慢性腰痛患者本体感觉神经肌肉促进练习与腰椎稳定练习:一项随机介入性研究

Sunita Koutarapu, D. Ghumare
{"title":"慢性腰痛患者本体感觉神经肌肉促进练习与腰椎稳定练习:一项随机介入性研究","authors":"Sunita Koutarapu, D. Ghumare","doi":"10.4103/ijoth.ijoth_18_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Chronic low back pain causes discomfort and disturbance in the mechanoreceptor and proprioception centers. Exercises improve muscle strength, flexibility, endurance, and ability to perform life activities. Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) involves stretching, resisted movements which improves muscle disharmony, atrophy, and joint movement limitation. Lumbar stabilization exercises (LSE) develop the awareness of muscle contraction and control from simple to complex patterns. Both exercises are effective individually in chronic low back pain patients. This study was conducted to find out which technique is better. Objectives: The objective of the study is to determine the efficacy of PNF versus LSE program in chronic low back pain patients. Study Design: A Randomized study was conducted. Methods: A prospective, interventional study was conducted on patients with mechanical low back pain of more than 3 months, in both males and females, of age 20–45 years. Patients having systemic illness, central or peripheral neurologic signs, and specific causes of low back pain were excluded. Individuals having systemic illness and psychiatric illness were also excluded from the study. Twenty-two patients were selected and divided into two groups. Patients were assessed on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), modified Schober's test, Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODI), Roland and Morris Low Back Pain and Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Patients in the PNF Group received concentric and eccentric contractions of agonist and antagonist muscles, patterns such as chopping, lifting, bilateral leg, and trunk lateral flexion. LSE Group received core strengthening exercises. Both group received 3 treatment sessions per week for 4 weeks, each session lasting for 45 min. Results: PNF group showed significant improvement in pain on VAS (P = 0.003; 95% confidence interval [CI[, 2.15–3.01), in disability on ODI (P = 0.001, 95% CI, 12.09–20.1), and in lumbar flexibility Modified Schober's test (P = 0.000, 95% CI, 5.15–5.93) On RMDQ, there was no statistically significant difference between PNF and LSE groups (P = 0.061, 95% CI, 6.87–8.97). Conclusion: There was a significant improvement seen in the pain and disability which was assessed on VAS and ODI in the PNF group over LSE. Hence, PNF exercises can be incorporated with LSE in the treatment of LBP.","PeriodicalId":75019,"journal":{"name":"The Indian journal of occupational therapy","volume":"43 1","pages":"23 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation exercises versus lumbar stabilization exercises for chronic low back pain patients: A randomized interventional study\",\"authors\":\"Sunita Koutarapu, D. Ghumare\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ijoth.ijoth_18_21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Chronic low back pain causes discomfort and disturbance in the mechanoreceptor and proprioception centers. Exercises improve muscle strength, flexibility, endurance, and ability to perform life activities. Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) involves stretching, resisted movements which improves muscle disharmony, atrophy, and joint movement limitation. Lumbar stabilization exercises (LSE) develop the awareness of muscle contraction and control from simple to complex patterns. Both exercises are effective individually in chronic low back pain patients. This study was conducted to find out which technique is better. Objectives: The objective of the study is to determine the efficacy of PNF versus LSE program in chronic low back pain patients. Study Design: A Randomized study was conducted. Methods: A prospective, interventional study was conducted on patients with mechanical low back pain of more than 3 months, in both males and females, of age 20–45 years. Patients having systemic illness, central or peripheral neurologic signs, and specific causes of low back pain were excluded. Individuals having systemic illness and psychiatric illness were also excluded from the study. Twenty-two patients were selected and divided into two groups. Patients were assessed on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), modified Schober's test, Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODI), Roland and Morris Low Back Pain and Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Patients in the PNF Group received concentric and eccentric contractions of agonist and antagonist muscles, patterns such as chopping, lifting, bilateral leg, and trunk lateral flexion. LSE Group received core strengthening exercises. Both group received 3 treatment sessions per week for 4 weeks, each session lasting for 45 min. Results: PNF group showed significant improvement in pain on VAS (P = 0.003; 95% confidence interval [CI[, 2.15–3.01), in disability on ODI (P = 0.001, 95% CI, 12.09–20.1), and in lumbar flexibility Modified Schober's test (P = 0.000, 95% CI, 5.15–5.93) On RMDQ, there was no statistically significant difference between PNF and LSE groups (P = 0.061, 95% CI, 6.87–8.97). Conclusion: There was a significant improvement seen in the pain and disability which was assessed on VAS and ODI in the PNF group over LSE. Hence, PNF exercises can be incorporated with LSE in the treatment of LBP.\",\"PeriodicalId\":75019,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Indian journal of occupational therapy\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"23 - 28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Indian journal of occupational therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijoth.ijoth_18_21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Indian journal of occupational therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijoth.ijoth_18_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:慢性腰痛引起机械感受器和本体感觉中枢的不适和紊乱。锻炼可以提高肌肉力量、柔韧性、耐力和进行生活活动的能力。本体感觉神经肌肉促进(PNF)包括伸展,抵抗运动,改善肌肉不协调,萎缩和关节运动限制。腰椎稳定练习(LSE)培养从简单到复杂的肌肉收缩和控制的意识。这两种运动对慢性腰痛患者都是有效的。进行这项研究是为了找出哪种技术更好。目的:本研究的目的是确定PNF与LSE计划在慢性腰痛患者中的疗效。研究设计:采用随机研究。方法:对机械性腰痛3个月以上患者进行前瞻性介入研究,年龄20-45岁,男女均有。排除了有全身性疾病、中枢或周围神经体征和腰痛特定原因的患者。患有全身性疾病和精神疾病的个体也被排除在研究之外。选取22例患者分为两组。采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)、修正Schober检验、修正Oswestry腰痛功能障碍问卷(ODI)、Roland and Morris腰痛功能障碍问卷(RMDQ)对患者进行评估。PNF组患者接受激动剂和拮抗剂肌肉的同心和偏心收缩,模式如切、举、双侧腿和躯干侧屈。LSE组接受核心强化训练。两组均接受每周3次治疗,共4周,每次治疗45分钟。结果:PNF组VAS疼痛明显改善(P = 0.003;95%可信区间[CI], 2.15-3.01), ODI致残(P = 0.001, 95% CI, 12.09-20.1)和腰椎柔韧性修正Schober检验(P = 0.000, 95% CI, 5.15-5.93),在RMDQ上,PNF组和LSE组之间无统计学差异(P = 0.061, 95% CI, 6.87-8.97)。结论:PNF组在VAS和ODI评估的疼痛和残疾方面比LSE有显著改善。因此,PNF练习可以与LSE结合治疗LBP。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation exercises versus lumbar stabilization exercises for chronic low back pain patients: A randomized interventional study
Background: Chronic low back pain causes discomfort and disturbance in the mechanoreceptor and proprioception centers. Exercises improve muscle strength, flexibility, endurance, and ability to perform life activities. Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) involves stretching, resisted movements which improves muscle disharmony, atrophy, and joint movement limitation. Lumbar stabilization exercises (LSE) develop the awareness of muscle contraction and control from simple to complex patterns. Both exercises are effective individually in chronic low back pain patients. This study was conducted to find out which technique is better. Objectives: The objective of the study is to determine the efficacy of PNF versus LSE program in chronic low back pain patients. Study Design: A Randomized study was conducted. Methods: A prospective, interventional study was conducted on patients with mechanical low back pain of more than 3 months, in both males and females, of age 20–45 years. Patients having systemic illness, central or peripheral neurologic signs, and specific causes of low back pain were excluded. Individuals having systemic illness and psychiatric illness were also excluded from the study. Twenty-two patients were selected and divided into two groups. Patients were assessed on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), modified Schober's test, Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODI), Roland and Morris Low Back Pain and Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Patients in the PNF Group received concentric and eccentric contractions of agonist and antagonist muscles, patterns such as chopping, lifting, bilateral leg, and trunk lateral flexion. LSE Group received core strengthening exercises. Both group received 3 treatment sessions per week for 4 weeks, each session lasting for 45 min. Results: PNF group showed significant improvement in pain on VAS (P = 0.003; 95% confidence interval [CI[, 2.15–3.01), in disability on ODI (P = 0.001, 95% CI, 12.09–20.1), and in lumbar flexibility Modified Schober's test (P = 0.000, 95% CI, 5.15–5.93) On RMDQ, there was no statistically significant difference between PNF and LSE groups (P = 0.061, 95% CI, 6.87–8.97). Conclusion: There was a significant improvement seen in the pain and disability which was assessed on VAS and ODI in the PNF group over LSE. Hence, PNF exercises can be incorporated with LSE in the treatment of LBP.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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