Which specific modes of exercise training are most effective for treating low back pain? Network meta-analysis

High Intensity Training to Treat Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Effectiveness of Various Exercise Modes

High-intensity training (HIT) improves rehabilitation outcomes such as functional disability and physical performance in several chronic disorders. Promising results were also found in chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP). However, the impact of different exercise modes on HIT effectiveness in CNSLBP remains unclear. Therefore, this study evaluated the effectiveness of various HIT exercise modes and compared differences between these modes, on pain intensity, disability, and physical performance, as a therapeutic intervention for persons with CNSLBP. In a randomized comparative trial, consisting of a 12-week program, persons with CNSLBP were divided into four HIT groups, i.e., cardiorespiratory interval training coupled with either general resistance training, core strength training, combined general resistance and core strength training, or mobility exercises. Before and after the program, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Modified Oswestry Disability Index (MODI), and Patient Specific Functioning Scale (PSFS) were recorded, and a cardiopulmonary exercise test (VO₂max, cycling time) and isometric trunk strength test (maximum muscle torque) were performed. Eighty participants (mean age: 44.0 y, 34 males) were included. Improvements were found within all groups after the HIT programs and ranged from −39 to −57% on the NPRS, +27 to +64% on the MODI, +38 to +89% on the PSFS, +7 to +14% on VO₂max, and +11 to +18% on cycling time. No differences between groups were found. High-intensity cardiorespiratory interval training improves CNSLBP rehabilitation outcomes when performed with other HIT exercise modes or mobility exercises. Hence, when setting up an exercise therapy program in CNSLBP rehabilitation, various HIT modes can be considered as therapy modalities.

Randomized Trial of General Strength and Conditioning Versus Motor Control and Manual Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain on Physical and Self-Report Outcomes

Exercise and spinal manipulative therapy are commonly used for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) in Australia. Reduction in pain intensity is a common outcome; however, it is only one measure of intervention efficacy in clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness of two common clinical interventions on physical and self-report measures in CLBP. Participants were randomized to a 6-month intervention of general strength and conditioning (GSC; n = 20; up to 52 sessions) or motor control exercise plus manual therapy (MCMT; n = 20; up to 12 sessions). Pain intensity was measured at baseline and fortnightly throughout the intervention. Trunk extension and flexion endurance, leg muscle strength and endurance, paraspinal muscle volume, cardio-respiratory fitness and self-report measures of kinesiophobia, disability and quality of life were assessed at baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-up. Pain intensity differed favoring MCMT between-groups at week 14 and 16 of treatment (both, p = 0.003), but not at 6-month follow-up. Both GSC (mean change (95%CI): −10.7 (−18.7, −2.8) mm; p = 0.008) and MCMT (−19.2 (−28.1, −10.3) mm; p < 0.001) had within-group reductions in pain intensity at six months, but did not achieve clinically meaningful thresholds (20mm) within- or between-group. At 6-month follow-up, GSC increased trunk extension (mean difference (95% CI): 81.8 (34.8, 128.8) s; p = 0.004) and flexion endurance (51.5 (20.5, 82.6) s; p = 0.004), as well as leg muscle strength (24.7 (3.4, 46.0) kg; p = 0.001) and endurance (9.1 (1.7, 16.4) reps; p = 0.015) compared to MCMT. GSC reduced disability (−5.7 (−11.2, −0.2) pts; p = 0.041) and kinesiophobia (−6.6 (−9.9, −3.2) pts; p < 0.001) compared to MCMT at 6-month follow-up. Multifidus volume increased within-group for GSC (p = 0.003), but not MCMT or between-groups. No other between-group changes were observed at six months. Overall, GSC improved trunk endurance, leg muscle strength and endurance, self-report disability and kinesiophobia compared to MCMT at six months. These results show that GSC may provide a more diverse range of treatment effects compared to MCMT.

The comparative effectiveness of physical exercise interventions in individuals with chronic non-specific neck pain: protocol for a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Neck pain is a global burdensome problem, with a large proportion of neck pain cases becoming chronic. Although physical exercise is a commonly prescribed treatment, the evidence on the effectiveness of isolated exercise interventions remains limited. Traditional pairwise randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses are limited in only comparing two interventions. This protocol describes the design of a network meta-analysis, which enables a comparative investigation of all physical exercise interventions for which RCTs are available. We aim to systematically compare the effectiveness of different types of physical exercise in people with chronic non-specific neck pain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Nine electronic databases (AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO, Scopus and SPORTDiscus) were searched for RCTs from inception to 12 March 2019. Titles and abstract firstly, and full-text papers secondly, will be screened by two reviewers. Data will be extracted by two reviewers. The primary outcome measure is effectiveness of the intervention. Methodological quality of included studies will be assessed by two reviewers using the PEDro scale. The overall quality of evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, which has been adapted for network meta-analyses. The available evidence will be summarised using a network diagram. A contribution matrix will be presented to allow assessment of direct and indirect evidence. Forest plots will be constructed to visualise effects of all included exercise interventions. Pairwise effect sizes will be calculated by including all evidence available in the network. Effect measures for treatments that have not been compared in a pairwise RCT can be compared indirectly by contrasting effect sizes of comparisons with a common comparator.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019126523.

Exercise for the intervertebral disc: a 6-month randomised controlled trial in chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Muscle, bone and tendon respond anabolically to mechanical forces. Whether the intervertebral disc (IVD) can benefit from exercise is unclear.

PURPOSE

To examine whether exercise can beneficially affect IVD characteristics.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a single-blinded 6-month randomised controlled trial (ACTRN12615001270505) in an exercise and physiotherapy clinic.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Forty patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (NSCLBP) are included in this study.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was lumbar IVD T2 time (MRI). Secondary outcomes included IVD diffusion coefficient and IVD expansion with short-duration lying.

METHODS

Twenty patients progressively loaded their lumbar IVDs (exercise) via an exercise programme involving progressive upright aerobic and resistance exercises targeting the trunk and major muscle groups and were compared to twenty patients who performed motor control training and manual therapy (control). Testing occurred at baseline, 3 months and 6 months.

RESULTS

Seventeen exercise and fifteen control patients completed the interventions. There were no group-by-time differences in T2 time of the entire IVD (exercise 94.1 ± 10.0 ms vs. control 96.5 ± 9.3 ms, p = 0.549). Exercise patients had shorter T2 time in the posterior annulus at 6 months (82.7 ± 6.8 ms vs. 85.1 ± 8.0 ms, p = 0.028). Exercise patients showed higher L5/S1 apparent diffusion coefficients and decreased IVD height at 3 months (both p ≤ 0.050). After adjustments for multiple comparisons, differences lost statistical significance. Per-protocol and intent-to-treat analyses yielded similar findings.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial found that 6 months of exercise did not benefit the IVD of people with NSCLBP. Based on this index study, future studies could investigate the effect of exercise on IVD in different populations, with different types, durations and/or intensities of exercise, and using different IVD markers. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Sustainability effects of motor control stabilisation exercises on pain and function in chronic nonspecific low back pain patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression

Study design

Systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Background and objectives

We systematically reviewed and delineated the existing evidence on sustainability effects of motor control exercises on pain intensity and disability in chronic low back pain patients when compared with an inactive or passive control group or with other exercises. Secondary aims were to reveal whether moderating factors like the time after intervention completion, the study quality, and the training characteristics affect the potential sustainability effects.

Methods

Relevant scientific databases (Medline, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane) were screened. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: All RCTs und CTs on chronic (≥ 12/13 weeks) nonspecific low back pain, written in English or German and adopting a longitudinal core-specific/stabilizing sensorimotor control exercise intervention with at least one pain intensity and disability outcome assessment at a follow-up (sustainability) timepoint of ≥ 4 weeks after exercise intervention completion.

Results and conclusions

From the 3,415 studies that were initially retrieved, 10 (2 CTs & 8 RCTs) on N = 1081 patients were included in the review and analyses. Low to moderate quality evidence shows a sustainable positive effect of motor control exercise on pain (SMD = -.46, Z = 2.9, p < .001) and disability (SMD = -.44, Z = 2.5, p < .001) in low back pain patients when compared to any control. The subgroups’ effects are less conclusive and no clear direction of the sustainability effect at short versus mid versus long-term, of the type of the comparator, or of the dose of the training is given. Low quality studies overestimated the effect of motor control exercises.