Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 7/2006

01-07-2006 | Original Article

A randomized clinical trial and subgroup analysis to compare flexion–distraction with active exercise for chronic low back pain

Authors: Maruti Ram Gudavalli, Jerrilyn A. Cambron, Marion McGregor, James Jedlicka, Michael Keenum, Alexander J. Ghanayem, Avinash G. Patwardhan

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 7/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Many clinical trials on chiropractic management of low back pain have neglected to include specific forms of care. This study compared two well-defined treatment protocols. The objective was to compare the outcome of flexion–distraction (FD) procedures performed by chiropractors with an active trunk exercise protocol (ATEP) performed by physical therapists. A randomized clinical trial study design was used. Subjects, 18 years of age and older, with a primary complaint of low back pain (>3 months) were recruited. A 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for perceived pain, the Roland Morris (RM) Questionnaire for low back function, and the SF-36 for overall health status served as primary outcome measures. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive either FD or ATEP. The FD intervention consisted of the application of flexion and traction applied to specific regions in the low back, with the aid of a specially designed manipulation table. The ATEP intervention included stabilizing and flexibility exercises, the use of modalities, and cardiovascular training. A total of 235 subjects met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and signed the informed consent. Of these, 123 were randomly allocated to FD and 112 to the ATEP. Study patients perceived significantly less pain and better function after intervention, regardless of which group they were allocated to (P<0.01). Subjects randomly allocated to the flexion–distraction group had significantly greater relief from pain than those allocated to the exercise program (P=0.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that subjects categorized as chronic, with moderate to severe symptoms, improved most with the flexion–distraction protocol. Subjects categorized with recurrent pain and moderate to severe symptoms improved most with the exercise program. Patients with radiculopathy did significantly better with FD. There were no significant differences between groups on the Roland Morris and SF-36 outcome measures. Overall, flexion–distraction provided more pain relief than active exercise; however, these results varied based on stratification of patients with and without radiculopathy and with and without recurrent symptoms. The subgroup analysis provides a possible explanation for contrasting results among randomized clinical trials of chronic low back pain treatments and these results also provide guidance for future work in the treatment of chronic low back pain.
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Assendelft WJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG (2003) Spinal manipulation for low back pain. A meta-analysis of effectiveness relative to other therapies. Ann Intern Med 138:881 Assendelft WJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG (2003) Spinal manipulation for low back pain. A meta-analysis of effectiveness relative to other therapies. Ann Intern Med 138:881
3.
go back to reference Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C (1997) Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol 50:79–93CrossRefPubMed Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C (1997) Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol 50:79–93CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW, Irrgang JJ, Johnson KK, Majkowski GR, Delitto A (2004) A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study. Ann Intern Med 141:920–928PubMed Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW, Irrgang JJ, Johnson KK, Majkowski GR, Delitto A (2004) A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study. Ann Intern Med 141:920–928PubMed
5.
go back to reference Christensen MG, Kerkoff D, Kollasch MW (2000) Job analysis of chiropractic, 2000. National Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Greeley Christensen MG, Kerkoff D, Kollasch MW (2000) Job analysis of chiropractic, 2000. National Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Greeley
6.
go back to reference Cox JM (1999) Low back pain: mechanism, diagnosis, treatment. 6th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore Cox JM (1999) Low back pain: mechanism, diagnosis, treatment. 6th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore
7.
go back to reference Cox JM, Gudavalli MR (2005) Traction and distraction techniques. In: Haldeman S, Dagenais S, Budgell B, Grunnet-Nilsson N, Hooper PD, Meeker WC, Triano J (eds) Principles and practice of chiropractic. 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 821–840 Cox JM, Gudavalli MR (2005) Traction and distraction techniques. In: Haldeman S, Dagenais S, Budgell B, Grunnet-Nilsson N, Hooper PD, Meeker WC, Triano J (eds) Principles and practice of chiropractic. 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 821–840
9.
go back to reference Flynn T, Fritz J, Witman J, Wainner R, Magel J, Rendeiro D, Butler B, Garber M, Allison S (2002) A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with spinal manipulation. Spine 27:2835–2843CrossRefPubMed Flynn T, Fritz J, Witman J, Wainner R, Magel J, Rendeiro D, Butler B, Garber M, Allison S (2002) A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with spinal manipulation. Spine 27:2835–2843CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Furlan AD, Brosseau L, Imamura M, Irvin E (2002) Massage for low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD001929 Furlan AD, Brosseau L, Imamura M, Irvin E (2002) Massage for low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD001929
11.
go back to reference Gatchel RJ (ed) (2001) Compendium of outcome instruments for assessment and research of spinal disorders. North American Spine Society, LaGrange Gatchel RJ (ed) (2001) Compendium of outcome instruments for assessment and research of spinal disorders. North American Spine Society, LaGrange
12.
go back to reference Gudavalli MR, Cox JM, Baker JA, Cramer GD, Patwardhan AG (1997) Intervertebral disc pressure changes during the flexion–distraction procedure for low back pain. In: Proceedings of the 1997 annual International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, Singapore, p 165 Gudavalli MR, Cox JM, Baker JA, Cramer GD, Patwardhan AG (1997) Intervertebral disc pressure changes during the flexion–distraction procedure for low back pain. In: Proceedings of the 1997 annual International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, Singapore, p 165
13.
go back to reference Gudavalli MR, Cox JM, Baker JA, Cramer GD, Patwardhan AG (1997) Intervertebral disc pressure changes during a chiropractic procedure for low back pain. American Society of Mechanical Engineers bioengineering conference, Dallas, TX, pp 215–216 Gudavalli MR, Cox JM, Baker JA, Cramer GD, Patwardhan AG (1997) Intervertebral disc pressure changes during a chiropractic procedure for low back pain. American Society of Mechanical Engineers bioengineering conference, Dallas, TX, pp 215–216
14.
go back to reference Gudavalli MR, Cox JM, Cramer GD, Baker JA, Patwardhan AG (2000) Vertebral motions during flexion–distraction treatment for low back pain. 2000 ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, Orlando, FL, pp 129–130 Gudavalli MR, Cox JM, Cramer GD, Baker JA, Patwardhan AG (2000) Vertebral motions during flexion–distraction treatment for low back pain. 2000 ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, Orlando, FL, pp 129–130
15.
go back to reference Helmhout PH, Harts CC, Staal JB, Candel MJ, de Bie RA (2004) Comparison of a high-intensity and a low-intensity lumbar extensor training program as minimal intervention treatment in low back pain: a randomized trial. Eur Spine J 13:537–547CrossRefPubMed Helmhout PH, Harts CC, Staal JB, Candel MJ, de Bie RA (2004) Comparison of a high-intensity and a low-intensity lumbar extensor training program as minimal intervention treatment in low back pain: a randomized trial. Eur Spine J 13:537–547CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
go back to reference Katz N, Rodgers DB, Krupa D, Reicin A (2004) Onset of pain relief with rofecoxib in chronic low back pain: results of two four-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Curr Med Res Opin 20:651–658CrossRefPubMed Katz N, Rodgers DB, Krupa D, Reicin A (2004) Onset of pain relief with rofecoxib in chronic low back pain: results of two four-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Curr Med Res Opin 20:651–658CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Koes BW, Assendelft WJ, van der Heijden GJ, Bouter LM (1996) Spinal manipulation for low back pain. An updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Spine 21:2872–2873CrossRef Koes BW, Assendelft WJ, van der Heijden GJ, Bouter LM (1996) Spinal manipulation for low back pain. An updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Spine 21:2872–2873CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Lubeck DP (2003) The costs of musculoskeletal disease: health needs assessment and health economics. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 17:529–539CrossRefPubMed Lubeck DP (2003) The costs of musculoskeletal disease: health needs assessment and health economics. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 17:529–539CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, Evans TH (2002) Chronic low back pain. In: Fitzgerald RH, Kaufer H, Malkani AL (eds) Orthopaedics. Mosby, St Louis, pp 1192–1197 Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, Evans TH (2002) Chronic low back pain. In: Fitzgerald RH, Kaufer H, Malkani AL (eds) Orthopaedics. Mosby, St Louis, pp 1192–1197
21.
go back to reference McDowell I, Newell C (1996) Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford University Press, New York McDowell I, Newell C (1996) Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford University Press, New York
23.
go back to reference Mior S (2001) Manipulation and mobilization in the treatment of chronic pain. Clin J Pain 17:S70–S76CrossRefPubMed Mior S (2001) Manipulation and mobilization in the treatment of chronic pain. Clin J Pain 17:S70–S76CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Murphy DR, Morris C (2005) Manual examination of the patient. In: Haldeman S, Dagenais S, Budgell B, Grunnet-Nilsson N, Hooper PD, Meeker WC, Triano J (eds) Principles and practice of chiropractic. 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 593–610 Murphy DR, Morris C (2005) Manual examination of the patient. In: Haldeman S, Dagenais S, Budgell B, Grunnet-Nilsson N, Hooper PD, Meeker WC, Triano J (eds) Principles and practice of chiropractic. 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 593–610
25.
go back to reference Nielson WR, Weir R (2001) Biopsychosocial approaches to the treatment of chronic pain. Clin J Pain 17:S114–S127CrossRefPubMed Nielson WR, Weir R (2001) Biopsychosocial approaches to the treatment of chronic pain. Clin J Pain 17:S114–S127CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Niemisto L, Kalso E, Malmivaara A, Seitsalo S, Hurri H (2003) Radiofrequency denervation for neck and back pain. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD004058 Niemisto L, Kalso E, Malmivaara A, Seitsalo S, Hurri H (2003) Radiofrequency denervation for neck and back pain. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD004058
27.
go back to reference Ohnmeiss DD, Rashbaum RF (2001) Patient satisfaction with spinal cord stimulation for predominant complaints of chronic, intractable low back pain. Spine J 1:358–363CrossRefPubMed Ohnmeiss DD, Rashbaum RF (2001) Patient satisfaction with spinal cord stimulation for predominant complaints of chronic, intractable low back pain. Spine J 1:358–363CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference O’Sullivan PB (2000) Lumbar segmental ‘instability’ clinical presentation and specific stabilizing exercise management. Man Ther 5:2–12CrossRefPubMed O’Sullivan PB (2000) Lumbar segmental ‘instability’ clinical presentation and specific stabilizing exercise management. Man Ther 5:2–12CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference O’Sullivan PB, Phyty GD, Twomey LT, Allison GT (1997) Evaluation of specific stabilizing exercise in the treatment of chronic low back pain with radiologic diagnosis of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. Spine 22:2959–2967CrossRefPubMed O’Sullivan PB, Phyty GD, Twomey LT, Allison GT (1997) Evaluation of specific stabilizing exercise in the treatment of chronic low back pain with radiologic diagnosis of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. Spine 22:2959–2967CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability and low back pain. Spine 8:141–144PubMedCrossRef Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability and low back pain. Spine 8:141–144PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Triano JJ, McGregor M, Hondras MA, Brennan PC (1995) Manipulative therapy versus education programs in chronic low back pain. Spine 20:948–955PubMedCrossRef Triano JJ, McGregor M, Hondras MA, Brennan PC (1995) Manipulative therapy versus education programs in chronic low back pain. Spine 20:948–955PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference van Tulder M, Malmivaara A, Esmail R, Koes B (2000) Exercise therapy for low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine 25:2784–2796CrossRefPubMed van Tulder M, Malmivaara A, Esmail R, Koes B (2000) Exercise therapy for low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine 25:2784–2796CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Turk DC (2005) The potential of treatment matching for subgroups of patients with chronic pain: lumping versus splitting. Clin J Pain 21:44–55CrossRefPubMed Turk DC (2005) The potential of treatment matching for subgroups of patients with chronic pain: lumping versus splitting. Clin J Pain 21:44–55CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Vollenbroek-Hutton MMR, Hermens HJ, Wever D, Gorter M, Rinket J, Ijzerman MJ (2004) Differences in outcome of a multidisciplinary treatment between subgroups of chronic low back pain patients defined using two multiaxial assessment instruments: the multidimensional pain inventory and lumbar dynamometry. Clin Rehabil 18:566–579PubMedCrossRef Vollenbroek-Hutton MMR, Hermens HJ, Wever D, Gorter M, Rinket J, Ijzerman MJ (2004) Differences in outcome of a multidisciplinary treatment between subgroups of chronic low back pain patients defined using two multiaxial assessment instruments: the multidimensional pain inventory and lumbar dynamometry. Clin Rehabil 18:566–579PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A randomized clinical trial and subgroup analysis to compare flexion–distraction with active exercise for chronic low back pain
Authors
Maruti Ram Gudavalli
Jerrilyn A. Cambron
Marion McGregor
James Jedlicka
Michael Keenum
Alexander J. Ghanayem
Avinash G. Patwardhan
Publication date
01-07-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 7/2006
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-0021-8

Other articles of this Issue 7/2006

European Spine Journal 7/2006 Go to the issue