Lumbar motion changes in chronic low back pain patients: A secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial

Rune M. Mieritz, Jan Hartvigsen, Eleanor Boyle, Markus D. Jakobsen, Per Aagaard, Gert Bronfort

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Several therapies have been used in the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP), including various exercise strategies and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). A common belief is that spinal motion changes in particular ways in direct response to specific interventions, such as exercise or spinal manipulation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess changes in lumbar region motion for more than 12 weeks by evaluating four motion parameters in the sagittal plane and two in the horizontal plane in LBP patients treated with either exercise therapy or spinal manipulation. Study design/setting Secondary analysis of a subset of participants from a randomized clinical trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred ninety-nine study participants with LBP of more than 6 weeks' duration who had spinal motion measures obtained before and after the period of intervention.

OUTCOME MEASURES: Lumbar region spinal kinematics sampled using a six-degree-of-freedom instrumented spatial linkage system.

METHODS: Trained therapists collected regional lumbar spinal motion data at baseline and 12 weeks of follow-up. The lumbar region spinal motion data were analyzed as a total cohort and relative to treatment modality (high dose, supervised low-tech trunk exercise, SMT, and a short course of home exercise and self-care advice). The study was supported by grants from Health Resources and Services Administration, Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation, Danish Chiropractors Research Foundation, and the University of Southern Denmark. No conflicts of interest reported.

RESULTS: For the cohort as a whole, lumbar region motion parameters were altered over the 12-week period, except for the jerk index parameter. The group receiving spinal manipulation changed significantly in all, and the exercise groups in half, the motion parameters included in the analysis. The spinal manipulation group changed to a smoother motion pattern (reduced jerk index), whereas the exercise groups did not.

CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that spinal motion changes can occur in chronic LBP patients over a 12-week period and that these changes are associated with the type of treatment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2618-2627
Number of pages10
JournalSpine Journal
Volume14
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Author disclosures: RMM: Grant: Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation, Danish Chiropractors Research Foundation, and the University of Southern Denmark (F, Paid directly to institution). JH: Board Membership: Editorial board work for BioMedCentral (Exact amount unknown–33% discount received on scientific open access publications, Paid directly to institution); Consultancy: Norwegian government expert group on chiropractic (B, Paid directly to institution) Grants/grants pending: various research grants from national and international sources (G, Paid directly to institution); Payment for lectures including service on speakers bureaus: Occasional lectures for various organizations (B, Paid directly to institution); Royalties: Library royalties for book chapters (A). EB: Nothing to disclose. MDJ: Consulting fee or honorarium: SpinalMotion 1.0 data analysis software (B). PA: Nothing to disclose. GB: Grant: Federal funding source: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) (F, Paid directly to institution).

Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords

  • Biomechanics
  • Exercise
  • Low back pain
  • Manipulation
  • Measurement
  • Motion analysis
  • Nonsurgical
  • Spine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Lumbar motion changes in chronic low back pain patients: A secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this