Effect of hippotherapy simulator on pain, disability and range of motion of the spinal column in subjects with mechanical low back pain: A randomized single-blind clinical trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 1183-1192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Rahbar ◽  
Yaghoub Salekzamani ◽  
Fatemeh Jahanjou ◽  
Fariba Eslamian ◽  
Alireza Niroumand ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Alagiathiruvevenkadam Ilayaraja ◽  
MK Franklin Shaju ◽  
Singh Sumer Singh ◽  
Edwin Raj Gerald ◽  
D Sathyanarayana ◽  
...  

Introduction: Musculoskeletal spinal disorders are an immense problem in industrialised societies resulting in tremendous personal and economic costs. Younger adults (30 to 60-year-old) are more likely to experience Low Back Pain (LBP) from the disc space or from back muscle strain or other soft tissue strain. Experiencing it earlier in life may lead to recurrent and chronic LBP in adulthood. Dry Needling (DN) which are utilised to treat low back torment in current patterns. Low Level Laser Treatment (LLLT) is utilised to treat LBP by concentrating on the trigger focuses. Aim: To identify the effectiveness of DN and LLLT in the management of selected outcome variables among patients with nonspecific LBP. Materials and Methods: The Quasi experimental study was conducted among a total of 30 subjects who met the inclusion criteria. The subjects were divided into 15 each as group A (DN) and group B (LLLT). The Numerical Pain Distress Scale (NPDS), Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) and lumbar flexion range of motion were assessed, before and after two weeks of intervention program to identify the effectiveness. Data analysis was done through SPSS and graph pad, using paired t-test and independent t-test. Results: Both groups have shown improvement after two weeks of intervention treatment program. Both groups showed significant difference in relieving pain, reducing disability and improving lumbar range of motion on nonspecific LBP individually. However, there was no significant difference found between the groups, thus null hypothesis was accepted and rejecting the alternate hypothesis. Conclusion: Both the techniques are equally effective in reducing the pain, disability level and improving range of motion individually after two weeks of intervention.


2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 350-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Ángel Baena-Beato ◽  
Enrique G Artero ◽  
Manuel Arroyo-Morales ◽  
Alejandro Robles-Fuentes ◽  
María Claudia Gatto-Cardia ◽  
...  

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 352
Author(s):  
Sandra Alcaraz-Clariana ◽  
Lourdes García-Luque ◽  
Juan Luis Garrido-Castro ◽  
César Fernández-de-las-Peñas ◽  
Cristina Carmona-Pérez ◽  
...  

Our aims were to identify potential differences in muscle mechanical properties (MMPs) of cervical and lumbar tissues and in spinal range of motion (ROM) between patients with acute low back pain (LBP) or acute neck pain (NP) and healthy controls, and to identify if ROMs and MMPs are able to identify subjects among the three groups. Clinical variables (pain, disability, fear of movement, kinesiophobia, quality of life), MMPs and ROMs were obtained in 33 subjects with acute LBP, 33 with acute NP, and 33 healthy control subjects. Between-groups differences and explanatory models to discriminate groups depending on MMPs and ROMs were calculated. The results showed that cervical tone was higher in patients with acute NP than in controls, while cervical decrement was higher in both spinal pain groups. Patients with acute NP showed reduced cervical flexion when compared to acute LBP and control groups, and also cervical rotation, but just against controls. Furthermore, lumbar flexion was reduced in patients with acute LBP when compared to those with acute NP. Cervical decrement was able to discriminate spinal pain individuals from controls in a multinominal regression (R2: Cox–Snell estimation = 0.533; Nagelkerke estimation = 0.600). Lumbar flexion differentiated patients with acute LBP and controls, whereas cervical flexion differentiated patients with acute NP and controls. This study supports a tendency of the affectation of other spinal regions when only one is affected.


2004 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie M Fritz ◽  
Julie M Whitman ◽  
Timothy W Flynn ◽  
Robert S Wainner ◽  
John D Childs

Abstract Background and Purpose. Although spinal manipulation is one of the few interventions for low back pain supported by evidence, it appears to be underutilized by physical therapists, possibly due to therapists' concerns that a patient may not benefit from the intervention. The purpose of this study was to identify factors that are associated with an inability to benefit from manipulation. Subjects. Seventy-five people with nonradicular low back pain (mean age=37.6 years, SD=10.6, range=19–59; mean duration of symptoms=41.7 days, SD=54.7, range=1–252) participated. Methods. Subjects underwent a standardized examination that included history-taking; self-reports of pain, disability, and fear-avoidance beliefs; measurement of lumbar and hip range of motion; and use of various tests. All subjects received a spinal manipulation intervention for a maximum of 2 sessions. Subjects who did not show greater than 5 points of improvement on the modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire were considered to have shown no improvement with the manipulation. Baseline variables were tested for univariate relationship with the outcome of the manipulation. Variables showing a univariate relationship were entered into a logistic regression equation, and adjusted odds ratios were calculated. Results. Twenty subjects (28%) did not improve with manipulation. Six variables were identified as being related to inability to improve with manipulation: longer symptom duration, having symptoms in the buttock or leg, absence of lumbar hypomobility, less hip rotation range of motion, less discrepancy in left-to-right hip medial rotation range of motion, and a negative Gaenslen sign. The resulting logistic regression model explained 63% of the variance in manipulation outcome. Discussion and Conclusion. The majority of subjects improved with manipulation. Baseline variables could be identified that were predictive of which subjects would not improve.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-54
Author(s):  
Soheila Abbasi ◽  
Mohammad Reza Hadian Rasanani ◽  
Nastaran Ghotbi ◽  
Gholam Reza Olyaei ◽  
Omid Rasouli

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of Kinesio Taping (KT) on low back/pelvis pain, disability, and trunk Range of Motion (ROM) in individuals with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) after 72 h.Materials and Methods: Eighteen patients with nonspecific CLBP participated in this study. Pain intensity, Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire, and lumbar ROM were evaluated once before the intervention (KT with 50% tension) and then 72 h after. For statistical analysis, we used the paired sample t-test. Results: Pain intensity was significantly reduced (P<0.01). But KT did not improve disability and lumbar ROM (P>0.05).Conclusion: Based on the results, 72 h KT over the lumbopelvic area did not improve disability and lumbar ROM in people with nonspecific CLBP while there was a significant reduction in pain intensity. The proposed mechanism of the KT effects is inconsistent with these results.


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Z. George ◽  
John D. Childs ◽  
Deydre S. Teyhen ◽  
Samuel S. Wu ◽  
Michael E. Robinson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document