A pragmatic RCT comparing specific spinal stabilisation exercises and conventional physiotherapy in the management of recurrent low back pain

• Main Author: Cairns, Melinda Claire
• Published: Coventry University 2002
• Subjects: 615; physiotherapy : Backache > Exercise therapy : Backache > Physical therapy : Backache > Treatment
• Online Access: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.247195

Background: Altered muscular function of the deep abdominal and back muscles has been implicated as a factor in the development and continuation of low back pain (LBP) and small-scale studies, on specific subgroups of LBP patients, have reported favourable outcomes when these dysfunctions are addressed using specific exercise training. However, these techniques are increasingly being incorporated into treatment packages for non-specific LBP in the UK despite little evidence of their effectiveness in this patient group. A multi-centered, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial, with 12-month follow-up, was therefore designed to investigate the effectiveness of incorporating specific spinal stabilisation exercises within a physiotherapy treatment package in the management of recurrent LBP patients. Methods: Following ethical approval, consenting patients with recurrent LBP, without significant levels of distress (as measured by the distress risk assessment method {DRAM}), were randomized to two groups; 'conventional' physiotherapy and the provision of an advice booklet (Cl) and 'conventional' physiotherapy, the provision of an advice booklet with the addition of specific spinal stabilisation exercises (SSSE). Randomisation was stratified for laterality, duration of symptoms and initial functional disability level {Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire—RMDQ} using a minimization procedure. Functional disability (RMDQ) was the main outcome, and generic, disease-specific and psychological measures were also collected. The trial was powered to detect a 5-point difference between groups using 90% power. A total of 221 patients were screened for entry into the trial and 97 were recruited from three metropolitan physiotherapy departments within the UK between May 1999 and September 2000. Results: All patients were between the ages of 19 and 60 years (mean 38.6, SD: 10.5) and had an average duration of symptoms of 8.7 (8.1) months. Over 30% of the patients screened for entry to the trial were excluded as they showed evidence of psychological distress. Both groups demonstrated improved functioning, reduced pain intensity and an improvement in the physical component of quality of life. Mean change (95% Cl) for RMDQ scores between baseline to 12-month follow-up were —4.5 (-6.2 to —3.6) for the SSSE group and -5.2 (-6.7 to —3.6) for the CT group. No statistically significant differences between the two groups were demonstrated for any of the outcome variables. Patients in the spinal stabilisation group received a slightly greater mean number of treatment sessions over a longer period than the conventional physiotherapy treatment group (7.5 (2.5) over 11 weeks compared to 5.9 (2.3) over 8 weeks respectively). Exploration of the content of each treatment package revealed a combination of treatments was used, most frequently active exercise and manual therapy, with little use of electrotherapy or mechanical lumbar traction. Discussion and Conclusion: This trial represents the largest to date investigating the effects of specific spinal stabilisation exercises, and the first examining their use in a recurrent LBP population. Results indicate that physiotherapy is effective in reducing functional disability and to a lesser extent pain intensity, with improvements maintained at one year following completion of treatment, but that the addition of spinal stabilisation exercises to conventional physiotherapy and an advice booklet, does not provide any obvious additional benefit in terms of functional disability or pain intensity. These findings are of importance as they support the ongoing use of physiotherapy treatment packages in the management of recurrent LBP patients, without significant levels of distress, but challenge the assumption that stabilisation training provides an additional benefit in this particular group of LBP patients.