| Literature DB >> 25568820 |
Loren M Fishman1, Erik J Groessl2, Karen J Sherman3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-surgical techniques for treating scoliosis frequently focus on realigning the spine, typically by muscular relaxation or muscular or ligamentous stretching. However, such treatments, which include physical therapeutic, chiropractic, and bracing techniques, are inconsistently supported by current evidence. In this study, we assess the possible benefits of asymmetrical strengthening of truncal muscles on the convex side of the scoliotic curve through a single yoga pose, the side plank pose, in idiopathic and degenerative scoliosis.Entities:
Keywords: Scoliosis; adolescent idiopathic; degenerative; yoga
Year: 2014 PMID: 25568820 PMCID: PMC4268609 DOI: 10.7453/gahmj.2013.064
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Adv Health Med ISSN: 2164-9561
Figure 1The classical Iyengar side plank pose with the addition of the ribs raised vertically.
Figure 2Four modifications of the side plank pose that were used when appropriate for patients with various co-morbid conditions.
Figure 3Adaptations of the plank pose: (a) for complex curves and (b) for complex curves and limited shoulder function.
Changes in Primary Cobb Angle of All Patients With Follow-up Data
| Pre Mean (Sd) | Post Mean (Sd) | Mean difference | % change | df | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Angle (n=25) | 37.2 (28.7) | 25.3 (21.0) | 11.9 | 32.0% | 21 | 5.25 | <.001 |
| Secondary Angle (n=7) | 38.3 (37.7) | 29.7 (28.0) | 8.6 | 22.5% | 6 | 1.89 | .108 |
Figure 4Improvement in Cobb angles of primary curve over an average of 6.8 months of daily practice of the side plank pose.
Changes in Primary Cobb Angle of Patients by Self-reported Compliance
| Pre Mean (Sd) | Post Mean (Sd) | Mean difference | % change | df | F score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Did the pose (n=20) | 40.5 (31.1) | 25.4 (23.5) | 15.1 | 40.9% (14.8) | 1 | 7.26 | .014 |
| Did not do pose (n=5) | 27.0 (17.6) | 25.1 (11.4) | 1.9 | 0.46% (18.5) |
Changes in Primary Cobb Angle by Type of Scoliosis Among Compliant Patients
| Pre Mean (Sd) | Post Mean (Sd) | Mean difference | % change | df | F score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degenerative (n=12) | 50.4 (36.3) | 33.1 (27.6) | 17.3 | 38.4% | 1 | 0.447 | .511 |
| Idiopathic (n=7) | 22.8 (13) | 11.2 (7.2) | 11.6 | 49.6% (18.6) |
Figure 5Conceptualization of scoliosis and mechanism of correction.