Vibrating Exercise Equipment in Middle-Age and Older Women with Chronic Low Back Pain and Effects on Bioelectrical Activity, Range of Motion and Pain Intensity: A Randomized, Single-Blinded Sham Intervention Study

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Physical activity is often recommended as part of the management of chronic low back pain, which is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders. Vibrating exercise equipment is used despite little scientific evidence to support its effectiveness in the prevention and treatment of musculoskeletal problems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of using vibrating exercise equipment in women with chronic low back pain. Here, 92 women aged 49–80 years were assigned to one of two groups: the experimental and the control group. The intervention consisted of aerobic exercises with specific handheld equipment. Both groups performed physical activity twice weekly for 10 weeks. The erector spinae muscles’ bioelectrical activity, the lumbar range of motion and pain intensity were measured in all participants at baseline and after 10 weeks. Compared with baseline measures, there was a significant decrease in the bioelectrical activity of the erector spinae muscles during flexion movement, rest at maximum flexion, extension movement and rest in a prone position; an increase in the lumbar range of motion and a decrease in pain intensity following a program of physical activity with vibrating exercise equipment. No significant changes were found in intergroup comparisons; however, physical activity with vibrating exercise equipment could be a prospective strategy for increasing lumbar range of motion and decreasing pain and erector spinae muscle activity in people with chronic low back pain. ABSTRACT: Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders. Physical activity (PA) is often recommended as part of the management of CLBP, but to date, no one particular exercise has been shown to be superior. Vibrating exercise equipment (VEE) is widely available and used despite little scientific evidence to support its effectiveness in the prevention and treatment of musculoskeletal problems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of using VEE compared with sham-VEE in women with CLBP. Methods: A randomized (1:1 randomization scheme) single-blinded sham-controlled intervention study was conducted. Through simple randomization, 92 women aged 49–80 years were assigned to one of two groups: VEE (the experimental group) and sham-VEE (the control group). The VEE and sham-VEE intervention consisted of aerobic exercises with specific handheld equipment. Both groups performed physical activity twice weekly for 10 weeks. The erector spinae muscles’ bioelectrical activity (using an eight-channel electromyograph MyoSystem 1400L), lumbar range of motion (Schober’s test) and pain intensity (visual analog scale) were measured in all participants at baseline and after 10 weeks. Results: There was a significant decrease in the bioelectrical activity of the erector spinae muscles during flexion movement (left: Me = 18.2 before; Me = 14.1 after; p = 0.045; right: Me = 15.4 before; Me = 12.6 after; p = 0.010), rest at maximum flexion (left: Me = 18.1 before; Me = 12.5 after; p = 0.038), extension movement (right: Me = 21.8 before; Me = 20.2 after; p = 0.031) and rest in a prone position (right: Me = 3.5 before; Me = 3.2 after; 0.049); an increase in lumbar range of motion (Me = 17.0 before; Me = 18.0 after; p = 0.0017) and a decrease in pain intensity (Me = 4.0 before; Me = 1.0 after; p = 0.001) following a program of PA in the VEE group. Conclusions: No significant changes were found in intergroup comparisons. The beneficial changes regarding decreased subjective pain sensation in the VEE and sham-VEE groups may be due to participation in systematic physical activity. However, PA with vibrating exercise equipment could be a prospective strategy for increasing lumbar range of motion and for decreasing pain and erector spinae muscle activity in people with CLBP.