Ratnakar Veeramachaneni, Andrew Gitkind, Sandeep Yerra, Michael Hagan, Asude N Hasanoglu, Natnael Akile, Hannah Kareff, Derek Ho, Matthew N Bartels
{"title":"新型足部无创生物力学干预与传统物理治疗对慢性腰痛患者的临床效果比较一项随机临床试验。","authors":"Ratnakar Veeramachaneni, Andrew Gitkind, Sandeep Yerra, Michael Hagan, Asude N Hasanoglu, Natnael Akile, Hannah Kareff, Derek Ho, Matthew N Bartels","doi":"10.1177/21925682251314823","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Randomized Controlled Trial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major public health concern that will continue to grow with the expected aging of the population. The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical effect of a personalized, home-based biomechanical intervention compared to traditional physical therapy in patients with CLBP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a randomized controlled trial. One-hundred and sixty-two patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to a home-based biomechanical intervention (HBBI, AposHealth) or traditional physical therapy (TPT), respectively. Patients were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks and 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure was pain at 52 weeks, using a standard Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included pain and function metrics, quality of life and objective spatio-temporal gait test. A Linear Mixed Model assessed changes over time across all study visits.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant reduction in NRS was found after 52 weeks with a superiority effect of the HBBI arm compared to TPT (F = 13.82, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Patients in the HBBI arm demonstrated a marginal mean reduction of 3.5 points, from 6.2 to 2.7 (a 56% reduction), while patients in the TPT arm reported a mean decrease of 1.8 points from 6.9 to 5.1 (a 26% reduction).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A new foot-worn, home-based, biomechanical intervention for patients with chronic non-specific back pain was found to be clinically effective. Given the lack of non-surgical, non-pharmacological interventions for this populations, this treatment might serve as an adjunct to the current standard of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"21925682251314823"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11736724/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Outcomes of a New Foot-Worn Non-Invasive Biomechanical Intervention Compared to Traditional Physical Therapy in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain. A Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Ratnakar Veeramachaneni, Andrew Gitkind, Sandeep Yerra, Michael Hagan, Asude N Hasanoglu, Natnael Akile, Hannah Kareff, Derek Ho, Matthew N Bartels\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/21925682251314823\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Randomized Controlled Trial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major public health concern that will continue to grow with the expected aging of the population. The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical effect of a personalized, home-based biomechanical intervention compared to traditional physical therapy in patients with CLBP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a randomized controlled trial. One-hundred and sixty-two patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to a home-based biomechanical intervention (HBBI, AposHealth) or traditional physical therapy (TPT), respectively. Patients were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks and 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure was pain at 52 weeks, using a standard Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included pain and function metrics, quality of life and objective spatio-temporal gait test. A Linear Mixed Model assessed changes over time across all study visits.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant reduction in NRS was found after 52 weeks with a superiority effect of the HBBI arm compared to TPT (F = 13.82, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Patients in the HBBI arm demonstrated a marginal mean reduction of 3.5 points, from 6.2 to 2.7 (a 56% reduction), while patients in the TPT arm reported a mean decrease of 1.8 points from 6.9 to 5.1 (a 26% reduction).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A new foot-worn, home-based, biomechanical intervention for patients with chronic non-specific back pain was found to be clinically effective. Given the lack of non-surgical, non-pharmacological interventions for this populations, this treatment might serve as an adjunct to the current standard of care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"21925682251314823\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11736724/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682251314823\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682251314823","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究设计:随机对照试验。目的:慢性腰痛(CLBP)是一个主要的公共卫生问题,随着人口的预期老龄化,它将继续增长。本研究的目的是检验个性化的、基于家庭的生物力学干预与传统物理治疗在CLBP患者中的临床效果。方法:采用随机对照试验。162名患者以2:1的比例随机分为以家庭为基础的生物力学干预(HBBI, apohealth)和传统物理治疗(TPT)。在基线、12周和52周后对患者进行评估。主要结果测量是52周时的疼痛,使用标准数值评定量表(NRS)。次要结局包括疼痛和功能指标、生活质量和客观时空步态测试。线性混合模型评估了所有研究访问中随时间的变化。结果:52周后,与TPT相比,HBBI组的NRS显著降低(F = 13.82, P < 0.001)。HBBI组患者的边际平均下降3.5分,从6.2降至2.7(减少56%),而TPT组患者的平均下降1.8分,从6.9降至5.1(减少26%)。结论:一种新的足部、家庭、生物力学干预治疗慢性非特异性背痛的方法在临床上是有效的。鉴于缺乏非手术、非药物干预,这种治疗方法可以作为当前标准治疗的辅助手段。
Clinical Outcomes of a New Foot-Worn Non-Invasive Biomechanical Intervention Compared to Traditional Physical Therapy in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain. A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial.
Objective: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major public health concern that will continue to grow with the expected aging of the population. The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical effect of a personalized, home-based biomechanical intervention compared to traditional physical therapy in patients with CLBP.
Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial. One-hundred and sixty-two patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to a home-based biomechanical intervention (HBBI, AposHealth) or traditional physical therapy (TPT), respectively. Patients were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks and 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure was pain at 52 weeks, using a standard Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included pain and function metrics, quality of life and objective spatio-temporal gait test. A Linear Mixed Model assessed changes over time across all study visits.
Results: A significant reduction in NRS was found after 52 weeks with a superiority effect of the HBBI arm compared to TPT (F = 13.82, P < 0.001). Patients in the HBBI arm demonstrated a marginal mean reduction of 3.5 points, from 6.2 to 2.7 (a 56% reduction), while patients in the TPT arm reported a mean decrease of 1.8 points from 6.9 to 5.1 (a 26% reduction).
Conclusions: A new foot-worn, home-based, biomechanical intervention for patients with chronic non-specific back pain was found to be clinically effective. Given the lack of non-surgical, non-pharmacological interventions for this populations, this treatment might serve as an adjunct to the current standard of care.
期刊介绍:
Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).