Literature DB >> 15668775

The effect of insoles on the incidence and severity of low back pain among workers whose job involves long-distance walking.

S Shabat1, T Gefen, M Nyska, Y Folman, R Gepstein.   

Abstract

The prevalence and incidence of low back pain in general society is high. Workers whose job involves walking long distances have an even higher tendency to suffer from low back pain. A positive effect of insoles in reducing low back pain was found in professional sports players. This was not examined on people whose job involves walking long distances. In this double blind prospective study we examined the effectiveness of insoles constructed in a computerized method to placebo insoles in 58 employees whose work entailed extensive walking and who suffered from low back pain. The evaluation was performed by the MILLION questionnaire, which is considered as a valid questionnaire for evaluation of low back pain. We calculated the differences of the pain intensity before and after the intervention, in the employees using the insoles manufactured by computer in comparison to the users of the placebo insoles. In each group, the analysis was performed in comparison to the baseline. A total of 81% of the employees preferred the real insoles as effective and comfortable in comparison to 19% of the users of the placebo insoles (P<0.05). The results of this study indicate a substantial improvement in the low back pain after the use of the true insoles. The average pain intensity according to the MILLION questionnaire before the use of the insoles was 5.46. However, after the use of the real insoles and the placebo insoles, the average pain intensity decreased to 3.96 and 5.11, respectively. The difference of the average pain intensity at the start of the study and after the use of the real insoles was significant: -1.49 (P=0.0001), whereas this difference after the use of the placebo insoles was not significant: -0.31 (P=0.1189). The reported severity of pain also decreased significantly: a level 5 pain and above was reported by 77% of the subjects at the start of the study. After the use of the real insoles only 37.9% of the subjects reported a similar degree of pain severity, and 50% of the subjects did so after the use of the placebo insoles (P< 0.05). We did not find a link between low back pain and other variables such as gender, age, number of offspring, work seniority, smoking, previous use of insoles and previous medication. This study demonstrates that the low back pain decreased significantly after the use of real insoles compared to placebo ones.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15668775      PMCID: PMC3489231          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-004-0824-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  26 in total

1.  Loads on the lumbar trunk during level walking.

Authors:  R Cromwell; A B Schultz; R Beck; D Warwick
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 3.494

2.  Dynamic performance assessment of selected sport shoes on impact forces.

Authors:  J S Dufek; B T Bates; H P Davis; L A Malone
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 5.411

3.  Effectiveness of orthotic shoe inserts in the long-distance runner.

Authors:  M L Gross; L B Davlin; P M Evanski
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1991 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.202

4.  A retrospective study of low-back pain in 38- to 64-year-old women. Frequency of occurrence and impact on medical services.

Authors:  H O Svensson; G B Andersson; S Johansson; C Wilhelmsson; A Vedin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Analysis and quantitative myoelectric measurements of loads on the lumbar spine when holding weights in standing postures.

Authors:  A Schultz; G B Andersson; R Ortengren; R Björk; M Nordin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1982 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Shoe sole thickness and hardness influence balance in older men.

Authors:  S Robbins; G J Gouw; J McClaran
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 5.562

7.  A comparison of shoe insole materials in plantar pressure relief.

Authors:  C Leber; P M Evanski
Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 1.895

8.  Predictors of low back pain disability.

Authors:  J W Frymoyer; W Cats-Baril
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Assessment of the progress of the back-pain patient 1981 Volvo Award in Clinical Science.

Authors:  R Million; W Hall; K H Nilsen; R D Baker; M I Jayson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1982 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Shoe insoles in the workplace.

Authors:  J R Basford; M A Smith
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 1.390

View more
  9 in total

1.  Orthotic insoles do not prevent physical stress-induced low back pain.

Authors:  Ville M Mattila; Petri Sillanpää; Tuula Salo; Heikki-Jussi Laine; Heikki Mäenpää; Harri Pihlajamäki
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-07-03       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2005.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-01-13       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  L A C Machado; S J Kamper; R D Herbert; C G Maher; J H McAuley
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Comparison of Two Types of Insoles on Musculoskeletal Symptoms and Plantar Pressure Distribution in a Work Environment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Josiane S Almeida; Franciele M Vanderlei; Eliane C Pastre; Rodrigo A D M Martins; Carlos R Padovani; Guaracy C Filho
Journal:  Clin Med Res       Date:  2016-05-26

5.  Foot posture, foot function and low back pain: the Framingham Foot Study.

Authors:  Hylton B Menz; Alyssa B Dufour; Jody L Riskowski; Howard J Hillstrom; Marian T Hannan
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 7.580

Review 6.  The effectiveness of shoe insoles for the prevention and treatment of low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Vivienne Chuter; Martin Spink; Angela Searle; Alan Ho
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Prefabricated foot orthoses compared to a placebo intervention for the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sean Sadler; Martin Spink; Samuel Cassidy; Vivienne Chuter
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 2.303

8.  Validation of a novel Kinect-based device for 3D scanning of the foot plantar surface in weight-bearing.

Authors:  Giulia Rogati; Alberto Leardini; Maurizio Ortolani; Paolo Caravaggi
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 2.303

Review 9.  A Systematic Review of Workplace Interventions to Rehabilitate Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Employees with Physical Demanding Work.

Authors:  Emil Sundstrup; Karina Glies Vincents Seeberg; Elizabeth Bengtsen; Lars Louis Andersen
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2020-12
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.