THU0534 The effect of lumber stabilisation exercise on the balance and clinical health

Abstract

Background: Low‐back pain is a common health problem worldwide. In the majority of cases, the pathoanatomical source of an individual's pain cannot be identified and are therefore defined as non‐specific in nature. Although there are many potential contributing factors to low back pain, one area that has received scientific emphasis is the trigger point (TrP). TrP is defined as hyperirritable areas within taut bands of skeletal muscle and classified as either active or latent. Although many methods have been proposed for use in the treatment of TrP, there has been no study investigating which method is more effective. Objectives: The aim of our study is to compare the different trigger point techniques used in the treatment of low back pain. Methods: 28 cases with low back pain with trigger point origin were included in the study. The subjects were randomly divided into 3 groups. Strain‐Counter Strain (SCS) technique was applied to Group 1 (n=16), Integrated Neuromuscular Inhibition Technique (INIT) for Group 2 (n=16), and Ischaemic Compression Technique (ICT) for Group 3 (n=16). The duration of treatment was a maximum of 6 weeks (12 sessions) in both three groups. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used for pain severity, algometer examination was used to measure pain threshold, and Oswestry Disability Index was used to assess disability score. In addition, the Beck Depression Scale was used to assess the psychosocial status of the cases, and the STAI (State Trait Anxiety Inventory)‐ I and STAI‐II scales were used to assess emotion‐state and continuity. The evaluations were made before the treatment, after the 1st session of the treatment and at the end of the treatment (after 6 weeks). The data were analysed by using Kruskal‐Wallis Test. Results: Mean age and body mass index (BMI) of our study group were, respectively, 38.6±12.3 years and 26.6±6.2 kg/m2 in the SCS group, 34.2±10.1 years and 26.3±5.9 kg/m2 in the INIT group and 34.8±14.2 years and 24.5±5.2 kg/m2 in the ICT group. There was no significant difference among groups in respect of age, BMI, depression and anxiety score (p>0.05) before the treatment. Three groups had significant decreases in pain according to the VAS and algometer (p<0.05). The ROM values and function level significantly improved within three groups after treatment (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in pain (p=0.13), lumbal flexion (p=0.77), lumbal extension ROM (p=0.43) and disability score (p=0.65) among the three groups before and after the treatment. Conclusions: The results indicate that patients with low back pain gain clinically benefit from trigger point tereatment on pain, ROM and function. Therefore, we suggest that physiotherapist either can apply SCS, INIT or ICT based on their clinical experience in the management of low back pain.