OBJECTIVE: To determine if a neuroplasticity educational explanation for a manual therapy technique will produce a different outcome compared to a traditional mechanical explanation. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) were recruited for the study. Following consent, demographic data were obtained as well as pain ratings for low back pain (LBP) and leg pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), fear-avoidance (Fear-Avoidance-Beliefs Questionnaire), forward flexion (fingertips-to-floor), and straight leg raise (SLR) (inclinometer). Patients were then randomly allocated to receive one of two explanations (neuroplasticity or mechanical), a manual therapy technique to their lumbar spine, followed by post-intervention measurements of LBP, leg pain, forward flexion, and SLR. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (female 35 [56.5%]), with a mean age of 60.1 years and mean duration of 9.26 years of CLBP participated in the study. There were no statistically significant interactions for LBP (p = .325), leg pain (p = .172), and trunk flexion (p = .818) between the groups, but SLR showed a significant difference in favor of the neuroplasticity explanation (p = .041). Additionally, the neuroplasticity group were 7.2 times (95% confidence interval = 1.8-28.6) more likely to improve beyond the MDC on the SLR than participants in the mechanical group. DISCUSSION: The results of this study show that a neuroplasticity explanation, compared to a traditional biomechanical explanation, resulted in a measureable difference in SLR in patients with CLBP when receiving manual therapy. Future studies need to explore if the increase in SLR correlated to changes in cortical maps of the low back.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if a neuroplasticity educational explanation for a manual therapy technique will produce a different outcome compared to a traditional mechanical explanation. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) were recruited for the study. Following consent, demographic data were obtained as well as pain ratings for low back pain (LBP) and leg pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), fear-avoidance (Fear-Avoidance-Beliefs Questionnaire), forward flexion (fingertips-to-floor), and straight leg raise (SLR) (inclinometer). Patients were then randomly allocated to receive one of two explanations (neuroplasticity or mechanical), a manual therapy technique to their lumbar spine, followed by post-intervention measurements of LBP, leg pain, forward flexion, and SLR. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (female 35 [56.5%]), with a mean age of 60.1 years and mean duration of 9.26 years of CLBP participated in the study. There were no statistically significant interactions for LBP (p = .325), leg pain (p = .172), and trunk flexion (p = .818) between the groups, but SLR showed a significant difference in favor of the neuroplasticity explanation (p = .041). Additionally, the neuroplasticity group were 7.2 times (95% confidence interval = 1.8-28.6) more likely to improve beyond the MDC on the SLR than participants in the mechanical group. DISCUSSION: The results of this study show that a neuroplasticity explanation, compared to a traditional biomechanical explanation, resulted in a measureable difference in SLR in patients with CLBP when receiving manual therapy. Future studies need to explore if the increase in SLR correlated to changes in cortical maps of the low back.
Authors: Francesco Cerritelli; Marco Chiera; Marco Abbro; Valentino Megale; Jorge Esteves; Alberto Gallace; Andrea Manzotti Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 4.003