Effect of instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization versus kinesiotape for chronic mechanical low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Q3 Health Professions

Physiotherapy Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5114/pq.2023.125742

M. Grase, Haytham M. Elhafez, Menna M Abdellatif, Ahmed F. Genedi, Mayada A. Mahmoud

{"title":"Effect of instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization versus kinesiotape\nfor chronic mechanical low back pain: a randomized controlled trial","authors":"M. Grase, Haytham M. Elhafez, Menna M Abdellatif, Ahmed F. Genedi, Mayada A. Mahmoud","doi":"10.5114/pq.2023.125742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The primary purpose was to compare the effect of conventional program, instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization (iASTM) and kinesiotape (KT) in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain (CMLBP). Methods. 51 participants were randomly enrolled into three equal groups. Group A ( n = 17) received conventional program, Group B ( n = 17) received conventional program plus iASTM, and Group C ( n = 17) received conventional program plus KT. The participants were evaluated before and after eight sessions using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), pressure algometer, dual inclinometer, and oswestry disability index (odi). Results. Between pre-treatment and post-treatment, the three groups demonstrated a significant pain reduction (57.2%, 61.2%, and 57.77%; p < 0.0001), a significant increase in pain pressure threshold (PPT) [right (Rt): 56%, 53.2%, and 35.6%; left (Lt): 49%, 50.55%, and 41.36%; p < 0.0001], a significant improvement in the range of motion (RoM) (flexion: 38.59%, 43.55%, and 35.7%; extension: 72.4%, 88.73%, and 65.56%; Rt lateral flexion: 79.05%, 78.03%, and 55.42%; Lt lateral flexion: 85.33%, 96.37%, and 64.66%; Rt rotation 135%, 116.5%, and 188.48%; Lt rotation: 203%, 140.48%, and 224.24%; p < 0.0001), and a significant improvement in the functional disability index (56.8%, 49.55%, and 46.99%; p < 0.0001). No significant difference in pain, PPT, RoM and function was found among the three groups. Conclusions. Conventional program, iASTM and KT are effective methods for improving pain, RoM and function on CMLBP.","PeriodicalId":37315,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Quarterly","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/pq.2023.125742","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction. The primary purpose was to compare the effect of conventional program, instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization (iASTM) and kinesiotape (KT) in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain (CMLBP). Methods. 51 participants were randomly enrolled into three equal groups. Group A ( n = 17) received conventional program, Group B ( n = 17) received conventional program plus iASTM, and Group C ( n = 17) received conventional program plus KT. The participants were evaluated before and after eight sessions using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), pressure algometer, dual inclinometer, and oswestry disability index (odi). Results. Between pre-treatment and post-treatment, the three groups demonstrated a significant pain reduction (57.2%, 61.2%, and 57.77%; p < 0.0001), a significant increase in pain pressure threshold (PPT) [right (Rt): 56%, 53.2%, and 35.6%; left (Lt): 49%, 50.55%, and 41.36%; p < 0.0001], a significant improvement in the range of motion (RoM) (flexion: 38.59%, 43.55%, and 35.7%; extension: 72.4%, 88.73%, and 65.56%; Rt lateral flexion: 79.05%, 78.03%, and 55.42%; Lt lateral flexion: 85.33%, 96.37%, and 64.66%; Rt rotation 135%, 116.5%, and 188.48%; Lt rotation: 203%, 140.48%, and 224.24%; p < 0.0001), and a significant improvement in the functional disability index (56.8%, 49.55%, and 46.99%; p < 0.0001). No significant difference in pain, PPT, RoM and function was found among the three groups. Conclusions. Conventional program, iASTM and KT are effective methods for improving pain, RoM and function on CMLBP.

查看原文本刊更多论文

器械辅助软组织活动与运动带治疗慢性机械性腰痛的效果:一项随机对照试验

介绍。主要目的是比较常规程序、器械辅助软组织活动(iASTM)和运动带(KT)在慢性机械性腰痛(CMLBP)患者中的效果。方法:51名受试者随机分为三组。A组(n = 17)采用常规方案，B组(n = 17)采用常规方案加iASTM, C组(n = 17)采用常规方案加KT。采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)、压力测量仪、双斜度测量仪和嗅觉功能障碍指数(odi)对8次治疗前后的受试者进行评估。结果。在治疗前和治疗后，三组疼痛明显减轻(分别为57.2%、61.2%和57.77%);p < 0.0001)，疼痛压力阈值(PPT)显著升高[右(Rt): 56%、53.2%、35.6%;左(Lt): 49%， 50.55%， 41.36%;p < 0.0001]，活动范围(RoM)显著改善(屈曲:38.59%，43.55%和35.7%;扩展:72.4%、88.73%和65.56%;右侧屈:79.05%、78.03%、55.42%;左侧屈曲:85.33%、96.37%、64.66%;Rt旋转135%，116.5%，188.48%;Lt旋转:203%，140.48%，224.24%;P < 0.0001)，功能障碍指数显著改善(56.8%，49.55%，46.99%;P < 0.0001)。三组患者在疼痛、PPT、RoM、功能方面均无明显差异。结论。常规程序、iASTM和KT是改善CMLBP疼痛、RoM和功能的有效方法。

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

Physiotherapy Quarterly Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

CiteScore

0.80

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Physiotherapy Quarterly ISSN 2544-4395 (formerly Fizjoterapia ISSN 1230-8323) is an international scientific peer-reviewed journal, published in both paper and electronic format by the University School of Physical Education in Wroclaw, Poland. The original version of the journal is its paper issue. The Editorial Office accepts original papers on various aspects of physiotherapy and rehabilitation for publication. Manuscripts in basic science and clinical physiotherapy science are published at the highest priority. Letters to the Editor, reports from scientific meetings and book reviews are also considered. Physiotherapy Quarterly publishes papers that show depth, rigor, originality and high-quality presentation. The scope of the journal: evidence-based rehabilitation; the mechanisms of function or dysfunction; modern therapy methods; best clinical practice; clinical reasoning and decision-making processes; assessment and clinical management of disorders; exploration of relevant clinical interventions; multi-modal approaches; psychosocial issues; expectations, experiences, and perspectives of physiotherapists. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research articles are welcomed, together with systematic and high-quality narrative reviews.