Motor Control Exercise for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

Musculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for International Health, Sydney, New South Wales 2050, Australia.
Physical Therapy (Impact Factor: 3.25). 11/2009; 89(12):1275-86. DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20090218
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The evidence that exercise intervention is effective for treatment of chronic low back pain comes from trials that are not placebo-controlled.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of motor control exercise for people with chronic low back pain.
This was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.
The study was conducted in an outpatient physical therapy department in Australia. Patients The participants were 154 patients with chronic low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration.
Twelve sessions of motor control exercise (ie, exercises designed to improve function of specific muscles of the low back region and the control of posture and movement) or placebo (ie, detuned ultrasound therapy and detuned short-wave therapy) were conducted over 8 weeks.
Primary outcomes were pain intensity, activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale), and patient's global impression of recovery measured at 2 months. Secondary outcomes were pain; activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale); patient's global impression of recovery measured at 6 and 12 months; activity limitation (measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 2, 6, and 12 months; and risk of persistent or recurrent pain at 12 months.
The exercise intervention improved activity and patient's global impression of recovery but did not clearly reduce pain at 2 months. The mean effect of exercise on activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale) was 1.1 points (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.3 to 1.8), the mean effect on global impression of recovery was 1.5 points (95% CI=0.4 to 2.5), and the mean effect on pain was 0.9 points (95% CI=-0.01 to 1.8), all measured on 11-point scales. Secondary outcomes also favored motor control exercise. Limitation Clinicians could not be blinded to the intervention they provided.
Motor control exercise produced short-term improvements in global impression of recovery and activity, but not pain, for people with chronic low back pain. Most of the effects observed in the short term were maintained at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups.

Download full-text


Available from: Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa, Jul 05, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is a large and costly problem. It has a lifetime prevalence of 80% and results in high levels of healthcare cost. It is a major cause for long term sickness amongst the workforce and is associated with high levels of fear avoidance and kinesiophobia. Stabilisation (or 'core stability') exercises have been suggested to reduce symptoms of pain and disability and form an effective treatment. Despite it being the most commonly used form of physiotherapy treatment within the UK there is a lack of positive evidence to support its use. The aims of this systematic review update is to investigate the effectiveness of stabilisation exercises for the treatment of NSLBP, and compare any effectiveness to other forms of exercise. A systematic review published in 2008 was updated with a search of PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, Pedro and The Cochrane Library, October 2006 to October 2013. Two authors independently selected studies, and two authors independently extracted the data. Methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale. Meta-analysis was carried out when appropriate. 29 studies were included: 22 studies (n = 2,258) provided post treatment effect on pain and 24 studies (n = 2,359) provided post treatment effect on disability. Pain and disability scores were transformed to a 0 to 100 scale. Meta-analysis showed significant benefit for stabilisation exercises versus any alternative treatment or control for long term pain and disability with mean difference of -6.39 (95% CI -10.14 to -2.65) and -3.92 (95% CI -7.25 to -0.59) respectively. The difference between groups was clinically insignificant. When compared with alternative forms of exercise, there was no statistical or clinically significant difference. Mean difference for pain was -3.06 (95% CI -6.74 to 0.63) and disability -1.89 (95% CI -5.10 to 1.33). There is strong evidence stabilisation exercises are not more effective than any other form of active exercise in the long term. The low levels of heterogeneity and large number of high methodological quality of available studies, at long term follow-up, strengthen our current findings, and further research is unlikely to considerably alter this conclusion.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 12/2014; 15(1):416. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-15-416 · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Classification schemas for low back pain (LBP), such as the Treatment Based Classification and the Movement System Impairment schemas, use common clinical features to subgroup patients with LBP and are purported to improve treatment outcomes. Purpose To assess if providing matched treatments based on patient specific clinical features led to superior treatment outcomes compared to an unmatched treatment for subjects with chronic, recurrent LBP. Study Design A randomized controlled trial. Patient Sample Subjects (n=124) with LBP (≥ 12 months) with or without recurrences underwent a standardized clinical exam to group them into one of 2 strata: (1) ineligible or (2) eligible for stabilization exercises based on the Treatment Based Classification schema. Subjects underwent additional clinical tests to assign them to one of the 5 possible Movement System Impairment categories. Outcome Measures Questionnaires were collected electronically at: Week 0, prior to treatment; Week 7 (following the 6 weekly, one hour treatment sessions); and 12 months. Using the Oswestry Disability Index (0-100) and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (0-10), the primary analysis was performed using the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary outcomes included fear-avoidance beliefs as well as psychosocial, work related and general health status. Methods After subjects were categorized based on their particular clinical features using both the Treatment Based Classification and Movement System Impairment schemas, they were randomized into one of two treatments using a 3:1 ratio for matched or unmatched treatments. The treatments were (1) trunk stabilization exercise, or (2) Movement System Impairment-directed exercises. The study was funded by National Institutes of Health (NCMRR/R01HD040909; $1,485,000). There are no study specific conflicts of interest to report. Results Of the patients allocated to treatment for this study, 76 received a matched treatment and 25 received an unmatched treatment. Following treatment, both groups showed a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome measures and almost all of the secondary measures; however, the matched treatment group did not demonstrate superior outcomes at Week 7 or 12 months, except on one of the secondary measures (Graded Chronic Pain Scale – Disability Scale) (P=0.01). Conclusion Providing a matched treatment based on either the Treatment Based Classification or the Movement System Impairment classification schemas did not improve treatment outcomes compared to an unmatched treatment for patients with chronic LBP, except on one secondary disability measure.
    The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society 12/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.024 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic pain is a common problem that is associated with mood disorders such as depression. The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS-21) questionnaire is commonly used to help measure disordered mood. In this study, we used Rasch analysis to analyze the clinimetric properties of the DASS-21 in a chronic low back pain sample. A Rasch analysis was conducted on data collected as a part of a randomized hospital-based placebo-controlled trial. DASS-21 questionnaires were completed by the 154 enrolled participants. The DASS-21 subscales fit the Rasch model. No differential item functioning was detected for age, gender, pain severity, or disability. Reliability for individual use was supported for the depression subscale (Person Separation Index [PSI]=0.86) but group use only for the anxiety (PSI=0.74) and stress (PSI=0.82) subscales. A DASS-21 aggregate score of "negative affect" lacked fit to the Rasch model (χ(2)=191.48, P<0.001). This is the first study that used Rasch analysis to demonstrate that the DASS-21 subscales demonstrate adequate measurement properties for research involving groups with chronic pain. Only the DASS-21 depression subscale demonstrated adequate reliability for use with individuals with chronic pain. The use of a single DASS-21 aggregate score as a measure of "negative affect" was not supported.
    Journal of clinical epidemiology 08/2011; 65(2):189-98. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.05.010 · 5.48 Impact Factor