Search

Background: s:The effectiveness of telerehabilitation (TLRH) in patients with non-specific low back pain (NLBP) remains unknown. No study till date has investigated the efficacy of a mobile-based TLRH in patients with NLBP., Objectives: To investigate if a TLRH program is as effective as a clinical exercise programme in improving disability, pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, and hip pain and strength in patients with NLBP., Design: Single-blind, two-armed, randomized controlled study., Method: A total of 71 individuals with NLBP were randomly allocated to either the TLRH home group (TLRH) or clinic group (CG). The TLRH followed exercise videos and read information on pain neurophysiology. The CG performed the same exercises and received on-site pain education. Both groups performed the exercises twice weekly for 8 weeks. Disability, pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, and hip pain and strength were assessed at baseline, at post-treatment, and at three months., Results: Statistically significant differences for time-by-group interaction were detected in the strength of left hip flexors (supine [F = 8.356; p = .005]; sitting [F = 9.828; p = .003]), right hip extensors with extended knee [F = 7.461; p = .008], left hip extensors (extended knee [F = 13.175; p = .001]; flexed knee [F = 13.505; p < .001]), pain during flexion of the right [F = 5.133; p = .027] and left [F = 4.731; p = .033] hips in the supine position, disability [F = 4.557; p = .014], and pain catastrophizing [F = 14.132; p < .001]., Conclusion: A TLRH mobile-based is as effective as clinical treatment in improving disability, pain catastrophizing, and pain and strength of the hip structures in patients with NLBP., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of a vacuum myofascial therapy device (VT) for improving pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), range of motion (ROM), neck pain-related disability, pain, and quality of life in patients with non-specific neck pain., Methods: A randomized controlled trial in which thirty-eight participants with non-specific neck pain (NP) were randomly assigned to either an experimental (VT) or a comparison physical therapy program (PTP) group. The VT group (n = 19) received five sessions of treatment with a vacuum myofascial therapy device while the PTP group (n = 19) received five sessions of massage, ultrasound therapy (US), and transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) over two weeks. The outcome measures were the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), range of motion, quality of life (SF-12), neck disability Index (NDI), and PPTs at the end of treatment and at one-month follow-up., Results: Although both groups experienced improvements in pain, neck disability, range of motion, and pressure pain, these only were statistically significant in the VT group. At one-month follow-up, the VT group still showed improvements in pain, neck disability, and range of motion., Discussion: Vacuum myofascial therapy applied with a device offers similar results to other vacuum-based techniques such as cupping therapy. Moreover, in this device the parameters are digitally controlled, which allows for the precise reproduction of treatment., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To determine the short-term effects of a modified Flexion-Distraction (FD) technique in comparison with a high-velocity low-back spinal manipulation (HVLA-SM) protocol on patients suffering from chronic low-back pain (CLBP)., Design and Methods: A randomized controlled trial. The sample was composed of 150 patients suffering from CLBP, who were randomly assigned to either a FD (n = 75) or a HVLA-SM (n = 75) group. The variables used to study pain were the scores of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) on trigger points (TrPs) of the quadratus lumborum. In addition, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was used to measure disability, and Schober's test and the Finger Floor Distance test (FFDT) to measure changes in low-back spine motion. An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to measure group effect, and Number Needed to Treat (NNT) for effect size., Results: Greater improvements occurred in the FD group, with a statistically significant group effect (p < 0.001) for all outcome variables. The ETA 2 value was larger than 0.100 in the Schober's and FDD tests, larger than 0.200 in the case of ODI and PPT, and larger than 0.300 for VAS. OR = 0.07 [IC 95% = 0.03 to 0.18] and NNT = 2.08 [IC 95% = 1.64-2.84) yielded improved values for the FD group., Conclusion: For patients suffering from CLBP, greater improvements in pain and function were observed in the group receiving the modified FD treatment than in the HVLA-SM group., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)