Literature DB >> 2527488

Lumbar spondylolisthesis: retrospective comparison and three-year follow-up of two conservative treatment programs.

M Sinaki1, M P Lutness, D M Ilstrup, C P Chu, R R Gramse.   

Abstract

Forty-eight patients with symptomatic back pain secondary to spondylolisthesis who were treated conservatively were followed for three years after initial examination to compare the outcomes of two exercise programs. The patients were divided into two groups--those doing flexion and those doing extension back strengthening exercises. All patients received instructions on posture, lifting techniques, and the use of heat for relief of symptoms. After three months, only 27% of patients who were instructed in flexion exercises had moderate or severe pain and only 32% were unable to work or had limited their work. Of the patients who were instructed in extension exercises, 67% had moderate or severe pain and 61% were unable to work or had limited their work. At three-year follow-up, only 19% of the flexion group had moderate or severe pain and 24% were unable to work or had limited their work. The respective figures for the extension group were 67% and 61%. The overall recovery rate after three months was 58% for the flexion group and 6% for the extension group. At three years these figures improved to 62% for the flexion group and dropped to 0% for the extension group. The literature is scarce regarding the applicability of conservative treatment programs for lumbar spondylolisthesis. On the basis of our findings, we suggest that if a conservative treatment program is elected, back flexion or isometric back strengthening exercises should be considered. The three-year follow-up data presented here lend support to this point of view.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2527488

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  6 in total

1.  The pars interarticularis stress reaction, spondylolysis, and spondylolisthesis progression.

Authors:  G Motley; J Nyland; J Jacobs; D N Caborn
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Clinical, physical, and radiographic analyses of lumbar degenerative kyphosis and spondylolisthesis among community-based cohort.

Authors:  Tetsuya Kobayashi; Hisashi Chiba; Shizuo Jimbo; Issei Senoo; Mutsuya Shimizu; Yuji Atsuta; Hiroshi Ito; Hiroyuki Sugisawa; Toshinobu Sugawara; Tatsuya Habaguchi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Diagnosis and conservative management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Leonid Kalichman; David J Hunter
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-11-17       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  A treatment-based classification approach to examination and intervention of lumbar disorders.

Authors:  Scott A Burns; Edward Foresman; Stephenie J Kraycsir; William Egan; Paul Glynn; Paul E Mintken; Joshua A Cleland
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 3.843

5.  Classification in Brief: The Meyerding Classification System of Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Ezekial Koslosky; David Gendelberg
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 4.755

6.  Nonoperative treatment in lumbar spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Matthew Garet; Michael P Reiman; Jessie Mathers; Jonathan Sylvain
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 3.843

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.