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.
Objective: To compare the effects of CSE and PNF training on pain-related outcomes and trunk muscle activity in CLBP patients.
Methods: Forty-five CLBP patients, ranging from 18 to 50 years of age, were randomly divided and assigned to either a four-week CSE, four-week PNF training, or control group. Pain-related outcomes, including pain intensity, functional disability and patient satisfaction, as well as superficial and deep trunk muscle activity were assessed before and after the four-week intervention, and at a three-month follow-up.
Results: Compared to the control group, those in the CSE and PNF training groups showed significant improvements in all pain-related outcomes after the four-week intervention and at three-month follow-up (P < 0.01). Following the four-week intervention, both CSE and PNF training groups demonstrated significant improvement in deep trunk muscle activity, including the transversus abdominis (TrA) and superficial fibres of lumbar multifidus (LM), compared to the control group (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: Four-week CSE and PNF training provided short-term and long-term effects on pain-related outcomes, along with increased deep trunk muscle activity in CLBP patients.
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.