Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy-An International Journal

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Efficacy of Dynamic Muscular Stabilization Techniques (DMST) over Conventional Techniques in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain


Affiliations
1 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, U.P., Lucknow 226018, India
2 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, U.P., Lucknow 226018, India
3 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow 226018, India
4 Biometry & Statistics Division, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow- 226001, India
5 Department of Physiotherapy, CSJM University, Kanpur, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Background: The low back pain (LBP) is a multifactorial, its treatment varies considerably. It includes medication, physical therapy modalities and exercise therapy with each having several interventions. In spite of their effectiveness, their head-to-head comparisons are limited. This study was aimed for one such comparison.

Methods A total of 77 patients, 20-40 years of age, with sub-acute or chronic LBP were randomized in two groups and treated either by Conventional treatment a combination of two electro therapy (ultrasound and short wave diathermy) and one exercise therapy (lumbar strengthening exercises) and dynamic muscular stabilization techniques (DMST) an active approach of stabilizing training.

Results The average demographic characteristics such as Age, Weight, Height, Waist circumference, Hip circumference, Body mass index, Blood pressure systolic, Blood pressure diastolic, Duration and Rest due to LBP at baseline of two groups were found to be similar (P>0.05). The average level of pain, back pressure changes, abdominal pressure changes, walking, stair climbing, stand ups and quality of life improved more (P<0.01) in DMST than CONV. The DMST also improved sexual frequency (14.97%) and decreased recurrence (55.12%) more than conventional.

Conclusion Study concluded that both treatments are effective in the management of LBP but recommends DMST intervention in their daily clinical practices.


Keywords

Back Pain, Abdominal Muscle Pressure, Physiotherapy, Stabilization, Strengthening Exercises
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Refshauge K M and Mahar C G. Low back pain investigations and prognosis: a review. Br J Sports Med 2006; 40:494-498.

  • Scheer SJ, Radack KL, O’Brien Jr DR. Randomized controlled trials industrial low back pain relating to return to work. Part2: Discogenic low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1189-1197.

  • Manuela LF, Paulo HF, Jane L, Robert DH, Paul WH, Matthew DJ, Christopher GM and Kathryn MR. Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial. Pain 2007; 131: 31-37.

  • Pfingsten M, Hildebrandt J, Leibing E, Franz C, Saur P. Effectiveness of a multimodal treatment program for chronic low-back pain, Pain 1997; 73: 77-85.

  • Martin P, Rose M, Nichols P, Russell P, Hughes I. Physiotherapy exercises for low back pain process and clinical outcome. International Rehabilitation Medicine 1986; 8: 261-287.

  • Lucy JG, Ann PM. A randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy of musculoskeletal physiotherapy on chronic low back pain, Spine 2006; 3: 1083-1093.

  • Richardson CA, Jull CA. Muscle Control-Pain Control. What exercises would you prescribe? Man Ther 1995; 1: 2-10.

  • Hides JA, Jull GA, Richardson CA. Long term effects of specific stabilizing exercises for first-episode low back pain. Spine 2001; 11: 243-248.

  • Mannion AF, Muntener M, Taimela S, Dvorak J. Comparison of three active therapies for chronic low back pain: Result of a randomized clinical trail with one year follow-up. Rheumatology 2001; 40: 772-778.

  • Nordin M, Campello M. Physical therapy. Exercise and the modalities: When, what and why? Neurological clinics of North America 1999; 1: 75-89.

  • Forster A, Palastanga N. Clayton’s electrotherapy theory and practical, London: Bailliere Tindall, 1985.

  • Chahade WH, Battistella LR, Biasoli MC. Low back pain (LBP) Physical therapy approach. Temas De Reumatologia Clinica 2001; 2: 24-32.

  • Kraus H. Myofacial pain and fibromialgia, Muscle deficiency In: Rachlin, ES (Ed.) St. Louis Mosby 1994; 385-414.

  • Crisco JJ III, Panjabi MM. Postural biomechanical stability and gross muscular architecture in the spine. In: Winters JM, Woo SL-Y (eds). Multiple Muscle System. Springer-Verlag, (New York) 1990; 438-450.

  • Miller MI, Medeiros JM. Recruitment of internal oblique and transversus abdominis muscles during the eccentric phase of the curl-up exercise. Phys Ther 1987; 67: 1213.

  • Jensen MP, Chen C, Bruger AM. Postsurgical pain outcome assessment. Pain 2002; 99: 101-109.

  • Kumar S, Negi MPS, Sharma VP, Shukla R. The spinal column and abdominal pressure changes and their relationship with pain severity in patients with low back pain. Nigerian Journal of Medical Rehabilitation 2008; Accepted.v

  • Waddell G, Functional capacity evaluation, The back pain revolution. New York, Churchill L, 1998; 41.

  • Eva RB, Lena NW, Inga A. Stabilizing training compared with manual treatment in sub-acute and chronic low back pain. Manual therapy 2003; 8: 233-241, 2003.

  • Clare H, Adams R, Mahar CG. A systematic review of efficacy of McKenzie therapy for spinal pain. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2004; 50: 209-216.

  • Niemisto L, Lahtinen-Suopanki T, Rissanen P, Lindgren K, Sarna S, Hurri H. A Randomized Trial of Combined Manipulation, Stabilizing Exercises, and Physician Consultation Compared to Physician Consultation Alone for Chronic Low Back Pain. Spine 2003; 28(19): 2185- 2191.

  • Mintaze K, Kezban Y. Effect of continous and pulsed short-wave diathermy in low back pain. The pain clinic 2004; 14: 55-59.

  • Brox JI, Sorensen R, Friis A, Nygaard O, Indahl A, Keller A, Ingebrigtsen T, Eriksen HR, Holm I, Koller AK, Riise R, Reikeras O. Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Orthop Rev 1990; 19(8): 691-700.

  • Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Childs JD. Lumbar spine segmental mobility assessment: an examination of validity for determining intervention strategies in patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 1745-1752.

  • Mayer TG, Smith SS, Keeley, J and Mooney V. Quantification of lumbar function part 2: Sagital strength in chronic low back pain patients. Spine 1985; 10: 765- 772.

  • Refshauge KM, Maher CG. Low back pain investigations and prognosis a review. Br J Sports Med 2006; 40: 111- 115.

  • Waddell G, Feder G, Mclntosh A, Lewis M and Hutchinson A. low back pain evidence review 1st ed. London; Royal college of general practitioners, 1996.

  • Koes B, Van Tulder M, Ostelo R. Clinical guideline for the management of low back pain in primary care. An international comparison. Spine 2001; 26: 2504-2514.

  • Furlan AD, Clarke J, Esmail R, Sinclair S, Irvin E. A critical review of reviews on the treatment of chronic low back pain. Spine 2001; 26: E155-62.


Abstract Views: 342

PDF Views: 0




  • Efficacy of Dynamic Muscular Stabilization Techniques (DMST) over Conventional Techniques in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

Abstract Views: 342  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Suraj Kumar
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, U.P., Lucknow 226018, India
Vijai P. Sharma
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, U.P., Lucknow 226018, India
H. K. Tripathi
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow 226018, India
Mahendra P. S. Negi
Biometry & Statistics Division, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow- 226001, India
G. Venu Vendhan
Department of Physiotherapy, CSJM University, Kanpur, India

Abstract


Background: The low back pain (LBP) is a multifactorial, its treatment varies considerably. It includes medication, physical therapy modalities and exercise therapy with each having several interventions. In spite of their effectiveness, their head-to-head comparisons are limited. This study was aimed for one such comparison.

Methods A total of 77 patients, 20-40 years of age, with sub-acute or chronic LBP were randomized in two groups and treated either by Conventional treatment a combination of two electro therapy (ultrasound and short wave diathermy) and one exercise therapy (lumbar strengthening exercises) and dynamic muscular stabilization techniques (DMST) an active approach of stabilizing training.

Results The average demographic characteristics such as Age, Weight, Height, Waist circumference, Hip circumference, Body mass index, Blood pressure systolic, Blood pressure diastolic, Duration and Rest due to LBP at baseline of two groups were found to be similar (P>0.05). The average level of pain, back pressure changes, abdominal pressure changes, walking, stair climbing, stand ups and quality of life improved more (P<0.01) in DMST than CONV. The DMST also improved sexual frequency (14.97%) and decreased recurrence (55.12%) more than conventional.

Conclusion Study concluded that both treatments are effective in the management of LBP but recommends DMST intervention in their daily clinical practices.


Keywords


Back Pain, Abdominal Muscle Pressure, Physiotherapy, Stabilization, Strengthening Exercises

References