Is spinal mobilization effective for low back pain?: A systematic review

Aoyagi, Kosaku; Heller, David J.; Hazlewood, David; Sharma, Neena; M, Dos Santos

doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2018.11.003

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[14] Previous studies on the effect of MM on ROM have been controversial. [9] The results of MM treatment did not show significant effects on ROM in this study that are consistent with those of Allison and Goodsell. [33,34] These results are in contrast to those of Lee and Ali.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The findings that FSM and MM treatments significantly improved subjective symptoms in CNLBP patients are in agreement with previous studies that mobilization can decrease pain, increase function. [9] In addition, we added the psychological evaluation based on the PHQ-9 questionnaire, our results proved the efficacy of the FSM treatment for CNLBP patients both in physiological and psychological states.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…[8] In recent guidelines and reviews, evidence has confirmed mobilizations as an effective treatment and has had a positive effect. [9] Notably, all manual techniques have more pronounced neurophysiological and less mechanical effects than previously thought. [10] In fact, mobilization techniques can promote sympathoexcitation, decrease mechanical hypoalgesia, and normalize muscle activity via the central pathway.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Feng spinal mobilization with Maitland mobilization in management of chronic nonspecific low back pain: A cohort study

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feng spinal mobilization (FSM) is one of the most widely practiced techniques in traditional Chinese osteopathy, especially in China. However, whether this FSM technique is more effective than the Maitland posteroanterior mobilization (MM), which is widely used all over the world, is still unknown. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively analyze and compare the efficacy of these 2 treatments in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) as to provide a basis for the clinical treatment of chronic low back pain. A total of 83 patients, including 43 patients in the FSM group and 40 in the MM group, were enrolled in this cohort study. FSM or MM was performed on patients 3 times during a period of 2 weeks. Changes in the subjective and objective measurements were measured before and after the third treatment. The subjective symptoms recorded included the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9. The objective symptoms, including the lumbar range of motion (ROM), and straight leg raise (SLR) height were also checked for any changes. The VAS scores were reassessed at the 1-year follow-up visit. The results showed that 2 weeks of FSM treatment significantly improved CNLBP patients modified Schober test (P < .05), extension ROM (P < .01), and SLR height (P < .05) while MM treatment did not. Both treatments significantly decreased the values of VAS, Oswestry disability index, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (P < .01). Compared to the MM treatment, the FSM treatment showed a much more significant improvement in VAS score (P < .01), range of motion of extension (P < .01), and SLR of both sides (P < .05). At the 1-year follow-up, VAS scores in both groups decreased significantly compared to pretreatments; however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. Our data suggested that the FSM treatment can provide better efficacy than MM in CNLBP patients, improving the VAS scores, lumbar extension ROM, and SLR height in a shorter time. Abbreviations: CNLBP = chronic nonspecific low back pain, FSM = Feng spinal mobilization, LDH = lumbar disc herniation, MM = Maitland posteroanterior mobilization, mSchober test = modified Schober test, ODI = Oswestry disability index, PHQ-9 = Patient Health Questionnaire-9, ROM = lumbar range of motion, SLR = straight leg raise, VAS = visual analogue pain scale.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Feng spinal mobilization with Maitland mobilization in management of chronic nonspecific low back pain: A cohort study

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Low back pain is one of the most prevalent orthopedic conditions, affecting about 70% to 80% of the world's population at least once in their lifetimes. 8,9 Among those who experience low back pain, 10% to 40% of individuals develop CLBP, 10 resulting in absenteeism from work and limitations on professional performance 11 and daily activities. However, despite various studies on the subject, the precise relationship between the level of muscle activity and NSLBP remains unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Pilates Exercises on Muscle Electrical Activation in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

Romão¹,

Mercê²,

Cordeiro³

et al. 2022

Coluna/Columna

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low back pain is one of the most prevalent orthopedic conditions, affecting around 70% to 80% of the world’s population at least once during their life times. Surface electromyography is an important tool for assessing the muscle function of the lumbar stabilizers. One of the best treatment options for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) is physical exercise, particular lyaerobic exercise and Pilates, as these can reduce short-term pain and disability, and improve balance. This review aims to identify the state of art regarding the benefits of pilates on the population with CLBP, evaluating changes in the muscular activation of the muscles of the lumbar region. Searches were conducted on the following databases: PubMed (Medline), Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Ebsco and Scielo; including gray literature: Google Scholar, Grey Literature, Pro Quest Dissertations & Theses. The inclusion criteria were adults with low back pain for three months or more, with or without referred pain in the lower limbs; studies that used electromyographic variables; studies with a pain assessment measure at two different times; studies with physical exercise performed only using the Pilates method. Applying these criteria, the searches retrieved 439 abstracts. Of these, 44 articles were evaluated for eligibility, and three fulfilled the qualitative and quantitative synthesis criteria. The average methodological quality score on the Downs and Black checklist was 15 out of 28. It was therefore concluded that Pilates is an excellent option for the treatment of non-specific low back pain, promoting health and helping prevent low back pain among asymptomatic individuals. Level of evidence II; Systematic Review of Level II or Level I Studies with Discrepant Results.

show abstract

“…Another type of intervention based on the guideline, as a part of the treatment for LBP, is mobilization [6] which is a passive, low-speed, low-intensity, and non-thrust movement that occurs within or at the limit of the joint ROM [16] which can improve pain intensity, function and ROM [17]. The mechanism of mobilization is through neurophysiological changes [18] and it also affects joint mechanics [19], but there is still much debate about its effectiveness compared to other treatments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of dry needling compared to lumbar spine mobilization on pain, functional disability, quadratus lumborum and lumbar multifidus function, lumbar range of motion and pain pressure threshold in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Mirzaie¹,

Pourahmadi

Ayoubpour³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a socioeconomic burden worldwide and a major contributor to health-care costs. Mobilization and dry needling (DN) are well-known treatments for LBP. Just one study has compared these two treatments with each other which has some limitations, therefore the purpose of this study is to compare them to each other. Methods and study design: The study is a two-arm randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial comparing DN to lumbar spine mobilization in individuals (n=56; 18–45 years of age) with chronic non-specific LBP (CNLBP). The experimental group will receive DN plus sham mobilization and the control group will receive Maitland’s anterior-posterior mobilization plus sham DN. Both groups will receive exercise and low-power laser. The primary outcomes are pain and functional disability, and the secondary outcomes are lumbar multifidus and quadratus lumborum function, lumbar range of motion, pain pressure threshold, DN side effects, and patient adherence to treatment. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed at baseline and 3 to 7 days after the final treatment session. Recruitment will begin immediately after acceptance of the protocol and it will take 5 to 6 months to complete the study. Discussion: In this study, we intend to solve the methodological problems of the previous study in this field. The results of this study allow the therapist to choose an intervention that has more therapeutic effects in combination with routine physiotherapy in the treatment of patients with CNLBP. Trial registration: 1) ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT05214456. 2) IRCT.ir registration number: IRCT20210706051802N1.

show abstract

Is spinal mobilization effective for low back pain?: A systematic review

Cited by 10 publications

References 63 publications

Comparison of Feng spinal mobilization with Maitland mobilization in management of chronic nonspecific low back pain: A cohort study

Comparison of Feng spinal mobilization with Maitland mobilization in management of chronic nonspecific low back pain: A cohort study

The Effect of Pilates Exercises on Muscle Electrical Activation in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

The effect of dry needling compared to lumbar spine mobilization on pain, functional disability, quadratus lumborum and lumbar multifidus function, lumbar range of motion and pain pressure threshold in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About