METHODS: A within-subject, repeated-measures, crossover randomized controlled design was conducted among 25 participants (7 males and 18 females) with chronic nonspecific low back pain. All the participants received 3 different types of experimental interventions, which included LPST, the passive automated cycling intervention, and the control intervention randomly, with 48 hours between the sessions. The pressure pain threshold (PPT), hot-cold pain threshold, and pain intensity were estimated before and after the interventions.
RESULTS: Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed that LPST provided therapeutic effects as it improved the PPT beyond the placebo and control interventions (P < 0.01). The pain intensity under the LPST condition was significantly better than that under the passive automated cycling intervention and controlled intervention (P < 0.001). Heat pain threshold under the LPST condition also showed a significant trend of improvement beyond the control (P < 0.05), but no significant effects on cold pain threshold were evident.
CONCLUSIONS: Lumbopelvic stabilization training may provide therapeutic effects by inducing pain modulation through an improvement in the pain threshold and reduction in pain intensity. LPST may be considered as part of the management programs for treatment of chronic low back pain.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The databases Google Scholar, Science Direct, ResearchGate, PubMed, and Scopus were searched to identify potentially relevant documents. The keywords used for the search included "motor control" OR "motor learning" OR" core stability" AND "lower crossed syndrome" AND "gait". The search includes articles published between 1970 and 2022 and written in English. It is excluded when the paper is not a full-text article. After finding the articles, the information was extracted, including author, year of publication, country, objective, type of study, and motor control analysis summary.
RESULTS: There were 107 articles retrieved from the search. but only seventeen articles were included for analysis. The finding demonstrates that LCS may associate with LBP and reduces the motor control of the core muscle stability which indirectly influences gait performance.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that individuals with LCS will have an alteration in their gait. However, there is still insufficient information on motor control in gait performance among lower crossed syndrome. Further research is needed to find what factors that may contribute to the adaptation of motor control in gait among LCS population.
METHODS: Participants (N=142) in this randomized controlled trial were office workers aged 20-50 years old with neck, shoulders, and lower back pain. They were randomly assigned to either the ergonomic modification group, the exercise group, the combined exercise and ergonomic modification group, or the control group (no-treatment). The exercise training group performed a series of stretching exercises, while the ergonomic group received some modification in the working place. Outcome measures were assessed by the Cornell Musculoskeletal Disorders Questionnaire at baseline, after 2, 4, and 6 months of intervention.
RESULTS: There was significant differences in pain scores for neck (MD -10.55; 95%CI -14.36 to -6.74), right shoulder (MD -12.17; 95%CI -16.87 to -7.47), left shoulder (MD -11.1; 95%CI -15.1 to -7.09) and lower back (MD -7.8; 95%CI -11.08 to -4.53) between the exercise and control groups. Also, significant differences were seen in pain scores for neck (MD -9.99; 95%CI -13.63 to -6.36), right shoulder (MD -11.12; 95%CI -15.59 to -6.65), left shoulder (MD -10.67; 95%CI -14.49 to -6.85) and lower back (MD -6.87; 95%CI -10 to -3.74) between the combined exercise and ergonomic modification and control groups. The significant improvement from month 4 to 6, was only seen in exercise group (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: To have a long term effective on MSDs, physical therapists and occupational therapists should use stretching exercises in their treatment programs rather than solely rely on ergonomic modification.
CLINICAL TRIAL ID: NCT02874950 - https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02874950.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pain, which is localized to the low back, differs epidemiologically from that which occurs simultaneously or close in time to pain at other anatomical sites SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Low back pain (LBP) often occurs in combination with other regional pain, with which it shares similar psychological and psychosocial risk factors. However, few previous epidemiological studies of LBP have distinguished pain that is confined to the low back from that which occurs as part of a wider distribution of pain.
METHODS: We analyzed data from CUPID, a cohort study that used baseline and follow-up questionnaires to collect information about musculoskeletal pain, associated disability, and potential risk factors, in 47 occupational groups (office workers, nurses, and others) from 18 countries.
RESULTS: Among 12,197 subjects at baseline, 609 (4.9%) reported localized LBP in the past month, and 3820 (31.3%) nonlocalized LBP. Nonlocalized LBP was more frequently associated with sciatica in the past month (48.1% vs. 30.0% of cases), occurred on more days in the past month and past year, was more often disabling for everyday activities (64.1% vs. 47.3% of cases), and had more frequently led to medical consultation and sickness absence from work. It was also more often persistent when participants were followed up after a mean of 14 months (65.6% vs. 54.1% of cases). In adjusted Poisson regression analyses, nonlocalized LBP was differentially associated with risk factors, particularly female sex, older age, and somatizing tendency. There were also marked differences in the relative prevalence of localized and nonlocalized LBP by occupational group.
CONCLUSION: Future epidemiological studies should distinguish where possible between pain that is limited to the low back and LBP that occurs in association with pain at other anatomical locations.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of CBB on respiratory variables among NS-LBP patients.
STUDY DESIGN: pre- and post-experimental study.
PARTICIPANTS: Forty participants were assigned to an experimental group (EG) [n = 20] and control group (CG) [n = 20] based on the study criteria.
INTERVENTIONS: The EG received CBB together with routine physiotherapy and the CG received routine physiotherapy over a period of 8 weeks. Participants were instructed to carry out the exercises for 3 days per week. The training was evaluated once a week and the exercises progressed based on the level of pain.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP), maximum expiratory pressure (MEP) and maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV). The secondary outcomes were measured in the numeric rating scale (NRS), total faulty breathing scale (TFBS), cloth tape measure (CTM) and lumbo-pelvic stability.
RESULTS: The MIP increased significantly among the EG when compared with that in the CG (p > 0.05).The EG showed a significant increase in MVV (p = 0.04) when compared to the CG (p = 0.0001). There was a significant reduction in pain for both groups. The MEP, TFBS, chest expansion and core stability showed no changes in either group.
CONCLUSION: CBB was effective in improving respiratory variables among NS-LBP patients.
OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to examine differences in psychological factors, disability and subjective fatigue between subgroups of LBP based on their chronification grade.
METHODS: Twenty-one healthy controls (HC) and 54 LBP patients (categorized based on the grades of chronicity into recurrent LBP (RLBP), non-continuous chronic LBP (CLBP), or continuous (CLBP)) filled out a set of self-reporting questionnaires.
RESULTS: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI) scores indicated that anxiety, pain severity, pain interference and affective distress were lower in HC and RLBP compared to non-continuous CLBP. Anxiety scores were higher in non-continuous CLBP compared to RLBP, continuous CLBP and HC. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale for Helplessness (PSCH) was higher in non-continuous CLBP compared to HC. The Survey of Pain Attitudes (SOPA) showed no differences in adaptive and maladaptive behaviors across the groups. The Pain Disability Index (PDI) measured a higher disability in both CLBP groups compared to HC. Moreover, the Rolland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) showed higher levels of disability in continuous CLBP compared to non-continuous CLBP, RLBP and HC. The Checklist Individual Strength (CIS) revealed that patients with non-continuous CLBP were affected to a higher extent by severe fatigue compared to continuous CLBP, RLBP and HC (subjective fatigue, concentration and physical activity). For all tests, a significance level of 0.05 was used.
CONCLUSIONS: RLBP patients are more disabled than HC, but have a tendency towards a general positive psychological state of mind. Non-continuous CLBP patients would most likely present a negative psychological mindset, become more disabled and have prolonged fatigue complaints. Finally, the continuous CLBP patients are characterized by more negative attitudes and believes on pain, enhanced disability and interference of pain in their daily lives.