BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The prescriptive validity of a treatment-oriented extension-mobilization category for patients with low back syndrome (LBS) was examined. SUBJECTS: Of a total of 39 patients with LBS referred for physical therapy, 24 patients (14 male, 10 female), aged 14 to 50 years (means = 31.3, SD = 11.6), were classified as having signs and symptoms indicating treatment with an extension-mobilization approach. The remaining subjects were dismissed from the study. Patients in the extension-mobilization category were randomly assigned to either an experimental (treatment) group (n = 14) or a comparison group (n = 10). METHODS: The experimental and comparison group subjects were treated with either mobilization and extension (a treatment matched to the category) or a flexion exercise regimen (an unmatched treatment). Outcome was assessed with a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire administered initially and at 3 and 5 days after initiation of treatment. Data were analyzed with a 2 x 3 (treatment group x treatment period) analysis of variance. RESULTS: The subjects' rate of improvement, as indicated by the Oswestry questionnaire scores, was dependent on the treatment group to which they were assigned. Subjects treated with extension and mobilization positively responded at a faster rate than did those treated with a flexion-oriented program. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: This study illustrates that a priori classification of selected patients with LBS into a treatment category of extension and mobilization and subsequently treating the patients accordingly with specified interventions can be an effective approach to conservative management of selected patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The prescriptive validity of a treatment-oriented extension-mobilization category for patients with low back syndrome (LBS) was examined. SUBJECTS: Of a total of 39 patients with LBS referred for physical therapy, 24 patients (14 male, 10 female), aged 14 to 50 years (means = 31.3, SD = 11.6), were classified as having signs and symptoms indicating treatment with an extension-mobilization approach. The remaining subjects were dismissed from the study. Patients in the extension-mobilization category were randomly assigned to either an experimental (treatment) group (n = 14) or a comparison group (n = 10). METHODS: The experimental and comparison group subjects were treated with either mobilization and extension (a treatment matched to the category) or a flexion exercise regimen (an unmatched treatment). Outcome was assessed with a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire administered initially and at 3 and 5 days after initiation of treatment. Data were analyzed with a 2 x 3 (treatment group x treatment period) analysis of variance. RESULTS: The subjects' rate of improvement, as indicated by the Oswestry questionnaire scores, was dependent on the treatment group to which they were assigned. Subjects treated with extension and mobilization positively responded at a faster rate than did those treated with a flexion-oriented program. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: This study illustrates that a priori classification of selected patients with LBS into a treatment category of extension and mobilization and subsequently treating the patients accordingly with specified interventions can be an effective approach to conservative management of selected patients.
Authors: Adri T Apeldoorn; Raymond W Ostelo; Hans van Helvoirt; Julie M Fritz; Henrika C W de Vet; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2010-03-26 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Anthony Delitto; Steven Z George; Linda Van Dillen; Julie M Whitman; Gwendolyn Sowa; Paul Shekelle; Thomas R Denninger; Joseph J Godges Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 4.751