Manual Therapy Followed by Dynamic Strengthening Exercise Along With Conventional Physiotherapy Versus Manual Therapy Along With Conventional Physiotherapy on The Improvement of Pain and Functional Disability In Patients With Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized-Controlled Pilot Study

Md Nazmul Hassan, Parvin Akter, Mohammad Anwar Hossain, Koushik Ahmed, F. Sharmin, Md Shahoriar Ahmed, Kumar Amitav, Md Ashif Ikbal khan, Shazal Kumar Das, L. Walton, M. Habibur Rahman
{"title":"Manual Therapy Followed by Dynamic Strengthening Exercise Along With Conventional Physiotherapy Versus Manual Therapy Along With Conventional Physiotherapy on The Improvement of Pain and Functional Disability In Patients With Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized-Controlled Pilot Study","authors":"Md Nazmul Hassan, Parvin Akter, Mohammad Anwar Hossain, Koushik Ahmed, F. Sharmin, Md Shahoriar Ahmed, Kumar Amitav, Md Ashif Ikbal khan, Shazal Kumar Das, L. Walton, M. Habibur Rahman","doi":"10.26502/fjsrs0048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Dynamic Back Strengthening exercise along with conventional physiotherapy for chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) patients over a conventional rehabilitation protocol for chronic non-specific LBP patients. Methods: Between October to December 2021 to a total of 8 patients with nonspecific LBP (5 males, 3 females; mean age: 41.12± years; ranged, 25 to 55 years) were included in this randomized - controlled pilot study. The patients were randomly assigned to experimental (n=4) and control (n=4) group. The treatment period was 3 days in a week for four consecutive weeks where pre & post assessment were done. Data were collected by using structured questionnaires related to CLBP and disability, socio-demographic data were collected through a semi-structured questionnaire including the Dallas Pain Questionnaire & Oswestry disability index (ODI). Results: In Mann Whitney 'U', the level of significance is greater than p = > 0.05, and there is no significant difference in between group analysis for all traits of the Dallas pain questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Conclusion: Effectiveness of Dynamic Strengthening Exercise along with conventional physiotherapy was the same in comparison to the conventional physiotherapy treatment for patients with CLBP. In these limited sessions, it has been found that the strengthening program could be started earlier but not for all kinds of patients. As the disability level has been improved by both groups, so it can be introduced earlier with the patients. A complete study should be done with a larger sample size to find out the effectiveness of the dynamic strengthening exercise along with the conventional physiotherapy treatment approach for CLBP patients.","PeriodicalId":73951,"journal":{"name":"Journal of spine research and surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of spine research and surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26502/fjsrs0048","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

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Dynamic Back Strengthening exercise along with conventional physiotherapy for chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) patients over a conventional rehabilitation protocol for chronic non-specific LBP patients. Methods: Between October to December 2021 to a total of 8 patients with nonspecific LBP (5 males, 3 females; mean age: 41.12± years; ranged, 25 to 55 years) were included in this randomized - controlled pilot study. The patients were randomly assigned to experimental (n=4) and control (n=4) group. The treatment period was 3 days in a week for four consecutive weeks where pre & post assessment were done. Data were collected by using structured questionnaires related to CLBP and disability, socio-demographic data were collected through a semi-structured questionnaire including the Dallas Pain Questionnaire & Oswestry disability index (ODI). Results: In Mann Whitney 'U', the level of significance is greater than p = > 0.05, and there is no significant difference in between group analysis for all traits of the Dallas pain questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Conclusion: Effectiveness of Dynamic Strengthening Exercise along with conventional physiotherapy was the same in comparison to the conventional physiotherapy treatment for patients with CLBP. In these limited sessions, it has been found that the strengthening program could be started earlier but not for all kinds of patients. As the disability level has been improved by both groups, so it can be introduced earlier with the patients. A complete study should be done with a larger sample size to find out the effectiveness of the dynamic strengthening exercise along with the conventional physiotherapy treatment approach for CLBP patients.
手工疗法加动态强化运动联合常规物理疗法与手工疗法联合常规物理疗法对慢性非特异性腰痛患者疼痛和功能障碍改善的对照研究
目的:本研究旨在评估动态背部强化运动与常规物理治疗对慢性非特异性腰痛(LBP)患者的疗效,而不是传统康复方案对慢性非特异性腰痛患者的疗效。方法:2021年10月至12月共8例非特异性LBP患者(男5例,女3例;平均年龄:41.12±岁;年龄在25岁到55岁之间)的患者被纳入这项随机对照的初步研究。将患者随机分为实验组(n=4)和对照组(n=4)。治疗期为每周3天,连续4周进行前后评估。数据收集采用与CLBP和残疾相关的结构化问卷,社会人口学数据收集采用半结构化问卷,包括Dallas疼痛问卷和Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)。结果:在Mann Whitney“U”中,显著性水平大于p = > 0.05, Dallas疼痛问卷与Oswestry残疾问卷各特征组间分析差异无统计学意义。结论:与常规物理治疗相比,动态强化运动联合常规物理治疗对CLBP患者的疗效相同。在这些有限的疗程中,我们发现强化计划可以更早开始,但并不是对所有类型的患者都适用。由于两组的残疾水平都有所提高,所以可以更早地与患者一起引入。动态强化运动配合常规物理治疗方法对CLBP患者的治疗效果还需要更大样本量的完整研究。
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