View clinical trials related to Low Back Pain.
Filter by:This study assess ocular movements in a hand laterality judgment task in a population of musculoskeletal disorders. Reaction time, error rate and visual strategy are compared between musculoskeletal disorders and healthy patients, and between the different locations of the disorder.
Introduction Non-specific low back pain is very prevalent in our society. Different effective physiotherapy treatments have been performed in the reduction of pain and improvement of quality of life, however there are few studies that exist on the effectiveness of these treatments in protocol format based on manual therapy. On the other hand, there are no studies that implement a protocol of therapeutic exercises called abdominal hypopressives. The aim of the study is to study the effect of a manual therapy protocol on non-specific low back pain and the implementation of hypopressive exercises in different areas such as disability, pain, flexibility and quality of life. Material and methods Participants The sample will consist of subjects with non-specific low back pain. Inclusion criteria -Participants with nonspecific lumbar pain of at least 4 pain crises a month with recurrent low back pain. Exclusion criteria - Light acute. - Lumbalgia after trauma. - Presenting sciatica or musculoskeletal disorders or injuries within three months prior to the study. - Contraindication of one of the two treatments. - Participate in this period of no functional recovery program or physiotherapy treatment. Study design A randomized clinical trial will be conducted. The sample will be divided into 2 groups: Group 1 will receive a manual therapy protocol that has previously shown its effectiveness in non-specific low back pain being 1 session a week, while group 2 will receive a protocol of hypopressive therapeutic exercises. Evaluations At the beginning of the study, a clinical interview will be carried out and, in addition, 3 evaluations will be carried out: at the beginning, at the end of the treatment and one follow-up per month. The investigators will use the following evaluation tools: - Pain, through the Visual Analog Scale. - Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Scale. - SF-36 quality of life scale. - Visual Analog Scale. - Algometry of spinous processes and lumbar muscles. - Lumbar flexion with inclinometer and fingers test - floor. - Perception of change after treatment.
Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent musculoskeletal disorder. A variety of exercise interventions which were designed as randomized control trails (RCTs) have been studied and shown effectiveness in improving pain and disability. These exercises typically focus on the abdominal and back musculature strength. However, many LBP patients did not show any improvement in their symptom after they carry out those exercise programs.
This is a randomized clinical trial comparing two interventions for acute low back pain: 1. Ibuprofen + acetaminophen 2. Ibuprofen + placebo Participants will include patients who present to an emergency room for management of low back pain. Medication will be dispensed to participants at the time of emergency room discharge. Data will be collected from participants by telephone for 1 week.
Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide and has substantial impacts on pain and function for an individual. Some individuals with LBP seek physical therapy for their condition. The purpose of the study is to determine whether individuals with LBP have improved pain and disability following physical therapy targeting either the low back only or low back plus hip(s).
Impairments in postural control are linked to low back pain and reductions in physical function in the elderly. Unfortunately, many techniques to assess the neural control of movement are not feasible, or directly applicable, to the trunk musculature. In a prior pilot study, we developed and optimized innovative approaches to study these muscles. We will continue to develop a reliable, fMRI protocol that investigates the activity of the motor cortical networks of selected trunk muscles (specific aim 1). We will also continue the development a reliable muscle functional MRI (mfMRI) protocol to assess the spatial muscle activation patterns of the deeper lumbopelvic muscles (specific aim 2). We will examine the test-retest reliability of these approaches in four distinct target populations: healthy adults, adults with chronic low back pain, older adults, and older adults with high levels of trunk muscle control (i.e., individuals with expertise in Pilates). By enrolling groups of various levels of trunk muscle control, pathology state and age, we will be able to not only determine the intra-individual reliability, but also the inter-individual reliability as we expect the variability of the measures to be influenced by physical ability, pain state and age. Lastly, in an exploratory aim we will examine the association of our novel neurophysiological measures from Aim 1 and 2 with classic biomechanical and muscle function measures (e.g., trunk extensor strength and trunk extensor steadiness). Successfully developing reliable techniques of this nature will result in new and improved research tools for conducting rigorous studies of therapeutic approaches, such as spinal manipulation and yoga, within the context of trunk muscle control and function.
By doing this study, researchers hope to learn effects of aerobic exercise on over activated nervous system in people with chronic low back pain.
Introduction: Non specific low back pain (NSLBP) is a low back pain (LBP) that cannot be attributable to a known pathology. LBP has prevalence as high as 84%, making it a heavy burden for health services and society worldwide. Furthermore, LBP seems to be more prevalent as the population gets older, and is the cause of severe functional limitations. One of the treatment recommended for LBP is physical therapy. It has been shown that the trunk muscles usually maintain trunk stability by making a sequence of postural adjustment in advance of distal movement to prevent any loss of balance. However, in NSLBP, this motor control adjusting is lacking, and, furthermore, stays so even after the resolution of acute LBP, which could contribute to the recurrence of LBP. Physical therapy therefore addresses NSLBP by rehabilitating the timing and activation of trunk muscle, among other things. The importance of trunk musculature has been highlighted by many studies showing the feedforward contraction of the trunk muscles in anticipation of extremity movement. Those trunk muscles comprise the transversus abdominis (TrA) and lumbar multifidus (LM). Since those muscles create no movement, but rather an increase in abdominal pressure, it is thus often a complex contraction to teach. To help with that teaching, physical therapist may use one of the two feedback tools that exist to teach a TrA contraction, namely the pressure biofeedback unit (PBU) and rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI). Unfortunately, their efficiency to help with the teaching of TrA contraction is yet to be shown in an elderly population, and few studies compared their efficiency. Furthermore, even though the teaching of the TrA contraction must be followed by a translation of that skill in more functional position such as standing, no studies looked at the effect of the feedback in supine to the skill of TrA contraction in standing. Objective: The principal aim of this study is thus to compare, throughout a healthy population of 60 to 80 years old, the immediate efficiency of adding PBU or RUSI to the TrA contraction teaching in supine. The secondary objectives are as follow: 1) to see if that teaching in supine can be translated by a better contraction of the TrA in standing, and if one of the two tools is superior in doing so and 2) to see if one tool favor a more specific contraction of TrA when compared to the other muscles of the lateral abdominal wall. The hypothesis is that the RUSI will prove superior to the PBU. Method: This will be a single-blinded controlled laboratory study with randomization. The independent variables will be the group of randomization, either PBU or RUSI. The dependent variable will be the TrA contraction. To answer our objectives, forty (40) healthy people aged between 60 and 80 will be recruited. The subjects will be healthy with no current pain and no history of limiting LBP in the past year. Of those, 20 will be women. The randomization will be made in blocks to allow a good balance of the sex throughout the groups. Every subject's TrA contraction (principal outcome) will be measured before and after the intervention (immediate effect) with the RUSI (change of thickness between resting and contracting state) both in supine and standing. The intervention will consist of a 5-minute education on the trunk muscle and their role, a brief teaching of how to contract them properly and the use of the feedback tool used in their group. Will follow a training program of 15 contractions with the feedback tool (PBU vs RUSI). Descriptive analysis will be used to describe the subjects. The TRA activation ratio (AR) and preferential activation ratio (PAR) will be compared after the intervention with Wilcoxon signed rank tests for each subject first. The group's mean will then be compared, first for each age group, then for each feedback tool as a whole with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Impact: Age and LBP both influence the motor control and feedforward contraction of the trunk muscles. Since NSLBP is highly prevalent throughout the ages and cost a lot for the society, the identification of the best tool to help in teaching the TrA contraction is crucial. This project will provide the first steps to justify a bigger controlled study on NSLBP. Moreover, this project will familiarize the Canadian physical therapist society to the use of RUSI, a tool still seldom used in the clinic in Canada but highly promising.
trigger point dry needling with intramuscular electrical stimulation vs trigger point dry needling
The specific aim of this study is to conduct a prospective, multicenter cohort study over four months to compare the cost of standard of allopathic care (control group, N=90) versus standard of care plus osteopathic manipulative treatment (experimental group, N=90) in a cohort of 180 consecutive patients seeking treatment for chronic low back pain at three osteopathic clinics and three allopathic medical clinics (offering only standard care) located in three different regions of the United States.