A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Extensible and Inextensible Lumbosacral Orthoses and Standard Care Alone in the Management of Lower Back Pain

被引:28
作者
Morrisette, David C. [1 ]
Cholewicki, Jacek [2 ]
Logan, Sarah [3 ]
Seif, Gretchen [4 ]
McGowan, Stephanie [5 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ S Carolina, Coll Hlth Profess, Div Phys Therapy, Charleston, SC 29452 USA
[2] Michigan State Univ, Coll Osteopath Med, Ctr Orthoped Res, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
[3] Med Univ S Carolina, Family Serv Res Ctr, Charleston, SC 29452 USA
[4] Med Univ S Carolina, Coll Hlth Profess, Div Phys Therapy, Charleston, SC 29452 USA
[5] Med Univ S Carolina, Hosp Author, Dept Phys Therapy, Charleston, SC 29452 USA
关键词
back pain; low back pain; randomized clinical trial; brace; lumbar belt; rehabilitation; back supports; lumbar supports; recurrent low back pain; POSTEROANTERIOR SPINAL STIFFNESS; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; PHYSICAL-THERAPY; POSTURAL CONTROL; LUMBAR ORTHOSIS; ABDOMINAL BELT; MANIPULATION; MOTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; STABILITY;
D O I
10.1097/BRS.0000000000000521
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design. Single blinded, randomized clinical trial for the evaluation of lumbosacral orthoses (LSOs) in the management of lower back pain (LBP). Objective. To evaluate the effects of two types of LSOs on self-rated disability in patients with LBP. Summary of Background Data. LSOs are commonly used for the management of LBP, but their effectiveness may vary because of design. An inextensible LSO (iLSO) reduces trunk motion and increases trunk stiffness, whereas an extensible LSO (eLSO) does not. Methods. A total of 98 participants with LBP were randomized to 3 groups: (1) standard care (SC) group, which included medication and physical therapy (n = 29), (2) SC with eLSO (eLSO group) (n = 32), and (3) SC with iLSO (iLSO group) (n = 37). Outcome measures were evaluated before and after 2 weeks of treatment: modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Patient Specific Activity Scale, pain ratings, and Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. Results. There were no statistically significant differences between groups at baseline. Compared with the SC alone, iLSO group showed greater improvement on the ODI scores (P = 0.01) but not the eLSO group. The ODI scores improved by a mean of 2.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-7.1), 8.1 (95% CI, 2.8-13.4), and 14.0 (95% CI, 8.2-19.8) points for SC, eLSO, and iLSO groups, respectively. Individuals wearing the iLSO had 4.7 times higher odds of achieving 50% or greater improvement in the ODI scores than those assigned to SC (95% CI, 1.2-18.5, P = 0.03). Both the eLSO and iLSO groups had a greater improvement in the Patient Specifi c Activity Scale scores than the SC group (P = .05 and P = 0.01, respectively), but the change did not meet the minimal clinically important difference. Pain ratings improved for all 3 groups, with no statistical difference between them. Finally, no significant differences across groups were found for the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. Conclusion. An iLSO led to greater improvement in ODI scores than SC and an eLSO. We surmise that the likely mechanism responsible for this difference in outcome was the added trunk stiffness and motion restriction by the iLSO.
引用
收藏
页码:1733 / 1742
页数:10
相关论文
共 57 条
  • [1] Lumbar segmental mobility disorders: comparison of two methods of defining abnormal displacement kinematics in a cohort of patients with non-specific mechanical low back pain
    Abbott, J. Haxby
    Fritz, Julie M.
    McCane, Brendan
    Shultz, Barry
    Herbison, Peter
    Lyons, Brett
    Stefanko, Georgia
    Walsh, Richard M.
    [J]. BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2006, 7 (1)
  • [2] Alastair Gibson J, 2002, Journal of Orthopaedic Medicine, V24, P86
  • [3] EFFECT OF LUMBAR ORTHOSIS ON INTERVERTEBRAL MOBILITY - A ROENTGEN STEREOPHOTOGRAMMETRIC ANALYSIS
    AXELSSON, P
    JOHNSSON, R
    STROMQVIST, B
    [J]. SPINE, 1992, 17 (06) : 678 - 681
  • [4] Effectiveness of a Lumbar Belt in Subacute Low Back Pain An Open, Multicentric, and Randomized Clinical Study
    Calmels, Paul
    Queneau, Patrice
    Hamonet, Claude
    Le Pen, Claude
    Maurel, Frederique
    Lerouvreur, Claire
    Thoumie, Philippe
    [J]. SPINE, 2009, 34 (03) : 215 - 220
  • [5] Dynamic changes of elasticity, cross-sectional area, and fat infiltration of multifidus at different postures in men with chronic low back pain
    Chan, Suk-Tak
    Fung, Po-Kwan
    Ng, Nim-Yu
    Ngan, Tsz-Lung
    Chong, Man-Yan
    Tang, Chi-Ngong
    He, Jun-Feng
    Zheng, Yong-Ping
    [J]. SPINE JOURNAL, 2012, 12 (05) : 381 - 388
  • [6] The effects of a 3-week use of lumbosacral orthoses on proprioception in the lumbar spine
    Cholewicki, J
    Shah, KR
    McGill, KC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC & SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPY, 2006, 36 (04) : 225 - 231
  • [7] Lumbar spine stability can be augmented with an abdominal belt and/or increased intra-abdominal pressure
    Cholewicki, J
    Juluru, K
    Radebold, A
    Panjabi, MM
    McGill, SM
    [J]. EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 1999, 8 (05) : 388 - 395
  • [8] The effects of lumbosacral orthoses on spine stability: What changes in EMG can be expected?
    Cholewicki, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH, 2004, 22 (05) : 1150 - 1155
  • [9] Lumbosacral orthoses reduce trunk muscle activity in a postural control task
    Cholewicki, Jacek
    Reeves, N. Peter
    Everding, Vanessa Q.
    Morrisette, David C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 2007, 40 (08) : 1731 - 1736
  • [10] Comparison of trunk stiffness provided by different design characteristics of lumbosacral orthoses
    Cholewicki, Jacek
    Lee, Angela S.
    Reeves, N. Peter
    Morrisette, David C.
    [J]. CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS, 2010, 25 (02) : 110 - 114