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 ,&nbsp;Pieter H. Helmhout ,&nbsp;Rob A. de Bie ,&nbsp;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.

一项随机临床试验:对于慢性腰背痛,高强度腰伸肌强化计划并不比低强度计划或等候名单对照组好多少
8周的高强度孤立腰伸肌强化比低强度强化或不强化更有效吗?16周后是否仍有增长?设计:采用隐藏分配、评估者盲法和意向治疗分析的随机三组试验。等待名单对照组的参与者在前8周后再次被随机分配到高强度或低强度的强化计划中。参与者:65名患有非特异性慢性腰痛的军人。干预:高强度训练组对孤立的腰伸肌进行10次15 - 20次的重复训练。低强度训练组接受非进行性低强度阻力方案。主要结果是整体感知效应和残疾。次要结局是健康相关的生活质量、对运动/(再)损伤的恐惧和腰伸肌力量。在训练前后和16周后分别采取措施。结果8周后,高强度训练组的SF-36总分比低强度训练组和等候名单对照组平均高7% (95% CI 1 ~ 13),高强度训练组自我评估的背部症状减轻程度比等候名单对照组平均高39% (95% CI 14 ~ 64)。在8周或24周时,两组之间的任何其他结果的改善没有差异。结论:尽管发现了一些有益的效果,但这种高强度的孤立腰伸肌强化计划的结果并不清楚地支持通常声称的运动对慢性非特异性腰痛的有益影响。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信