Cargando…

Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing motor control, isometric, and isotonic trunk training intervention for pain, disability, and re-injury risk reduction in chronic low back pain patients. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases were searche...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sutanto, Dhananjaya, Ho, Robin S. T., Poon, Eric T. C., Yang, Yijian, Wong, Stephen H. S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8910008/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35270557
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052863
_version_ 1784666340249829376
author Sutanto, Dhananjaya
Ho, Robin S. T.
Poon, Eric T. C.
Yang, Yijian
Wong, Stephen H. S.
author_facet Sutanto, Dhananjaya
Ho, Robin S. T.
Poon, Eric T. C.
Yang, Yijian
Wong, Stephen H. S.
author_sort Sutanto, Dhananjaya
collection PubMed
description We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing motor control, isometric, and isotonic trunk training intervention for pain, disability, and re-injury risk reduction in chronic low back pain patients. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception until 25 February 2021 for chronic low back pain intervention based on any trunk training. Outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) for disability, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain, and the Sorensen Test (ST) for future risk of re-injury. Isometric training was superior to the control with a mean difference (MD) = −1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−2.30, −1.01] in pain reduction; MD = −7.94, 95% CI [−10.29, −5.59] in ODI; MD = −3.21, 95% CI [−4.83, −1.60] in RMDQ; and MD = 56.35 s, 95% CI [51.81 s, 60.90 s] in ST. Motor control was superior to the control with a MD = −2.44, 95% CI [−3.10, −1.79] in NPRS; MD = −8.32, 95% CI [−13.43, −3.22] in ODI; and MD = −3.58, 95% CI [−5.13, −2.03] in RMDQ. Isometric and motor control methods can effectively reduce pain and disability, with the isometric method reducing re-injury risk.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8910008
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89100082022-03-11 Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis Sutanto, Dhananjaya Ho, Robin S. T. Poon, Eric T. C. Yang, Yijian Wong, Stephen H. S. Int J Environ Res Public Health Review We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing motor control, isometric, and isotonic trunk training intervention for pain, disability, and re-injury risk reduction in chronic low back pain patients. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception until 25 February 2021 for chronic low back pain intervention based on any trunk training. Outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) for disability, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain, and the Sorensen Test (ST) for future risk of re-injury. Isometric training was superior to the control with a mean difference (MD) = −1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−2.30, −1.01] in pain reduction; MD = −7.94, 95% CI [−10.29, −5.59] in ODI; MD = −3.21, 95% CI [−4.83, −1.60] in RMDQ; and MD = 56.35 s, 95% CI [51.81 s, 60.90 s] in ST. Motor control was superior to the control with a MD = −2.44, 95% CI [−3.10, −1.79] in NPRS; MD = −8.32, 95% CI [−13.43, −3.22] in ODI; and MD = −3.58, 95% CI [−5.13, −2.03] in RMDQ. Isometric and motor control methods can effectively reduce pain and disability, with the isometric method reducing re-injury risk. MDPI 2022-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8910008/ /pubmed/35270557 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052863 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Sutanto, Dhananjaya
Ho, Robin S. T.
Poon, Eric T. C.
Yang, Yijian
Wong, Stephen H. S.
Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis
title Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis
title_full Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis
title_short Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis
title_sort effects of different trunk training methods for chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8910008/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35270557
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052863
work_keys_str_mv AT sutantodhananjaya effectsofdifferenttrunktrainingmethodsforchroniclowbackpainametaanalysis
AT horobinst effectsofdifferenttrunktrainingmethodsforchroniclowbackpainametaanalysis
AT poonerictc effectsofdifferenttrunktrainingmethodsforchroniclowbackpainametaanalysis
AT yangyijian effectsofdifferenttrunktrainingmethodsforchroniclowbackpainametaanalysis
AT wongstephenhs effectsofdifferenttrunktrainingmethodsforchroniclowbackpainametaanalysis