Submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2018. / Background: Chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) is a common ailment treated by chiropractors. Most chiropractors focus on the localised lumbar area of pain. Other chiropractors focus on restoring function to compensating articulations in the ‗full kinematic chain‘ by assessing and treating the lower extremity in conjunction to the low back. Patients with LBP often exhibit decreased hip-related ranges of motion that may result in future LBP, relapse and a prolonged recovery time. Studies investigating the effect of treating the kinematic chain in relation to LBP are limited and the literature, although widely taught and practiced, is largely anecdotal. Chiropractic manipulation has shown to be effective in the treatment of LBP and many lower extremity conditions. Objectives: This study set out to determine if a combination of low back and hip manipulation would result in a more beneficial outcome for the participant, suffering with CNSLBP, than low back manipulation alone in terms of objective and subjective outcomes. Method: The study was a randomised controlled clinical trial which, through purposive sampling, consisted of 50 participants with CNSLBP and hip joint dysfunction. The participants were randomly divided into two groups of 25 each [A and B]. Group A received low back manipulation alone and Group B received combined low back and hip manipulation. Subjective data was obtained through the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (ODI) and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Objective data was obtained through the use of a Force Dial Algometer and an Inclinometer. Data collection occurred at the first, third and fifth consultations and was coded and analysed using IBM SPSS version 24.0. A p-value value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically relevant. Results: Intra-group testing showed that there was a significant difference over time, within both groups, with regards to internal rotation and external rotation of the hip, flexion of the lumbar spine, increased pain tolerance in Algometer tests, decreased NPRS values and decreased ODI scores. Within Group A, the mean scores for hip flexion reflected a more significant increase over time than those of Group B. Within Group B, the mean scores for left and right rotation of the lumbar spine reflected a more significant change over time than those of Group A. Inter-group testing showed no significantly differential treatment effect for any of the subjective and objective outcomes. This means that both treatments were equally effective and the hypothesis, that suggested that Group B would improve more than Group A, was incorrect. Conclusion: Both treatment groups improved subjectively and objectively with regards to CNSLBP. Inter-group testing showed that statistically, and for all outcome measurements, there were no significant differences between the two treatment group‘s results. This suggested that there was no additional benefit in combining hip joint manipulation with low back manipulation in the treatment of CNSLBP. / M

M.Tech. / OBJECTIVE: To determine the most effective treatment protocol in the treatment of Lower-Crossed Syndrome by comparing objective results gained from a Rehabilitation program (group one), Spinal Manipulative Therapy (group two) and a combination of these therapies (group three) directed at the sacroiliac joints and lumbar spine. DESIGN: The study was a clinical trial in which three experimental groups of sixteen participants each were compared to each other. These participants were recruited from the local general population and were selected on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria, presenting with Lower-Crossed Syndrome and demonstrating unremarkable clinical and radiological findings. INTERVENTION AND DURATION: After randomisation, group one received a Rehabilitation program which consisted of a stretching and strengthening program only, group two received Spinal Manipulative Therapy only whereas group three received a combination of Spinal Manipulative Therapy and a Rehabilitation program. The frequency of the follow up consultations for this study was two consultations over the first two weeks of the trial and once a week for the following four weeks of the trial. MEASUREMENTS: Objective measurements included lumbar spine flexion and extension ranges of motion, hip flexor flexibility (hip extension), active and passive hamstring flexibility, gluteus maximus and abdominal strength tests and Sorenson’s Test (static back extensor strength test). Subjective measurements were the Oswestry Low Back Pain and Disability Index and McGill’s Questionnaire. Measurements were taken before (pre-) and after (post-) the first (initial), third, fifth and eighth (last) consultations. CONCLUSIONS: The aim of the study was to determine the most effective treatment protocol in the management of Lower Back Pain in athletes presenting with Lower-Crossed Syndrome. Although the combined group (group three) showed the greatest improvement these findings were statistically no greater than the statistical findings in group one and group two. All groups showed a statistically significant improvement over the trial period. This illustrates that both Spinal Manipulative Therapy and a Rehabilitation program (including stretching and strengthening) was effective in the management of Lower-Crossed Syndrome. From this study it can therefore be concluded that one treatment protocol did not prove to be more effective than that of the others.

Submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2017. / Background: The increasing cost and prevalence of chronic low back pain (LBP), has resulted in more resources being devoted to its treatment and management than ever before, despite only approximately 10% of acute cases progressing to chronicity. Determining prognostic factors for the short-term improvement of acute and chronic patients with LBP has become a research focus area to try and identify baseline factors that may affect a patients’ improvement with conservative treatment. Internationally studies have been conducted in developed countries however similar studies are lacking in developing settings like South Africa. It is unclear if the prognostic factors identified would be similar across populations. Thus, this study aimed to determine if pain, disability (social and physical), anxiety, depression, work fear-avoidance and locus of control, were associated with short-term prognosis, as determined by self-reported improvement using a Patients Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale, in acute and chronic LBP patients attending the Durban University of Technology Chiropractic Day Clinic (DUT CDC). Method: Consecutive patients seeking treatment at the DUT CDC with a new episode of non-specific LBP, who met the study criteria, were approached for participation in the study. On agreeing to participate they were given the Bournemouth Questionnaire (BQ), a demographic questionnaire and a letter of information and consent (LOIC) at the initial consultation by student chiropractors. Those participants that were still attending treatment at the 4th/5th and tenth visit were required to complete the BQ and the PGIC. Results: A hundred participants were enrolled in the study, 65% had acute LBP and 52% were male. Only 20% of the initial group were still attending treatment at the 4th/5th follow-up. Baseline comparisons of those with acute and chronic pain revealed no significant difference in gender or age. Acute patients at the initial visit had higher levels of disability (social and physical), anxiety, depression and fear-avoidance beliefs than the chronic pain participants. At the 4th/5th treatment, the acute pain patients showed a significant decrease in pain (p=0.002) and disability (p=0.032), with all other measures decreasing from baseline measures. Similarly, chronic pain participants had a significant decrease in pain (p=0.038) but a significant increase in depression (p=0.015) scores, with all other prognostic factors being rated higher than at the initial consultation. The majority of participants (85%) in this study reported a clinical improvement in their LBP. In the acute pain sufferers, all but one participant reported improvement, thus identification of prognostic factors or this group was not possible. In the chronic pain participants, no factors were identified as prognostic for improvement, regardless of the low numbers still attending at the 4th/5th visit. Conclusions: Trends suggested that chronic pain sufferers were less likely to report decreases in the prognostic factors (except for pain), when compared to the acute pain participants. In the chronic LBP participants, no factors were associated with improved prognosis. The predictive value in determining which patients were less likely to improve was limited in the current study due to a small sample size. / M