lumbar extensor muscle strength. Measures were taken before and after the training and 16 weeks later.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>At eight weeks, SF-36 overall score was on average 7% (95% CI 1 to 13) greater in the high-intensity training group compared with the low-intensity training group and the waiting list control group, and self-assessed decrease of back symptoms was on average 39% (95% CI 14 to 64) greater in the high-intensity training group compared with the waiting list control group. There was no difference in improvement between the groups for any other outcome at 8 weeks or 24 weeks.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Although some beneficial effects were found, the results of this high-intensity strengthening program of the isolated lumbar extensor muscles do not clearly support the generally-claimed beneficial influence of exercise for chronic non-specific low back pain.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50086,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":"54 1","pages":"Pages 23-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0004-9514(08)70062-X","citationCount":"73","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000495140870062X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 73
Abstract
Question
Is eight weeks of high-intensity strengthening of the isolated lumbar extensors more effective than low-intensity strengthening or no strengthening? Are any gains maintained 16 weeks later?
Design
Randomised, three-arm trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding, and intention-to-treat-analysis. Participants in the waiting list control group were randomised again, after the first 8 weeks, to either the high-intensity or the low-intensity strengthening program.
Participants
Sixty-five army personnel with non-specific chronic low back pain.
Intervention
The high-intensity training group received 10 sessions of 15 to 20 repetitions for the isolated lumbar extensor muscles. The low-intensity training group received a nonprogressive, low-intensity resistance protocol.
Outcome measures
Primary outcomes were global perceived effect and disability. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, fear of movement/(re-)injury, and isometric lumbar extensor muscle strength. Measures were taken before and after the training and 16 weeks later.
Results
At eight weeks, SF-36 overall score was on average 7% (95% CI 1 to 13) greater in the high-intensity training group compared with the low-intensity training group and the waiting list control group, and self-assessed decrease of back symptoms was on average 39% (95% CI 14 to 64) greater in the high-intensity training group compared with the waiting list control group. There was no difference in improvement between the groups for any other outcome at 8 weeks or 24 weeks.
Conclusions
Although some beneficial effects were found, the results of this high-intensity strengthening program of the isolated lumbar extensor muscles do not clearly support the generally-claimed beneficial influence of exercise for chronic non-specific low back pain.