Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial

Abstract Background In a prior randomized trial, we demonstrated that participants receiving spinal manipulative therapy at a pain-sensitive segment instead of a stiff segment experienced increased mechanical pressure pain thresholds. We hypothesized that the targeted segment mediated this increase through a segment-dependent neurophysiological reflective pathway. Presently, it is not known if this decrease in pain sensitivity is associated with clinical improvement. Therefore, we performed an explorative analysis to examine if changes in experimental pain sensitivity (mechanical and thermal) and lumbar stiffness were further dependent on clinical improvement in disability and patient-reported low back pain. Methods This study is a secondary explorative analysis of data from the randomized trial that compared 132 participants with chronic low back pain who received lumbar spinal manipulative therapy applied at either i) the stiffest segment or ii) the segment having the lowest pain threshold (i.e., the most pain-sensitive segment). We collected data at baseline, after the fourth session of spinal manipulation, and at 14-days follow-up. Participants were dichotomized into responders/non-responders using different clinical variables (disability and patient-reported low back pain) with varying threshold values (0, 30, and 50% improvement). Mixed models were used to assess changes in experimental outcomes (stiffness and pain sensitivity). The fixed interaction terms were time, segment allocation, and responder status. Results We observed a significant increase in mechanical pressure pain thresholds for the group, which received spinal manipulative therapy at the most pain-sensitive segment independent of whether they improved clinically or not. Those who received spinal manipulation at the stiffest segment also demonstrated increased mechanical pain sensitivity, but only in the subgroup with clinical improvement. We did not observe any changes in lumbar stiffness. Conclusion Our results suggest the existence of two different mechanistic pathways associated with the spinal manipulation target. i) A decrease of mechanical pain sensitivity independent of clinical outcome (neurophysiological) and ii) a decrease as a reflection of the clinical outcome. Together, these observations may provide a novel framework that improves our understanding of why some respond to spinal manipulative therapy while others do not. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04086667 registered retrospectively September 11th 2019.

Download Full-text

Motor Control Exercise for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

Physical Therapy ◽

10.2522/ptj.20090218 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 89 (12) ◽

pp. 1275-1286 ◽

Cited By ~ 155

Author(s):

Leonardo O.P. Costa ◽

Christopher G. Maher ◽

Jane Latimer ◽

Paul W. Hodges ◽

Robert D. Herbert ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Low Back Pain ◽

Motor Control ◽

Back Pain ◽

Chronic Low Back Pain ◽

Exercise Intervention ◽

Patient Specific ◽

Low Back ◽

Functional Scale ◽

The Mean ◽

Control Exercise

BackgroundThe evidence that exercise intervention is effective for treatment of chronic low back pain comes from trials that are not placebo-controlled.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of motor control exercise for people with chronic low back pain.DesignThis was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.SettingThe study was conducted in an outpatient physical therapy department in Australia.PatientsThe participants were 154 patients with chronic low back pain of more than 12 weeks’ duration.InterventionTwelve sessions of motor control exercise (ie, exercises designed to improve function of specific muscles of the low back region and the control of posture and movement) or placebo (ie, detuned ultrasound therapy and detuned short-wave therapy) were conducted over 8 weeks.MeasurementsPrimary outcomes were pain intensity, activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale), and patient's global impression of recovery measured at 2 months. Secondary outcomes were pain; activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale); patient's global impression of recovery measured at 6 and 12 months; activity limitation (measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 2, 6, and 12 months; and risk of persistent or recurrent pain at 12 months.ResultsThe exercise intervention improved activity and patient's global impression of recovery but did not clearly reduce pain at 2 months. The mean effect of exercise on activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale) was 1.1 points (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.3 to 1.8), the mean effect on global impression of recovery was 1.5 points (95% CI=0.4 to 2.5), and the mean effect on pain was 0.9 points (95% CI=−0.01 to 1.8), all measured on 11-point scales. Secondary outcomes also favored motor control exercise.LimitationClinicians could not be blinded to the intervention they provided.ConclusionsMotor control exercise produced short-term improvements in global impression of recovery and activity, but not pain, for people with chronic low back pain. Most of the effects observed in the short term were maintained at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups.

Download Full-text