Effects of patient-specific three-dimensional lumbar traction on pain and functional disability in patients with lumbar intervertebral disc prolapse

Clinical Efficacy of Mechanical Traction as Physical Therapy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis

Objective

This study is aimed at exploring the clinical effect of mechanical traction on lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Methods

Related literatures were retrieved from PubMed, Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CNKI databases. Inclusion of literature topic was comparison of mechanical traction and conventional physical therapy for lumbar disc herniation. Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included RCT studies. The Chi-square test was used for the heterogeneity test, and a random effect model was used with heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were used to explore the causes of heterogeneity. If there was no heterogeneity, the fixed effect model was used, and funnel plots were used to test publication bias.

Results

Visual analog scale (VAS) in the mechanical traction group was lower than that in the conventional physical therapy group (MD = −1.39 (95% CI (-1.81, -0.98)), Z = 6.56, and P < 0.00001). There was no heterogeneity among studies (Chi² = 6.62, P = 0.25, and I² = 24%) and no publication bias. Oswestry disability index (ODI) in the mechanical traction group was lower than that in the conventional physical therapy group (MD = −6.34 (95% CI (-10.28, -2.39)), Z = 3.15, and P = 0.002). There was no heterogeneity between studies (Chi² = 6.27, P = 0.18, and I² = 36%) and no publication bias. There was no significant difference in Schober test scores between the mechanical traction group and the conventional physical therapy group (MD = −0.40 (95% CI (-1.07, 0.28)), Z = 1.16, and P = 0.25). There was no heterogeneity among studies (Chi² = 1.61, P = 0.66, and I² = 0%) and no publication bias.

Conclusion

Mechanical traction can effectively relieve lumbar and leg pain and improve ODI in patients with lumbar disc herniation but has no significant effect on spinal motion. The therapeutic effect of mechanical traction was significantly better than that of conventional physical therapy. Lumbar traction can be used in conjunction with other traditional physical therapy.

Clinical Effect of the Treatment of Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Protrusion

Compared with traditional acupuncture, it is urgently needed for more effective method for the disease to serve the clinical treatment. This paper combines acupuncture and massage to treat lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion, uses a controlled trial to study the clinical effects of acupuncture combined with massage for the treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion, combines mathematical statistics to test the data, and compares and analyzes the statistical object parameters. Through experimental research, it is known that in the treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion, in order to obtain a faster and better effect, traditional acupuncture treatment should be combined with massage therapy. On the basis of fully eliminating the pathological factors, the intervertebral disc is reset by mechanical treatment, which makes the patient more likely to heal. Therefore, it is a comprehensive treatment plan that is worth adopting.

Comparison of efficacy of corticosteroid injection versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy on inferior trigger points in the quadratus lumborum muscle: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of corticosteroid trigger point injection (TPI) versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) on inferior trigger points in the quadratus lumborum (QL) muscle.

METHODS

In this single-blind randomized clinical trial, 54 low back pain patients with myofascial trigger points on QL muscle were investigated. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups with A and B pockets. Patients in group A underwent radial ESWT and received 5 treatment sessions (1 per week) and actually were not followed-up. However, patients in group B received corticosteroid TPI and received one session of corticosteroid treatment and followed-up for 4 weeks after injection. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS), pain pressure threshold (PPT) and short form (36) health survey (SF-36) were measured in both groups before, two weeks after and four weeks after intervention.

RESULTS

The between group comparison indicated that corticosteroid TPI leaded to significant higher improvements of ODI (P-value< 0.01), VAS (P value< 0.001), and PPT (P-value = 0.001) scores compared to the ESWT group at two-week follow-up time-point. ESWT group recorded significant higher improvement of ODI (P-value< 0.01) and SF-36 (P-value< 0.001) compared to the corticosteroid TPI at 4th week post treatment evaluation. At four-week follow-up time-point, the patients in the ESWT group were 1.46 times more likely to achieve 30% reduction in VAS, 2.67 times more likely to achieve 30% reduction in ODI, and 2.30 times more likely to achieve 20% improvement in SF-36 compared to the participants in corticosteroid TPI group. These results refer to large effect size for all study outcomes in ESWT group (d = 4.72, d = 1.58, d = 5.48, and d = 7.47 for ODI, PPT, SF-36, and VAS, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Corticosteroid TPI was more effective compared to ESWT in short-term controlling of pain and disability caused by myofascial pain syndrome of QL muscle. However, after 4 weeks treatment, ESWT further improved the quality of life and disability and was related with more probability of achievement the minimal clinically important difference concerning pain, disability and quality of life and large effect size for all study outcomes in treated patients compared to corticosteroid TPI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.irct.ir , IRCT20100827004641N14 , retrospectively registered 2019-01-19.