View clinical trials related to Low Back Pain, Recurrent.
Filter by:Although the cause of persistent non-specific low back pain (LBP) remains unknown, structural and functional alterations of the brain, alterations in the lumbar muscles and dysfunction of the central nervous system have been proposed as underlying mechanisms. In this case-control study, 1) brain structure/function, 2) lumbar muscle function and 3) central pain processing are compared across four groups: 1) healthy participants, 2) recurrent LBP (both during pain flare and during pain remission), 3) chronic LBP and 4) fibromyalgia. According to previous research, healthy participants and fibromyalgia patients are two extremes of a "musculoskeletal pain continuum". Healthy participants representing one extreme of the continuum with no pain and fibromyalgia representing the other extreme of the continuum with chronic widespread pain. It is thought that different LBP populations (i.e. (sub)acute, recurrent, chronic LBP) float between the aforementioned extremes. Past studies already highlighted the need for studies comparing the pathophysiological mechanisms for different pain syndromes to identify common underlying mechanisms across pain syndromes. For this reason, the goal of the current study is to compare alterations in brain structure/function, alterations in lumbar muscle function and alterations in central pain processing across the aforementioned "musculoskeletal pain continuum". It is hypothesized that longer duration of pain (recurrent vs chronic) and the extensiveness of the pain (one location vs widespread pain) are associated with more pronounced alterations in 1) brain structure/function, 2) lumbar muscle function and 3) central pain processing.
The goal of this trial is to compare the effects 448kHz capacitive resistive monopolar radiofrequency (CRM) with Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) versus only PNF in chronic low back pain patients. The main questions it aims to answer are: 1. Is there any difference in interventions on reduction of pain. 2. Is there any difference in interventions on reduction of disability. Participants will in the experimental group will be treated with a combination of: 1. 448kHz capacitive resistive monopolar radiofrequency and, 2. PNF intervention Participants will in the control group will be treated only using 1. PNF intervention (identical to experimental group) Researchers will compare experimental and control group to see if there are differences in reduction of pain and disability.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of treatment of nonspecific pain in the lower back (LBP) is currently largely based on the patient's subjective feelings. The purpose of this study was to use passive medical radiometry (MWR) as a tool for assessing the effectiveness of various treatment methods in patients with acute and subacute nonspecific LBP. Patients with pain assessment on a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 6 to 10 points were divided into 2 groups: Group I included patients with pharmacological, syndrome-oriented treatment (n = 30, age 54.9 ± 2.3 years); Group II is a combination pharmacotherapy with self-controlled energy-neuro-adaptive regulation (SCENAR) (n = 25, age 52.8 ± 2.5 years). The investigators will compare that the addition of SCENAR therapy (Group II) will be able to potentiate the analgesic effect of the treatment using VAS. the investigators will confirm that the thermal asymmetry visualization allows to identify the area of pathological muscle spasm and/or inflammation in the projection of the vertebral-motor segment.
Low back pain is presently the first cause of disability worldwide. The most recommended interventions by clinical guidelines are exercises and cognitive behavioral therapy although the effect is modest. However, no approach is superior when given to a heterogeneous group of subjects with chronic low back pain (CLBP). This is probably due to the multiple factors associated with CLBP which are biophysical, psychological and social. Thus, each patient presents with a unique profile of factors contributing to their pain and could benefit from an approach tailored to their profile. In other words, it is crucial to identify the right treatment, for the right person, at the right moment. For example, the presence of important psychological factors such as anxiety and depression are risk factors for low back pain to develop and persist over time. The main aim of this project is to determine the feasibility to perform a large clinical trial comparing the efficacy of a two physiotherapy's approaches to treat CLBP (i.e., a psychologically-informed physiotherapy intervention compared to usual physiotherapy) in patients with CLBP presenting a high level of psychological factors.
Our study aims to compare the therapeutic effects of different taping materials and techniques on pain, functionality, and tissue temperature in patients with lumbar radiculopathy.
The main objective of this clinical investigation is to show the superiority of a rehabilitation based on the use of Blueback® Physio compared to a rehabilitation without the use of Blueback® Physio in terms of reducing the time needed for a patient to control the voluntary contraction of the transversus abdominal muscle and to return to autonomy.
Ten patients with acute or chronic low back pain will be invited to try a multimodal device for 20 minutes. Pain will be recorded prior to and after use, and feedback on the device will be elicited.
Our purpose is to conduct a pilot study to evaluate GDS muscle and articulation chain treatment for inoperable spine patients with degenerative changes in the lumbar spine, compared to "standard treatment" (any other chosen treatment). The pilot study will be conducted as a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to investigate feasibility and benefit of GDS muscle and articulation chain treatment on pain, function and quality of life. The pilot study will form the basis for a later full-scale randomized study and the following research questions will be addressed: 1. To what extent were the criteria for inclusion in the study suitable? 2. How did the recruitment procedure work? 3. How did the participants experience GDS treatment? 4. To what extent were the selected outcome measures suitable at the different evaluation moments, and which outcome measure tested in this pilot study would be most suitable as primary outcome measure in a full-scale study? (user experience will be included in the evaluation) 5. How was the change in the primary outcome measure (Oswestry Disability Index)? 6. What will be the estimated time for inclusion of the required number of participants in a full-scale study? (required sample size will be based on strength calculation /saving of the outcome target chosen as primary outcome measure for full scale study) The study is a pilot study with a randomized controlled design, with follow-up after 3-4 months. Thirty patients are recruited and receive baseline examination and respond to the questionnaires before randomization. The patients receive a questionnaire by mail 3-4 months after inclusion (after the treatment is completed for intervention group ). The pilot study will be one-way blinded.
The aim of this study is to effectively investigate the relaxation of the diaphragm and iliopsoas muscle with myofascial technique in patients with chronic low back pain.
Chronic musculoskeletal disorders such as low back and neck pain are responsible for an enormous global burden. Fear-avoidance (FA) can be a predictor for the transition from subacute to chronic low back pain. In patients with neck pain, those who were less fearful about harming their neck, had higher pain tolerance, which might have a positive impact on their level of disability. A new scale, the Fear-Avoidance Component Scale (FACS) was developed by Neblett, Mayer, Hartzell, Williams and Gatchel (2015) to assess FA. It consists of an all-encompassing set of constructs that more effectively deals with all critical issues of the FA concept than current scales do. Current scales have been criticized because of following findings: limited construct validity, little evidence on treatment responsiveness, a lack of evidence-based cut-off scores and items being too narrow or too general. The new scale comprehensively assesses all cognitive, emotional and behavioral components related to the updated version of the FA model by combining items of well-known scales in context of the FA model with items on one's perception of victimization and blame related to an injury. A Dutch version of the FACS is currently lacking. Subsequently, the aim of this study is to investigate different psychometric properties of the generated Dutch version in patients with musculoskeletal disorders.