ISSN 0120—5552 eISSN 2011—7531 Vol. 34, N° 2, 2018 Fecha de recepción: 12 de julio de 2017 Fecha de aceptación: 3 de octubre de 2017 DOI:

artículo original / original article

Marco Antonio Morales Osorio¹, Sergio Alejandro Kock Shulz², Johana Milena Mejia Mejia³, Heberto Suarez—Roca⁴

¹Fisioterapeuta. Magister en Terapia Manual Ortopédica. Universidad de San Buenaventura Cartagena. Grupo de Investigación Movimiento Humano y Salud (GIMHUS). http://orcid.org/0000—0001—5227—7755

²Kinesiólogo. Centro de Rehabilitación Kinex — Santiago Chile.

³Médico, Especialista en Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo.

⁴Médico. Duke University Medical Center, Center for Translational Pain Medicine, Dept. of Anesthesiology, Durham, NC 27210, USA https://orcid.org/0000—0002—6448—1064

Correspondence: Calle Real de Ternera No. 30—966 — PBX 653 5555 — 653 5530 — Fax 653 9590. mmoraleso@usbctg.edu.co

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the impact of two therapeutic interventions in patients with non—specific low back pain.

Materials and methods: Prospective study, in which in 20 subjects from both genders assigned through consecutive sampling of the two interventions: Group 1: 10 sessions of conventional physiotherapy treatment (CPT) (Ultrasound, TENS: Transcutaneous Electrical Nervous Stimulation y HWC: Hot Wet Compresses) and Group 2: 10 sessions of Motor Control Exercises (MCE). A numerical Pain Scale (NPS) was applied before and after each intervention.

Results: In the first group, it was found a 20% decrease the pain scores after 10 sessions compared with the baseline measurements (before the intervention) (p=0.03). Similarly, in the second group, pain score dimished 42% respect to baseline values at the end of the 10 therapeutic sessions (p = 0.03). When comparing the two interventions, the MCE were more effective than the CPT, even from the first treatment session (p <0.05).

Discussion: a significant reduction of pain was found in both groups, although this reduction was significantly in the group treated with MCE.

Keywords: Physical Therapy Specialty, Low Back Pain, Exercise Movement Techniques, Exercise Therapy.

Resumen

Objetivo: Evaluar el impacto de dos intervenciones terapéuticas en pacientes con dolor lumbar inespecífico.

Materiales y métodos: Estudio prospectivo, en 20 sujetos de ambos sexos asignados a través de muestreo consecutivo a una de las dos intervenciones: Grupo 1: 10 sesiones de tratamiento de fisioterapia convencional (TFC) (Ultrasonido TENS: eléctrica transcutánea nerviosa Estimulación y CHC: Compresa húmedo—calientes) y Grupo 2: 10 sesiones de ejercicios de control motor (ECM). Se aplicó la Escala numérica del dolor (NPS) antes y después de cada intervención.

Resultados: en el primer grupo, se encontró una disminución del 20% de las puntuaciones de dolor después de 10 sesiones en comparación con las mediciones de referencia (antes de la intervención) (p = 0,03). De forma similar, en el segundo grupo, la puntuación del dolor disminuyó un 42% con respecto a los valores basales al final de las 10 sesiones terapéuticas (p = 0,03). Al comparar las dos intervenciones, los ECM fueron más efectivos que el TFC, incluso desde la primera sesión de tratamiento (p <0.05).

Discusión: se encontró una reducción significativa del dolor en ambos grupos, aunque esta reducción fue significativamente en el grupo tratado con ECM.

Palabras clave: Fisioterapia, Dolor lumbar, Técnicas de Ejercicio con Movimientos, Ejercicio terapéutico.

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is the most common musculoskeletal condition that affects the adult population, with a prevalence of up to 84% (1). It is one of the most common conditions that motivate individuals to seek medical attention. Low back pain is associated with loss of work productivity, poor quality of life and high medical expenses, and it is a substantial economic burden for society. (2—4). Low back pain is one of the main causes of work absence causing a considerable cost in societies (5), being the main cause of disability and loss of work in industrialized countries (6). According to the Global Burden of Disease Study, lower back pain ranks first among the leading causes of disability worldwide (7). Lumbar pain is defined as pain between the 12th rib and the lower gluteal fold with or without pain radiating to the leg. Chronic low back pain is usually defined by symptoms that persist for a period of more than 3 months (12 weeks). However, there is no precise definition of this pain in the literature (8).

Current evidence does not provide guidance in selecting an appropriate treatment approach or when specific treatments are warranted. There is no clarity about the best treatments, while many treatments are expensive and of unclear efficacy (9). The poor control of the pattern of activation of the deep muscles and an alteration of the trunk musculature, stability and control of altered vertebral column have been proposed as factors that contribute to the appearance of low back pain and its persistence (10—12). Therefore, treatment protocols that address the control and coordination of the lumbar muscles are believed to be effective in the treatment of Non—specific Lumbar Pain (NLBP) (13).

However, it is important to consider that the pain is produced by the brain after a person's neural signature has been activated and it concluded that the body is in danger and that action is required (40, 41), that is why that new clinical trials for the treatment of low back pain emphasize non—pharmacological approaches and indicates that drug treatments should be used only when other methods are unsuccessful. The American Medical School recommends treatments that include superficial heat, massage, acupuncture and manual manipulation (14). On the other hand, the prescription of bed rest, which in some cases may be excessive, has been also recommended, the use of therapies with non—ionizing physical modalities (thermal, electromagnetic and mechanical) (15), until surgical interventions, using techniques of advanced image, which as a whole produce high costs for health systems (16), even the direct and indirect costs derived from this musculoskeletal disease exceed those of highly prevalent diseases such as coronary heart disease (17).

For this reason, the objective of this work was to evaluate the impact of two therapeutic interventions in adults with nonspecific lumbar pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective intervention study was carried out before and after the test. Twenty subjects of both genders who presented the medical diagnosis of non—specific lumbar pain were taken by consecutive sampling, by the specialist in orthopedic and traumatology deriving from a Pain and Spine Center of Cartagena, in the period between June and December of 2016.

Minors, pregnant women and those people with difficulties in understanding the language were excluded, people that had previously performed the therapy.

The written informed consent of each participant was obtained and the research committee approved all the study procedures, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and current Colombian legal regulations. (Resolution 008430 of 1993 of the Ministry of Health).

The participants were randomly assigned to one of the two interventions of the study: Group 1:10 sessions of conventional physiotherapy treatment (CPT) and Group 2: 10 sessions of Motor Control Exercises (MCE). The Numeric Pain Scale (NPS) was applied before and after each intervention.

Through the Shapiro Wilk test, the hypothesis of normal distribution of the data was rejected. An analysis of Mann Whitney U test and rank test with Wilcoxon sign, served to estimate the differences between and intra groups, respectively. The data was tabulated and analyzed in the SPSS V.23 software for Windows.

Clinical and pain assessment

The following data was obtained from each patient: family and personal history; basic anthropometric measurement (weight and height) using standardized technique. The numerical scale of pain (NSP) was introduced by Downie in 1978 (18) and it is one of the most used scales. The patient must assign to his pain a numeric value between two extreme points (0 = Absence of Pain, 10 = Pain of Maximum Intensity). For the application of the scale, patients needed to be able to verbally list the number that defined their level of back pain (19, 20).

Interventions

1.— Conventional physiotherapy treatment (CPT)

Ultrasound (US) Continuous (Ultramax —CEC ®) of 1 MHz — 2 W / cm2 was applied for 15 minutes. After this, Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), Interferential (Combi 8 Max—Electro Stimulator —CEC ®) 4.000 Hz — 250 ps, for 20 minutes; then, finish with 15 minutes of Wet / Hot Compresses (HWC) (Chattanooga Hydrocollator— HotPac ®) at 60 degrees Celsius.

It is considered that ultrasound (US) can increase local metabolism and blood circulation, improve connective tissue flexibility, and accelerate tissue regeneration, which could reduce pain and stiffness in NLP, while improving mobility (21.22).

The first evidence—based guidelines for the treatment of low back pain did not recommend the use of US in the NLP. However, ultrasound is commonly used in routine clinical practice for musculoskeletal problems, such as back pain (23). Approximately 50% of physiotherapists in the United Kingdom, 65% of physiotherapists in the United States, and 94% of Canadian physiotherapists use the US in their daily practice. In the United States, 55% of primary care physicians recommend US as a form of treatment (24).

Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) is a non—invasive therapeutic modality that was implemented more than 30 years ago, together with existing physical agents used in medicine and physiotherapy for the treatment of low back pain. The TENS units stimulate the peripheral nerves by electrodes placed on the surface of the skin; they have well—tolerated intensities and can be self—administered (2527). For the management of NLP, the CTP, consisted in the use of physical non—ionizing modalities, such as: US and TENS, Wet / Warm compresses (HWC), with the parameters described in table 1, recommended by the medical literature and in rehabilitation (28).

2.— Motor Control Exercises (MCE)

A protocol of motor control exercises was carried out taking into consideration the guidelines and fundamentals described by Carolyn Richardson, Paul Hodges, Julie Hides (29, 30) for the activation of the lumbar stabilizing muscles. These exercises were prescribed in a progressive manner and named as follows: Spinal Swing, Abdominal Sink, Palms Down, Elbows Down. Palms down Leg extended, Disturbances.

The etiology of NLBP is complex, and the causes are not clearly known. Research indicates that weakness and loss of motor control of the deep muscles of the trunk, such as deep lumbar (DL) and transverse abdomen (TrA) multiplicity is common in subjects with NLBP (29). Hodges et al., (30) and Ferreira et al., (31) demonstrated that individuals with NLBP are more likely to have a delay in recruitment and insufficient control of TrA.

The MCE performed in patients pretends to maintain postural control in their activities of daily living. At the beginning the exercises are directed to the isometric postural stabilization in a determined area, to progress towards the control of postures, movements of the trunk and extremities in daily activities (32), as described in Table 2 and shown in Fig. 1, 2 and 3.

RESULTS

The average age of the participants was 41.8 ± 12.8. In general terms, there were not between—group differences regarding baseline anthropometric variables and the pain scores (Table 3).

Yet, in the first group (n = 10; 7 women and 3 men), a decrease in pain was found after 10 sessions of treatment (20% decrease, compared with the baseline, p = 0.03) (Table 4).

A similar change was found in the second group (n = 10, 4 women and 6 men), the participants presented significant changes in pain (42% decrease), at the end of the 10 sessions of treatment, compared to the baseline, p = 0.003 (Table 4).

When comparing the two interventions, conventional physiotherapy treatment (CPT) manages to significantly reduce pain according to NPS. However, the Motor Control Exercises (MCE) were more effective, even from the first treatment session, p <0.05 (Table 5).

DISCUSSION

The study executed by Cairns et al., 2006 (33) showed that specific spinal stabilization does not provide additional benefits in terms of physical function, pain, psychological distress and quality of life compared to the conventional physiotherapy group in patients with recurrent LBP and in patients with LBP. Although both groups had clinically significant improvements in function and pain reduction, there were no statistically significant differences between groups. Even so, in general there were a greater percentage of improvements in the group that received conventional physiotherapy than in the specific stabilization group with fewer treatment sessions and in a shorter period of time, even if it was not statistically significant.

In our case, the results of the NPS in the first group showed a significant improvement after 10 sessions of treatment (20% decreases). Our findings coincide with the reports of Durmus et al., in 2010 (34) and Ebadi et al., in 2012 (35), who found a significant reduction of low back pain in the groups that received treatment with electrotherapy and US more than in a program of supervised exercises, respectively. However, the efficacy of these therapeutic modalities in musculoskeletal conditions remains controversial (36). On the other hand, in the second group, treatment with MCE significantly reduced pain in the study population (42% decreases). Data that coincide, with the reports of experimental studies and well designed clinical trials, which have recently demonstrated the usefulness and effectiveness of treatment with MCE in subjects with low back pain (37,38), achieving changes in the timing of activation and loss of co—contraction and feed—forward mechanisms (3).

In conclusion, it was found in this study that the greatest NLBP reduction occurred in the group of subjects treated with MCE. For its part, we believe it is important to point out that NLBP is not as closely associated with the spinal load and vertebral pathology as previously thought. Rather, chronic low back pain is associated with a complex combination of physical, psychological, lifestyle, cognitive factors, social factors and neuro—physiological factors (changes in the peripheral and central nervous system).

This study shows the same trend as in other studies on MCE in pain reduction, in which they have shown significant changes, so future studies with larger samples and other types of studies are recommended, in order to offer greater evidence about the effectiveness of physiotherapy in the NLBP.

Financing and Conflict interests.

The authors declare no conflict of interest or funding for the study.

REFERENCES

• 6.  Murray CJ, Vos T, Lozano R, Naghavi M, Flaxman AD, Michaud C, et al. Disability—adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990—2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet 2012;380:2197—223.

• 7.  Itz C. Geurts J. Kleef M, Nelemans P. Clinical course of non—specific low back pain: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies set in primary care. Eur J Pain. 2013;17(1):5—15 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1532—2149.2012.00170.x.

• 8.  Pourahmadi MR, Ebrahimi Takamjani I, Jaberzadeh S, Sarrafzadeh J, Sanjari MA, Mohsenifar H, Bagheri R, Taghipour M. The Effect of Core Stabilization Exercise on the Kinematics and Joint Coordination of the Lumbar Spine and Hip During Sit—to—Stand and Stand—to—Sit in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain (COSCIOUS): Study Protocol for a Randomized DoubleBlind Controlled Trial JMIR Res Protoc 2017;6(6):e109 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/resprot.7378

• 9.  Haldeman S, Dagenais S. What have we learned about the evidence—informed management of chronic low back pain?. Spine Journal 2008;8(1):266—77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.026

• 10. Macedo LG, Maher CG, Latimer J, McAuley JH. Motor control exercise for persistent, nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2009;89(1):9—25 http:// dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080103.

• 11. Ghamkhar L, Kahlaee AH. Trunk muscles activation pattern during walking in subjects with and without chronic low back pain: a systematic review. PM R. 2015 May;7(5):519—26 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.01.013.

• 12. Macedo LG, Latimer J, Maher CG, Hodges PW, Nicholas M, Tonkin L, McAuley JH, Stafford R. Motor control or graded activity exercises for chronic low back pain? A randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoske—let Disord. 2008 May 5;9:65 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471—2474—9—65.

• 13. Abenhaim L, Rossignol M, Valat J—P, Nordin M, Avouac B, Blotman F, et al. The role of activity in the therapeutic management of back pain. Report of the International Paris Task Force on Back Pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000: 15;25(4 Suppl):1S—33S.

• 14. Stockwell S. New Clinical Guideline for Low Back Pain Says Try Nondrug Therapies First. Am J Nurs. 2017 May;117(5):16 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000516263.01592.38.

• 15. Liebenson C, Hooper PD. Back school. Manual de rehabilitación de la columna vertebral. Barcelona: Ed. Paidotribo; 2000.

• 16. Maetzel A, Li L. The economic burden of low back pain: a review of studies published between 1996 and 2001. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2002; 16:23—30.

• 17. Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA. Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis 1979; 37: 378—81.

• 18. Cleland JA, Childs JD, Whitman JM. Psychometric properties of the Neck Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with mechanical neck pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 ;89(1):69—74 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.08.126.

• 19. Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Ca—raceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, Fainsinger R, Aass N, Kaasa S, European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC). Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011;41(6):1073—93 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016.

• 20. Maxwell L. Therapeutic ultrasound: its effects on the cellular and molecular mechanisms of inflammation and repair Physiotherapy 1992; 78: 421—26 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0031—9406(10)61528—3

• 21. Sweitzer R.W. Ultrasound. B. Hecox, J. Weisberg, M. Tsega (Eds.), Physical agents, Appleton and Lange, CT (1994), pp. 163—192

• 22. Chou R, Huffman L.H, American Pain Society, American College of Physicians Nonphar—macologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline Ann Intern Med 2007; 147: 492—504

• 23. Roebroeck M.E, Dekker J, Oostendorp RA. The use of therapeutic ultrasound by physical therapists in Dutch primary health care Phys Ther 1998; 78: 470—78.

• 24. Lindsay DM, Dearness J, McGinley CC. Electrotherapy usage trends in private physiotherapy practice in Alberta. Physiother Can 1995; 47: 30—34.

• 25. Di Iorio D, Henley E, Doughty A. A survey of primary care physician practice patterns and adherence to acute low back problem guidelines. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9: 1015—1021.

• 26. Sluka KA, Walsh D. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation basic science mechanisms and clinical effectiveness. Journal of Pain 2003;4(3):109—21.

• 27. Plaja J. Analgesia por medios físicos. Madrid: McGraw Hill Interamericana; 2003.

• 28. Rodríguez Martín JM. Electroterapia en fisioterapia. 2ed Médica Panamericana: 2005

• 29. Richardson C, Hodges P, Hides J. Therapeutic exercise for lumbopelvic stabilization. A motor control approach for the treatment and prevention of low back pain (2nd ed) Churchill Livingstone, Queensland, Australia (2004)

• 30. Hodges P, Cholewicki J, van Dieen JH. Spinal Control: The Rehabilitation of Back Pain: State of the art and science, 1e State of the art and science (1ed) Churchill Livingstone Queensland, Australia (2013)

• 31. Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML, Maher CG, Re—fshauge K, Herbert R, Hodges PW. Changes in recruitment of transversus abdominis correlate with disability in people with chronic low back pain Br J Sports Med 2010; 44: 1166—1172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.061515

• 32. Moseley GL, Hodges PW, Gandevia SC. External perturbation of the trunk in standing humans differentially activates components of the medial back muscles. Journal of physiology. 2003;547: 581—587 http://dx.doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2002.024950

• 33. Cairns MC, Foster NE, Wright C. Randomized controlled trial of specific spinal stabilization exercises and conventional physiotherapy for recurrent low back pain. Spine, 2006; 31(19): 670—81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000232787.71938.5d

• 34. Durmus D, Durmaz Y, Canturk F. Effects of therapeutic ultrasound and electrical stimulation program on pain, trunk muscle strength, disability, walking performance, quality of life, and depression in patients with low back pain: a randomized—controlled trial. Rheumatol Int. 2010;30(7):901—10 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00296—009—1072—7

• 35. Ebadi S, Ansari NN, Naghdi S, Jalaei S, Sadat M, Bagheri H, Vantulder MW, Henschke N, Fallah E. The effect of continuous ultrasound on chronic non—specific low back pain: a single blind placebo—controlled randomized trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2012,13:192 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471—2474—13—192

• 36. Milne S, Welch V, Brosseau L, Saginur M, Shea B, Tugwell P, Wells G. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(2):CD003008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003008

• 37. Macedo LG, Latimer J, Maher CG, Hodges PW, McAuley JH, Nicholas MK. Effect of motor control exercises versus graded activity in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2012; 92(3):363—77 http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20110290

• 38. Wang X, Zheng J, Bi X, Liu J et al. Effect of core stability training on patients with chronic low back pain. HealthMED 2012;6(3):754—759 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052082