We have located links that may give you full text access.
Efficacy of Manual Therapy versus Conventional Physical Therapy in Chronic Low Back Pain Due to Lumbar Spondylosis. A Pilot Study.
Medical Sciences : Open Access Journal 2015 June 27
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this work was to compare the efficacy of Maitland mobilization and conventional physical therapy on pain response, range of motion (ROM) and functional ability in patients with chronic low back pain due to lumbar spondylosis.
METHODS: A total sample of 30 subjects (40-70 years of age) with complaints of slow insidious onset of low back pain (LBP), with or without radiation not less than three months duration and decrease ROM were randomly assigned to: group-I, Maitland mobilization and lumbar stabilization exercises; group-II conventional physical therapy (traction, strengthening, stretching exercises.) and outcomes were assessed for dependent variables.
RESULTS: There is statically a significant difference between pre and post measurement readings with time ( p = 0.00) and between groups ( p < 0.05) with respect to pain and function, but, with respect to ROM readings, showed statistical significance with time ( p = 0.00) and no significance between groups ( p > 0.05), indicating manual therapy group-I is improving faster and better than conventional physical therapy group-II.
CONCLUSION: Our results showed that manual therapy interventions are more effective in managing low back pain, and function and range of motion of the lumbar spine than conventional physical therapy treatment.
METHODS: A total sample of 30 subjects (40-70 years of age) with complaints of slow insidious onset of low back pain (LBP), with or without radiation not less than three months duration and decrease ROM were randomly assigned to: group-I, Maitland mobilization and lumbar stabilization exercises; group-II conventional physical therapy (traction, strengthening, stretching exercises.) and outcomes were assessed for dependent variables.
RESULTS: There is statically a significant difference between pre and post measurement readings with time ( p = 0.00) and between groups ( p < 0.05) with respect to pain and function, but, with respect to ROM readings, showed statistical significance with time ( p = 0.00) and no significance between groups ( p > 0.05), indicating manual therapy group-I is improving faster and better than conventional physical therapy group-II.
CONCLUSION: Our results showed that manual therapy interventions are more effective in managing low back pain, and function and range of motion of the lumbar spine than conventional physical therapy treatment.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app