ArticlePDF Available

Integrated Approach of Yoga Therapy towards Chronic Low Back Pain: A Case Report

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This case report represents the patient of lower back pain (LBP) who visited Arogyadhama (SVYASA University, Bangalore). Patient was suffering from low back pain and multiple joint pain at the time of visit and 14 days Yoga intervention was provided to the patient for pain management, which helped the patient in relieving the pain and improving the muscular strength and quality of life significantly. The present case study is an attempt to provide IAYT (Integrated approach of Yoga therapy) practices in combination with naturopathy and physiotherapy for the maintenance of LBP profile and symptoms.
Content may be subject to copyright.
www.jimcr.com INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE CASE REPORTS VOLUME 2 NUMBER 1 JANUARY 2021
15
IMCR
CASE REPORT
Integrated Approach of Yoga Therapy towards Chronic Low Back Pain:
A Case Report
Reshma P. Jogdand1*, Shekhar Mukhiya Sunuwar2, Amit Singh3 and R. Nagrathna4
Department of Life Sciences, SVYASA University, Bangalore1,3,4
The School of Yoga and Naturopathic Medicine, SVYASA University, Bangalore2
ABSTRACT
This case report represents the patient of lower back pain (LBP) who visited Arogyadhama
(SVYASA University, Bangalore). Patient was suffering from low back pain and multiple joint pain
at the time of visit and 14 days Yoga intervention was provided to the patient for pain man-
agement, which helped the patient in relieving the pain and improving the muscular strength
and quality of life signicantly. The present case study is an attempt to provide IAYT (Integrated
approach of Yoga therapy) practices in combination with naturopathy and physiotherapy for the
maintenance of LBP prole and symptoms.
doi: 10.38205/imcr.020115
KEY WORDS
Lower back pain
Yoga therapy
Naturopathy
Physiotherapy
Quality of life
*Corresponding Author:
Reshma P. Jogdand
Department of Life Sciences,
SVYASA University, Bangalore
Contact no: +91-9449164937
E-mail: reshma.bnys@gmail.com
Introduction
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a chronic pain syndrome of
the lower back region lasting at least for 3 months. It is the
most common musculoskeletal condition affecting the adult
       -
yond the expected period of healing (1). CLBP is a main cause
       -

      
(such as infection, tumor, osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis,

Commonness of incessant LBP IS 4.2% among the adults
in the age group of 24 to 39 years and 19.6% among 20 to
        -
lence of LBP in about 3.9%–10.2% people aged 18 or more,
      
of the same between 13.1% and 20.3%. LBP predominance
    

  
of acute and CLBP in adults doubled in the last decade and
continues to increase dramatically in the aging population,
affecting both men and women in all ethnic groups (6).
Side effects, pathology, and radiological appearances are
-
     
        
pressure breaks, and about 1% are known to be associated
      
 
Ankylosing spondylitis and spinal diseases are more uncom-
-
sion on incessant LBP. Different factors, other than physical,
may be associated with progression of CLBP which includes
       
turning, lifting and Psychosocial chance elements, such as

         
      
some mental components such as trouble, burdensome state
-
       
factors are also thought to be associated with the progress of
interminable LBP (4).
Case presentation
Recruitment of patient
        
Kutiram (Arogyadhma) SVYASA for treatment of her CLBP
was enrolled as a participant for this case study after taking
her written consent and explaining her about the treatment
    
disorders and back pain. She resided in the campus for a pe-
riod of 14 days (6th March, 2020 to 19th March, 2020). Yoga
       -
        
 VOLUME 2   2021 www.jimcr.com
16
IMCR
CASE REPORT
-

  -
         
stay in SVYASA.
IAYT Protocol
Treatment Regimen
Loosening Practice (7)
Table 1: Loosening practices followed by participant
S.
No.
Practice Duration
per session
Frequency
per day
Duration of
intervention
1 10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
2
inward-outward
10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
3 Ankle rotation 10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
4 20 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
5 St. leg raising 5 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
6 Shoulder

10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
Upper arm
stretch
10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
8 Vertical stretch
of knee
10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
9 10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
10 Side leg raising 10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
11 Alternate foot
knee
10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
12 Sideward
bending
10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
13 Cross leg L.S 10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
14  10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
15 Back stretch with
alternate leg
10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
16  10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
 Alternate & both
leg raising
10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
18 Side leg raising 10 times 2 times a day 2 weeks
Pranayama (8)
Table 2: Pranayams followed by participant
Pranayama Duration of
procedure
Frequency Duration of
Intervention
1 Nadishuddhi
Pranayama

for each
nostril
4 times a day 2 weeks
2 Brahmari  2 times a day 2 weeks
3 Naadaanusandhna  2 times a day 2 weeks
Deep Relaxation Technique (10–15 minutes) (9)
    
      
-
ation. For making participant comfortable during relaxation
 Savasana (Corpse Pose) because it
is generally done for 15 minutes.
Breathing Practices (10)
Table 3: Breathing practices followed by participant
S.
No.
Breathing
Practices
Duration of
procedure
Frequency Duration of
Intervention
1
Breathing
2 minutes 2 times a day 2 weeks
2
Out Breathing
2 minutes 2 times a day 2 weeks
3 Ankle stretch
Breathing
2 minutes 2 times a day 2 weeks
4 2 minutes 2 times a day 2 weeks
Yogasana (11)
Table 4: Asanas followed by participant
Yogasanas Duration of
procedure
Frequency Duration of
Intervention
Standing Position
1 sasankasana 2 minutes 2 times a day 2 weeks
2. Dorsal stretch
(naukasana)
2 minutes 2 times a day 2 weeks
3
(without lifting the
head)
2 minutes 2 times a day 2 weeks
4. Bhujanagasana 2 minutes 2 times a day 2 weeks
5 Dorsal stretch 1 minute 2 times a day 2 weeks
6 salabhasana 2 minutes 2 times a day 2 weeks
Walking 2 times a day 2 weeks
8 Side leg raising 1 minute 2 times a day 2 weeks
Naturopathy (12)
Table 5: Naturopathy treatment followed by participant
S.
No.
Treatments Duration
(minutes)
Frequency Periods
1 Mud pack 15 1 time a day 1 week
2 Salt water bath 45 1 time a day 1 week
3 Mustard pack 30 1 time a day 1 week
4 15 1 time a day 1 week
5 Vibro massage 15 1 time a day 1 week
www.jimcr.com INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE CASE REPORTS VOLUME 2 NUMBER 1 JANUARY 2021

IMCR
CASE REPORT
Physiotherapy (13)(14)
Table 6: Physiotherapy treatment followed by participant
S.
No.
Treatments Duration
(minutes)
Frequency Periods
1ix.  5 1 time a day 1 week
2x. Ultrasound 5 1 time aday 1 week
Diet Protocol (8)
       -
 
pattern was as follows.
Lunch: (boiled diet) 1 chapati, 1 cup adl, 1 cup rice, butter-


        
     

Diagnosis

Table 8: Score of different parameters before and after the treatment
regimen
Parameters DOA DOD
Pulse Beats/min 80 bpm 
  
  11 cpm
 15 sec 15 sec
Symptoms score 03 01
Straight leg raising

80/80 90/90
Sit and reach 46 cm 
 09 05
Discussion


       
Table 7: Weekly diet plan followed by participant
8:00 am 10:00 am 12:00 pm 2:00 pm 5:00 pm 7:30 pm 8:30 pm
Saturday Ash gourd juice Barley water Lunch Buttermilk Ash gourd juice Dinner Kashayam
Sunday Carrot juice Watermelon Lunch Buttermilk Carrot juice Dinner Kashayam
Monday Bottle gourd juice Musk melon Lunch Buttermilk Bottle gourd juice Dinner Kashayam
 Bottle gourd Watermelon Lunch Buttermilk Bottle gourd Dinner Kashayam
Wednesday Ash guard juice Carrot juice Lunch Buttermilk Ash guard juice Dinner Kashayam
 Carrot juice Ash guard Lunch Buttermilk Dinner Kashayam
Friday Breakfast  Buttermilk Dinner
Fig. 1: Bars represent the intensity of different parameters diagnosed during treatment period of 14 days.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pulse rate Respiratory
rate
Bhramari
rate
Symptoms
score
straight leg
raising
sit and reachPain Scale
Reading
Chart Title
Pre Post
 VOLUME 2   2021 www.jimcr.com
18
IMCR
CASE REPORT
 -

        
-

in straight leg raising and sit and reach scale.
Conclusion
 -

         
         
-
ed treatment can be recommended to the patients with CLBP.
Acknowledgement
           -
press deepest gratitude to the almighty. In addition I would
like to acknowledge the following people who played an in-
strumental role in the completion of this project. I express my
appreciation to the blessings of my gurus and salutations to
my parents and all my teachers. I am grateful to Dr. Nagarath-
na and Dr. Amit Singh of research for sharing their thoughts
 
me for this work is Dr. Amit singh, his guidance and support



        
   

Mr. Sumit Aundhekar for extending his support through out
my work. I express my gratitude to all the Participants, as they
were the true inspiration and purpose.
Authorship contribution


AS has contributed in a treatment planning.
Informed consent
Yes.
Source of funding
Nil.

Nil.

Accepted Date: 15-09-20
References
1.     
chronic pain in United States adults: results of an Internet-based sur-

2. Allegri M, Montella S, Salici F, Valente A, Marchesini M, Compagnone C,


3. -

4.     

American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Annals of

5. 
   

6.   -

 
on pain, morning stiffness and anxiety in osteoarthritis of the knee


8.   -
      
29–32.
9.    
        
    -

10.      
         -
       
11–6.
11.            
-
          

12. -
neotherapy in treatment of low back pain. Annals of the rheumatic

13.  
      


14. -
peutic ultrasound for chronic low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a chronic pain syndrome in the lower back region, lasting for at least 3 months. CLBP represents the second leading cause of disability worldwide being a major welfare and economic problem. The prevalence of CLBP in adults has increased more than 100% in the last decade and continues to increase dramatically in the aging population, affecting both men and women in all ethnic groups, with a significant impact on functional capacity and occupational activities. It can also be influenced by psychological factors, such as stress, depression and/or anxiety. Given this complexity, the diagnostic evaluation of patients with CLBP can be very challenging and requires complex clinical decision-making. Answering the question "what is the pain generator" among the several structures potentially involved in CLBP is a key factor in the management of these patients, since a mis-diagnosis can generate therapeutical mistakes. Traditionally, the notion that the etiology of 80% to 90% of LBP cases is unknown has been mistaken perpetuated across decades. In most cases, low back pain can be attributed to specific pain generator, with its own characteristics and with different therapeutical opportunity. Here we discuss about radicular pain, facet Joint pain, sacro-iliac pain, pain related to lumbar stenosis, discogenic pain. Our article aims to offer to the clinicians a simple guidance to identify pain generators in a safer and faster way, relying a correct diagnosis and further therapeutical approach.
Article
Full-text available
OBJECTIVE To estimate worldwide prevalence of chronic low back pain according to age and sex. METHODS We consulted Medline (PubMed), LILACS and EMBASE electronic databases. The search strategy used the following descriptors and combinations: back pain, prevalence, musculoskeletal diseases, chronic musculoskeletal pain, rheumatic, low back pain, musculoskeletal disorders and chronic low back pain. We selected cross-sectional population-based or cohort studies that assessed chronic low back pain as an outcome. We also assessed the quality of the selected studies as well as the chronic low back pain prevalence according to age and sex. RESULTS The review included 28 studies. Based on our qualitative evaluation, around one third of the studies had low scores, mainly due to high non-response rates. Chronic low back pain prevalence was 4.2% in individuals aged between 24 and 39 years old and 19.6% in those aged between 20 and 59. Of nine studies with individuals aged 18 and above, six reported chronic low back pain between 3.9% and 10.2% and three, prevalence between 13.1% and 20.3%. In the Brazilian older population, chronic low back pain prevalence was 25.4%. CONCLUSIONS Chronic low back pain prevalence increases linearly from the third decade of life on, until the 60 years of age, being more prevalent in women. Methodological approaches aiming to reduce high heterogeneity in case definitions of chronic low back pain are essential to consistency and comparative analysis between studies. A standard chronic low back pain definition should include the precise description of the anatomical area, pain duration and limitation level.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Previous studies indicate that yoga may be an effective treatment for chronic or recurrent low back pain. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of yoga and usual care for chronic or recurrent low back pain. Design: Parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial using computer-generated randomization conducted from April 2007 to March 2010. Outcomes were assessed by postal questionnaire. (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN 81079604) Setting: 13 non-National Health Service premises in the United Kingdom. Patients: 313 adults with chronic or recurrent low back pain. Intervention: Yoga (n = 156) or usual care (n = 157). All participants received a back pain education booklet. The intervention group was offered a 12-class, gradually progressing yoga program delivered by 12 teachers over 3 months. Measurements: Scores on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at 3 (primary outcome), 6, and 12 (secondary outcomes) months; pain, pain self-efficacy, and general health measures at 3, 6, and 12 months (secondary outcomes). Results: 93 (60%) patients offered yoga attended at least 3 of the first 6 sessions and at least 3 other sessions. The yoga group had better back function at 3, 6, and 12 months than the usual care group. The adjusted mean RMDQ score was 2.17 points (95% CI, 1.03 to 3.31 points) lower in the yoga group at 3 months, 1.48 points (CI, 0.33 to 2.62 points) lower at 6 months, and 1.57 points (CI, 0.42 to 2.71 points) lower at 12 months. The yoga and usual care groups had similar back pain and general health scores at 3, 6, and 12 months, and the yoga group had higher pain self-efficacy scores at 3 and 6 months but not at 12 months. Two of the 157 usual care participants and 12 of the 156 yoga participants reported adverse events, mostly increased pain. Limitation: There were missing data for the primary outcome (yoga group, n = 21; usual care group, n = 18) and differential missing data (more in the yoga group) for secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Offering a 12-week yoga program to adults with chronic or recurrent low back pain led to greater improvements in back function than did usual care. Primary funding source: Arthritis Research UK.
Article
Full-text available
C-reactive protein (CRP) is best known as an acute phase protein and is typically assessed in most general blood work. High sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) may be a useful clinical marker of chronic inflammatory states in musculoskeletal conditions. It appears that it is raised in inflammatory chronic low back pain (CLBP) and associated with reduced pain thresholds, weakness, and reduced function. It is also possible CRP could contribute towards the development and maintenance of CLBP by activating the complement system, which increases peripheral nociception. Diet and lifestyle factors can promote raised CRP. An hsCRP level of <1 mg/l appears ideal, and the higher the level, the more emphasis should be placed on chronic inflammation as a contributor to symptoms. Diet and lifestyle can significantly reduce CRP levels and may be a useful adjunct in treating CLBP patients with elevated CRP. This might make CRP a useful clinical marker of inflammation in CLBP and a therapeutic target for diet and lifestyle interventions.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Chronic low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are highly prevalent conditions resulting in high economic costs. Treatment guidelines recommend relaxation techniques, such as progressive muscle relaxation, as adjuvant therapies. Self-care interventions could have the potential to reduce costs in the health care system, but their effectiveness, especially in a usual care setting, is unclear. The aim of these two pragmatic randomized studies is to evaluate whether an additional app-delivered relaxation is more effective in the reduction of chronic LBP or NP than usual care alone. Methods/design: Each pragmatic randomized two-armed study aims to include a total of 220 patients aged 18 to 65 years with chronic (>12 weeks) LBP or NP and an average pain intensity of ≥ 4 on a numeric rating scale (NRS) in the 7 days before recruitment. The participants will be randomized into an intervention and a usual care group. The intervention group will be instructed to practice one of these 3 relaxation techniques on at least 5 days/week for 15 minutes/day over a period of 6 months starting on the day of randomization: autogenic training, mindfulness meditation, or guided imagery. Instructions and exercises will be provided using a smartphone app, baseline information will be collected using paper and pencil. Follow-up information (daily, weekly, and after 3 and 6 months) will be collected using electronic diaries and questionnaires included in the app. The primary outcome measure will be the mean LBP or NP intensity during the first 3 months of intervention based on daily pain intensity measurements on a NRS (0 = no pain, 10 = worst possible pain). The secondary outcome parameters will include the mean pain intensity during the first 6 months after randomization based on daily measurements, the mean pain intensity measured weekly as the average pain intensity of the previous 7 days over 3 and 6 months, pain acceptance, 'LBP- and NP-related' stress, sick leave days, pain medication intake, adherence, suspected adverse reaction, and serious adverse events. Discussion: The designed studies reflect a usual self-care setting and will provide evidence on a pragmatic self-care intervention that is easy to combine with care provided by medical professionals. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier Relaxback NCT02019498, Relaxneck NCT02019134 registered on 18 December 2013.
Article
Full-text available
Background Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly disabling morbidity with high social, economic and individual effects. Demographic, occupational and behavioral changes that took place in Brazil over the last decade are related with an increasing burden of chronic conditions. Despite these changes, comparison studies on CLBP prevalence and associated factors, over time are scarce in the literature in general, and unknown in Brazil. The present study compared the CLBP prevalence in a medium sized city in Brazil between the years 2002 and 2010 and examined factors associated with prevalence in 2010. Methods Two cross-sectional studies with similar methodology were conducted in a medium-sized city in southern Brazil, in 2002 and 2010. 3182 individuals were interviewed in the first study and 2732 in the second one, all adults aged twenty years or more. Those who reported pain for seven weeks or more in the last three months in the lumbar region where considered cases of CLBP. Results The CLBP prevalence increased from 4.2% to 9.6% in 8 years. In most of the studied subgroups the CLBP prevalence has at least doubled and the increase was even larger among younger individuals with more years of education and higher economic status. Conclusions Increase in CLBP prevalence is worrisome because it is a condition responsible for substantial social impact, besides being an important source of demand for health services.
Article
Chronic non-specific low-back pain (LBP) has become one of the main causes of disability in the adult population around the world. Therapeutic ultrasound is frequently used by physiotherapists in the treatment of LBP and is one of the most widely used electro-physical agents in clinical practice. The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic non-specific LBP. Electronic searches were performed using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, and PsycLIT databases in October 2013. Reference lists of eligible studies and relevant systematic reviews were checked and forward citation searching was also performed. Randomised controlled trials on therapeutic ultrasound for non-specific chronic LBP were included. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each trial and extracted the data. When sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity existed, a meta-analysis was performed. The quality of the evidence for each comparison was determined using the GRADE approach. Seven small randomised controlled trials involving a total of 362 participants with chronic LBP were included. Two of the studies had a low risk of bias, meeting six or more of the 12 criteria used for assessing risk of bias. All studies were carried out in secondary care settings and most applied therapeutic ultrasound in addition to exercise therapy, at various intensities for six to 18 treatment sessions. There was moderate quality evidence that therapeutic ultrasound improves back-specific function (standardised mean difference (SMD) [95%CI] -0.45 [-0.84 to -0.05]) compared with placebo in the short term. There was low quality evidence that therapeutic ultrasound is no better than placebo for short-term pain improvement (mean difference (MD) [95%CI] -7.12 [-17.99 to 3.75]; zero to100-point scale). There was low quality evidence that therapeutic ultrasound plus exercise is no better than exercise alone for short-term pain improvement (MD [95%CI] -2.16 [-4.66 to 0.34]; zero to 50-point scale), or functional disability (MD [95%CI] -0.41 [-3.14 to 2.32]; per cent). The studies comparing therapeutic ultrasound versus placebo or versus exercise alone did not report on overall satisfaction with treatment, or quality of life. There was low quality evidence that spinal manipulation reduces pain and functional disability more than ultrasound over the short to medium term. There is also very low quality evidence that there is no clear benefit on any outcome measure between electrical stimulation and therapeutic ultrasound; and that phonophoresis results in improved SF-36 scores compared to therapeutic ultrasound. None of the included studies reported on adverse events related to the application of therapeutic ultrasound. No high quality evidence was found to support the use of ultrasound for improving pain or quality of life in patients with non-specific chronic LBP. There is some evidence that therapeutic ultrasound has a small effect on improving low-back function in the short term, but this benefit is unlikely to be clinically important. Evidence from comparisons between other treatments and therapeutic ultrasound for chronic LBP were indeterminate and generally of low quality. Since there are few high quality randomised trials and the available trials are very small, future large trials with valid methodology are likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Article
To study the effect of integrated yoga on pain, morning stiffness and anxiety in osteoarthritis of knees. Two hundred and fifty participants with OA knees (35-80 years) were randomly assigned to yoga or control group. Both groups had transcutaneous electrical stimulation and ultrasound treatment followed by intervention (40 min) for two weeks with follow up for three months. The integrated yoga consisted of yogic loosening and strengthening practices, asanas, relaxation, pranayama and meditation. The control group had physiotherapy exercises. Assessments were done on 15(th) (post 1) and 90(th) day (post 2). Resting pain (numerical rating scale) reduced better (P<0.001, Mann-Whitney U test) in yoga group (post 1=33.6% and post 2=71.8%) than control group (post 1=13.4% and post 2=37.5%). Morning stiffness decreased more (P<0.001) in yoga (post 1=68.6% and post 2=98.1%) than control group (post 1=38.6% and post 2=71.6%). State anxiety (STAI-1) reduced (P<0.001) by 35.5% (post 1) and 58.4% (post 2) in the yoga group and 15.6% (post 1) and 38.8% (post 2) in the control group; trait anxiety (STAI 2) reduced (P<0.001) better (post 1=34.6% and post 2=57.10%) in yoga than control group (post 1=14.12% and post 2=34.73%). Systolic blood pressure reduced (P<0.001) better in yoga group (post 1=-7.93% and post 2=-15.7%) than the control group (post 1=-1.8% and post 2=-3.8%). Diastolic blood pressure reduced (P<0.001) better in yoga group (post 1=-7.6% and post 2=-16.4%) than the control group (post 1=-2.1% and post 2=-5.0%). Pulse rate reduced (P<0.001) better in yoga group (post 1=-8.41% and post 2=-12.4%) than the control group (post 1=-5.1% and post 2=-7.1%). Integrated approach of yoga therapy is better than physiotherapy exercises as an adjunct to transcutaneous electrical stimulation and ultrasound treatment in reducing pain, morning stiffness, state and trait anxiety, blood pressure and pulse rate in patients with OA knees.
Article
Unlabelled: A cross-sectional, Internet-based survey was conducted in a nationally representative sample of United States (US) adults to estimate the point prevalence of chronic pain and to describe sociodemographic correlates and characteristics of chronic pain. The survey was distributed to 35,718 members (aged 18 years and older) of a Web-enabled panel that is representative of the US population, and 27,035 individuals responded. Crude and weighted prevalence estimates were calculated and stratified by age, sex, and type of chronic pain. The weighted point-prevalence of chronic pain (defined as chronic, recurrent, or long-lasting pain lasting for at least 6 months) was 30.7% (95% CI, 29.8-31.7). Prevalence was higher for females (34.3%) than males (26.7%) and increased with age. The weighted prevalence of primary chronic lower back pain was 8.1% and primary osteoarthritis pain was 3.9%. Half of respondents with chronic pain experienced daily pain, and average (past 3 months) pain intensity was severe (≥ 7 on a scale ranging from 0 to 10) for 32%. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified low household income and unemployment as significant socioeconomic correlates of chronic pain. Chronic pain is prevalent among US adults and is related to indicators of poorer socioeconomic status. Perspective: The results of this cross-sectional Internet-based survey suggest a considerable burden of chronic pain in US adults. Chronic pain, experienced by about a third of the population, was correlated with indicators of poorer socioeconomic status. Primary chronic pain was most commonly attributed to lower back pain, followed by osteoarthritis pain. Full text available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590010006012?via%3Dihub
Article
Three treatments for non-specific lumbar pain--balneotherapy, underwater traction bath, and underwater massage--were assessed in a randomised prospective controlled trial in 158 outpatients. Each group was treated for four weeks and patients were reviewed at the end of this period and at 12 months after entry to the trial. The prescription of analgesics and the pain score were significantly reduced in all three treated groups, but there was no difference between the three groups. No significant change occurred in spinal motion and the straight leg raising test. After one year only the analgesic consumption was significantly lower than in the control group.