Exercise and spinal manipulative therapy are commonly used for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) in Australia. Reduction in pain intensity is a common outcome; however, it is only one measure of intervention efficacy in clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness of two common clinical interventions on physical and self-report measures in CLBP. Participants were randomized to a 6-month intervention of general strength and conditioning (GSC; n = 20; up to 52 sessions) or motor control exercise plus manual therapy (MCMT; n = 20; up to 12 sessions). Pain intensity was measured at baseline and fortnightly throughout the intervention. Trunk extension and flexion endurance, leg muscle strength and endurance, paraspinal muscle volume, cardio-respiratory fitness and self-report measures of kinesiophobia, disability and quality of life were assessed at baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-up. Pain intensity differed favoring MCMT between-groups at week 14 and 16 of treatment (both, p = 0.003), but not at 6-month follow-up. Both GSC (mean change (95%CI): −10.7 (−18.7, −2.8) mm; p = 0.008) and MCMT (−19.2 (−28.1, −10.3) mm; p < 0.001) had within-group reductions in pain intensity at six months, but did not achieve clinically meaningful thresholds (20mm) within- or between-group. At 6-month follow-up, GSC increased trunk extension (mean difference (95% CI): 81.8 (34.8, 128.8) s; p = 0.004) and flexion endurance (51.5 (20.5, 82.6) s; p = 0.004), as well as leg muscle strength (24.7 (3.4, 46.0) kg; p = 0.001) and endurance (9.1 (1.7, 16.4) reps; p = 0.015) compared to MCMT. GSC reduced disability (−5.7 (−11.2, −0.2) pts; p = 0.041) and kinesiophobia (−6.6 (−9.9, −3.2) pts; p < 0.001) compared to MCMT at 6-month follow-up. Multifidus volume increased within-group for GSC (p = 0.003), but not MCMT or between-groups. No other between-group changes were observed at six months. Overall, GSC improved trunk endurance, leg muscle strength and endurance, self-report disability and kinesiophobia compared to MCMT at six months. These results show that GSC may provide a more diverse range of treatment effects compared to MCMT.

BackgroundLower back pain is a global health issue affecting approximately 80% of people at some stage in their life. The current literature suggests that any exercise is beneficial for reducing back pain. However, as pain is a subjective evaluation and physical deficits are evident in low back pain, using it as the sole outcome measure to evaluate superiority of an exercise protocol for low back pain treatment is insufficient. The overarching goal of the current clinical trial is to implement two common, conservative intervention approaches and examine their impact on deficits in chronic low back pain.Methods/designForty participants, 25–45 years old with chronic (>3 months), non-specific low back pain will be recruited. Participants will be randomised to receive either motor control and manual therapy (n = 20) or general strength and conditioning (n = 20) exercise treatments for 6 months. The motor control/manual therapy group will receive twelve 30-min sessions, ten in the first 3 months (one or two per week) and two in the last 3 months. The general exercise group will attend two 1-hour sessions weekly for 3 months, and one or two a week for the following 3 months. Primary outcome measures are average lumbar spine intervertebral disc T2 relaxation time and changes in thickness of the transversus abdominis muscle on a leg lift using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Secondary outcomes include muscle size and fat content, vertebral body fat content, intervertebral disc morphology and water diffusion measured by MRI, body composition using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, physical function through functional tests, changes in corticospinal excitability and cortical motor representation of the spinal muscles using transcranial magnetic stimulation and self-reported measure of pain symptoms, health and disability. Outcome measures will be conducted at baseline, at the 3-month follow-up and at 6 months at the end of intervention. Pain, depressive symptomology and emotions will be captured fortnightly by questionnaires.DiscussionChronic low back pain is ranked the highest disabling disorder in Australia. The findings of this study will inform clinical practice guidelines to assist with decision-making approaches where outcomes beyond pain are sought for adults with chronic low back pain.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12615001270505. Registered on 20 November 2015.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1913-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Context: Muscle, bone and tendon respond anabolically to mechanical forces.Whether the intervertebral disc (IVD) can benefit from exercise is unclear.Purpose: Examine whether exercise can beneficially affect IVD characteristics. StudyDesign/Setting: Single-blinded 6-month randomised controlled trial (ACTRN12615001270505) in an exercise and physiotherapy clinic.Patient Sample: Forty patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (NSCLBP).Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was lumbar IVD T2-time (MRI). Secondary outcomes included IVD diffusion coefficient and IVD expansion with short-duration lying.Methods: Twenty patients progressively loaded their lumbar IVDs (Exercise) via an exercise program involving progressive upright aerobic and resistance exercises targeting the trunk and major muscle groups and were compared to twenty patients who performed motor control training and manual therapy (Control). Testing occurred at baseline, 3-months and 6-months. Results: Seventeen Exercise and fifteen Control patients completed the interventions.There was no group-by-time differences in T2-time of the entire IVD (Exercise 94.1±10.0ms vs.Control 96.5±9.3ms, p=0.549). Exercise patients had shorter T2-time in the posterior annulus at 6-months (82.7±6.8ms vs. 85.1±8.0ms, p=0.028). Exercise patients showed higher L5/S1 apparent diffusion coefficients and decreased IVD height at 3-months (both p≤0.050). After adjustments for multiple comparisons, differences lost statistical significance. Per-protocol and intent-to-treat analyses yielded similar findings.Conclusions: This trial found that 6-months of exercise did not benefit the IVD of people with NSCLBP. Based on this index study, future studies could investigate the effect of exercise on IVD in different populations, with different type, duration and/or intensity of exercise, and using different IVD markers.