• Refine Query
  • Source
  • Publication year
  • to
  • Language
  • No language data
  • Tagged with
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • About
  • The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is provided by the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
    Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
1

The effect of Core Stability Exercises (CSE) on trunk sagittal acceleration

Aluko, Augustine January 2012 (has links)
Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate Core Stability Exercise (CSE) induced changes in trunk sagittal acceleration as a measure of performance in participants following an acute onset of non-specific low back pain (LBP). Methodology: A Lumbar Motion Monitor (LMM) was used to measure trunk sagittal acceleration. The LMM was demonstrated to be reliable [Intra-Class Correlation (ICC) for average sagittal acceleration (0.96, 95% CI 0.90-0.98) and peak sagittal acceleration (0.89, 95% CI 0.75-0.96) with a 95% limit of agreement for the repeated measure of between -100.64 and +59.84 Deg/s2 ]. Pain was measured using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and disability was measured with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Results: Differences in mean trunk sagittal acceleration between control and experimental groups at time points were assessed using a regression analysis (ratio of geometric means [95%CI]) and demonstrated to be not statistically significant (3 weeks (20%) 1.2 [0.9 to 1.6], p=0.2; 6 weeks (10%) 1.1 [0.8 to 1.5], p=0.7; 3 months (20%) 1.2 [0.8 to 1.9], p=0.9). Similarly, differences in mean pain score (3 weeks (30%) 1.3 [0.8-2.2], p= 0.3); 6 weeks (20%) 1.2 [0.7-2.0], p=0.6; 3 months (0%) 1.0 [0.5-1.9], p=1.0) and difference in mean disability score (6 weeks (0%) 1.0 [0.7-1.5], p= 1.0, 3 months (30%) 1.3 [0.8-1.9], p= 0.3) between groups were also not statistically significant. Conclusions: This work does not infer that CSE are definitively effective in reducing pain, improving subjective disability and improving trunk performance after an onset acute of non-specific LBP. However, there is a suggestion of clinical importance and a possible mechanism by which they may work. Further investigation into this mechanism may provide future effective management strategies for intervention of acute non-specific low back pain with optimistic cost implications for healthcare delivery in general and Physiotherapy in particular.
2

Efficacy of Kinesio Taping as an Adjunct Intervention to Traditional Physical Therapy in the Treatment of Nonspecific Acute Low Back Pain: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Elkholy, Hossameldien 01 January 2017 (has links)
The Efficacy of Kinesio Taping as an Adjunct Intervention to Traditional Physical Therapy in the Treatment of Nonspecific Acute Low Back Pain: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Background: Acute low back pain (LBP) is a significant health problem worldwide and is one of the leading causes of disability. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of Kinesio Taping (KT) on disability, fear-avoidance beliefs, and pain intensity in patients with acute, nonspecific LBP. Research Design and Methods: A prospective, randomized controlled study of consecutive patients referred to physical therapy with a primary complaint of LBP. Seventy-eight patients with acute, nonspecific LBP were randomized to an experimental group that received traditional physical therapy plus KT and a control group that received traditional physical therapy alone. Interventions were administered twice a week for 4 weeks. Assessment tools used were Ronald Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) for disability, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) for fear-avoidance beliefs, and Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain intensity. Assessments were conducted at baseline, end of week 1, end of week 2, end of week 3, and end of week 4. Analysis: Repeated measures mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the effect of treatment on each variable. The group type was the between-subjects variable and the time was the within-subjects variable. A significance level of .05 was used in the analyses. Results: Both groups showed statistically significant lower disability, fear-avoidance beliefs, and pain levels over time compared with baseline scores (p < .0001). The experimental group showed statistically significant lower RMDQ scores at week 2, 3, and 4 (p < .05), statistically significant lower FABQ-physical activity subscale scores at the end of week 1 (p < .01), at the end of week 2 (p < .01), at the end of week 3 (p < .01), and at the end of week 4 (p < .05), statistically significant lower FABQ-work subscale scores at week 3 (p < .05) and week 4 (p < .01), and statistically significant lower NPRS scores at week 1, 2, 3, and 4 (p < .05). Conclusion: Kinesio Taping can be considered a useful adjunct intervention to reduce disability and pain and to modulate fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with acute, nonspecific LBP.

Page generated in 0.0722 seconds