Affiliations: [a] Department of Physical Therapy, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia | [b] Department of Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation Center, Qatif Central Hospital, Qatif, Saudi Arabia
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Ali M. Alshami, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, P.O. Box 2435, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia. E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Despite being used as a manipulation technique, no studies have examined the effectiveness of physiotherapy instrument mobilization (PIM) as a mobilization technique on pain and functional status in patients with low back pain (LBP). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of PIM in patients with LBP and to compare it with the effectiveness of manual mobilization. METHODS: This is a double blind, randomized clinical trial. Thirty-two participants with LBP were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The PIM group received lumbar mobilization using an activator instrument, stabilization exercises, and education; and the manual group received lumbar mobilization using a pisiform grip, stabilization exercises, and education. Both groups had a total of 4 treatment sessions over 2–3 weeks. The following outcomes were measured before the intervention, and after the first and fourth sessions: Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scale, Pressure pain threshold (PPT), lumbar spine range of motion (ROM), and lumbar multifidus muscle activation. RESULTS: There were no differences between the PIM group and the manual group in any outcome measures. However, over the period of study, there were improvements in both groups in NPRS (PIM: 3.23, Manual: 3.64 points), ODI (PIM: 17.34%, Manual: 14.23%), PPT (PIM: ⩽ 1.25, Manual: ⩽ 0.85 kg.cm2), lumbar spine ROM (PIM: ⩽ 9.49∘, Manual: ⩽ 0.88∘), and/or lumbar multifidus muscle activation (percentage thickness change: PIM: ⩽ 4.71, Manual: ⩽ 4.74 cm; activation ratio: PIM: ⩽ 1.17, Manual: ⩽ 1.15 cm). CONCLUSIONS: Both methods of lumbar spine mobilization demonstrated comparable improvements in pain and disability in patients with LBP, with neither method exhibiting superiority over the other.
