PMID- 36120765
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20230328
LR  - 20230328
IS  - 1878-6324 (Electronic)
IS  - 1053-8127 (Linking)
VI  - 36
IP  - 2
DP  - 2023
TI  - The short-term effects of instrument-based mobilization compared with manual 
      mobilization for low back pain: A randomized clinical trial.
PG  - 407-418
LID - 10.3233/BMR-220042 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND: Despite being used as a manipulation technique, no studies have 
      examined the effectiveness of physiotherapy instrument mobilization (PIM) as a 
      mobilization technique on pain and functional status in patients with low back 
      pain (LBP). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of PIM in patients with 
      LBP and to compare it with the effectiveness of manual mobilization. METHODS: 
      This is a double blind, randomized clinical trial. Thirty-two participants with 
      LBP were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The PIM group received lumbar 
      mobilization using an activator instrument, stabilization exercises, and 
      education; and the manual group received lumbar mobilization using a pisiform 
      grip, stabilization exercises, and education. Both groups had a total of 4 
      treatment sessions over 2-3 weeks. The following outcomes were measured before 
      the intervention, and after the first and fourth sessions: Numeric Pain Rating 
      Scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scale, Pressure pain threshold 
      (PPT), lumbar spine range of motion (ROM), and lumbar multifidus muscle 
      activation. RESULTS: There were no differences between the PIM group and the 
      manual group in any outcome measures. However, over the period of study, there 
      were improvements in both groups in NPRS (PIM: 3.23, Manual: 3.64 points), ODI 
      (PIM: 17.34%, Manual: 14.23%), PPT (PIM: ⩽ 1.25, Manual: ⩽ 0.85 kg.cm2), lumbar 
      spine ROM (PIM: ⩽ 9.49 composite function, Manual: ⩽ 0.88 composite function), and/or lumbar multifidus muscle 
      activation (percentage thickness change: PIM: ⩽ 4.71, Manual: ⩽ 4.74 cm; 
      activation ratio: PIM: ⩽ 1.17, Manual: ⩽ 1.15 cm). CONCLUSIONS: Both methods of 
      lumbar spine mobilization demonstrated comparable improvements in pain and 
      disability in patients with LBP, with neither method exhibiting superiority over 
      the other.
FAU - Alshami, Ali M
AU  - Alshami AM
AD  - Department of Physical Therapy, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam 
      Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
FAU - Alqassab, Fadhila H
AU  - Alqassab FH
AD  - Department of Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation Center, Qatif Central Hospital, 
      Qatif, Saudi Arabia.
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Randomized Controlled Trial
PL  - Netherlands
TA  - J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil
JT  - Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation
JID - 9201340
SB  - IM
MH  - Humans
MH  - *Low Back Pain/therapy
MH  - *Manipulation, Spinal/methods
MH  - Exercise Therapy/methods
MH  - Lumbosacral Region
MH  - Exercise
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - Activator
OT  - lumbar spine
OT  - manual therapy
OT  - physical therapy
EDAT- 2022/09/20 06:00
MHDA- 2023/03/28 17:03
CRDT- 2022/09/19 04:48
PHST- 2023/03/28 17:03 [medline]
PHST- 2022/09/20 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2022/09/19 04:48 [entrez]
AID - BMR220042 [pii]
AID - 10.3233/BMR-220042 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2023;36(2):407-418. doi: 10.3233/BMR-220042.