Treating acute low back pain with continuous low-level heat wrap therapy and/or exercise: a randomized controlled trial. Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy provides more efficacy than Ibuprofen and acetaminophen for acute low back pain. Heat or cold for the relief of low back pain? Overnight use of continuous low-level heatwrap therapy for relief of low back pain. Continuous low-level heatwrap therapy for treating acute nonspecific low back pain. Active warming during emergency transport relieves acute low back pain. Ice massage and transcutaneous electrical stimulation: comparison of treatment for low-back pain.
Restorative exercise and palliative modalities are frequently used together for the treatment of acute low back pain. However, little is known about the effects of combining these treatments.
                To evaluate the efficacy of combining continuous low-level heat wrap therapy with directional preference-based exercise on the functional ability of patients with acute low back pain.
                A randomized controlled trial was conducted at three outpatient medical facilities.
                One hundred individuals (age 31.2+/-10.6 years) with low back pain of less than 3 months duration.
                The primary outcome measure was functional ability assessed by the Multidimensional Task Ability Profile questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were disability assessed by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and pain relief assessed by a 6-point verbal rating scale.
                Participants were randomized to one of four groups: Heat wrap therapy alone (heat wrap, n=25); directional preference-based exercise alone (exercise, n=25); combination of heat wrap therapy and exercise (heat+exercise, n=24); or control (booklet, n=26). Treatment was administered for five consecutive days and included four visits to the study center over 1 week.
                At 2 days after the conclusion of treatment (Day 7), functional improvement for heat+exercise was 84%, 95%, and 175% greater than heat wrap, exercise, and booklet, respectively (p<.05). Seventy-two percent of the subjects in the heat+exercise group demonstrated a return to pre-injury function compared with 20%, 20%, and 19% for heat wrap, exercise, and booklet, respectively (p<.05). Disability reduction for heat+exercise was 93%, 139%, and 400% greater than heat wrap, exercise, and booklet, respectively (p<.05). Pain relief for heat+exercise was 70% and 143% greater than exercise and booklet, respectively (p<.05).
                Combining continuous low-level heat wrap therapy with directional preference-based exercise during the treatment of acute low back pain significantly improves functional outcomes compared with either intervention alone or control. Either intervention alone tends to be more effective than control. A prospective, randomized, single (investigator) blind, comparative efficacy trial was conducted.
                To compare the efficacy of continuous low-level heat wrap therapy (40 C, 8 hours/day) with that of ibuprofen (1200 mg/day) and acetaminophen (4000 mg/day) in subjects with acute nonspecific low back pain.
                The efficacy of topical heat methods, as compared with oral analgesic treatment of low back pain, has not been established.
                Subjects (n = 371) were randomly assigned to heat wrap (n = 113), acetaminophen (n = 113), or ibuprofen (n = 106) for efficacy evaluation, or to oral placebo (n = 20) or unheated back wrap (n = 19) for blinding. Outcome measures included pain relief, muscle stiffness, lateral trunk flexibility, and disability. Efficacy was measured over two treatment days and two follow-up days.
                Day 1 pain relief for the heat wrap (mean, 2) was higher than for ibuprofen (mean, 1.51; P = 0.0007) or acetaminophen (mean, 1.32; P = 0.0001). Extended mean pain relief (Days 3 to 4) for the heat wrap (mean, 2.61) also was higher than for ibuprofen (mean, 1.68; P = 0.0001) or acetaminophen (mean, 1.95; P = 0.0009). Lateral trunk flexibility was improved with the heat wrap (mean change, 4.28 cm) during treatment (P </= 0.009 vs acetaminophen [mean change, 2.93 cm], P </= 0.001 vs ibuprofen [mean change, 2.51 cm]). The results were similar on Day 4. Day 1 reduction in muscle stiffness with the heat wrap (mean, 16.3) was greater than with acetaminophen (mean, 10.5; P = 0.001). Disability was reduced with the heat wrap (mean, 4.9), as compared with ibuprofen (mean, 2.7; P = 0.01) and acetaminophen (mean, 2.9; P = 0.0007), on Day 4. None of the adverse events were serious. The highest rate (10.4%) was reported in the ibuprofen group.
                Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy was superior to both acetaminophen and ibuprofen for treating low back pain. nan To evaluate of the efficacy and safety of 8 hours of continuous, low-level heatwrap therapy administered during sleep.
                Prospective, randomized, parallel, single-blind (investigator), placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial.
                Two community-based research facilities.
                Seventy-six patients, aged 18 to 55 years, with acute, nonspecific low back pain.
                Subjects were stratified by baseline pain intensity and gender and randomized to one of the following treatments: evaluation of efficacy (heatwrap, n=33; oral placebo, n=34) or blinding (unheated wrap, n=5; oral ibuprofen, n=4). All treatments were administered for 3 consecutive nights with 2 days of follow-up.
                Primary: morning pain relief (hour 0) on days 2 through 4 (0-5-point verbal response scale). Secondary: mean daytime pain relief score (days 2-4, hours 0-8), mean extended pain relief score (day 4, hour 0; day 5, hour 0), muscle stiffness, lateral trunk flexibility, and disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire).
                Heatwrap therapy was significantly better than placebo at hour 0 on days 2 through 4 for mean pain relief (P=.00005); at hours 0 through 8 on days 2 through 4 for pain relief (P<.001); at hour 0 on day 4 and at hour 0 on day 5 for mean pain relief (P<.001); on day 4 in reduction of morning muscle stiffness (P<.001); for increased lateral trunk flexibility on day 4 (P<.002); and for decreased low back disability on day 4 (P=.005). Adverse events were mild and infrequent.
                Overnight use of heatwrap therapy provided effective pain relief throughout the next day, reduced muscle stiffness and disability, and improved trunk flexibility. Positive effects were sustained more than 48 hours after treatments were completed.
                Copyright 2003 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation To evaluate the efficacy of 8 hours of continuous low-level heatwrap therapy for the treatment of acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP).
                Prospective, randomized, parallel, single-blind (investigator), placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial.
                Five community-based research facilities.
                Two-hundred nineteen subjects, aged 18 to 55 years, with acute nonspecific LBP.
                Subjects were stratified by baseline pain intensity and gender and randomized to one of the following groups: evaluation of efficacy (heatwrap, n=95; oral placebo, n=96) and blinding (oral ibuprofen, n=12; unheated back, wrap n=16). All treatments were administered for 3 consecutive days with 2 days of follow-up.
                Primary: day 1 mean pain relief (0- to 5-point verbal response scale). Secondary: muscle stiffness (101-point numeric rating scale), lateral trunk flexibility (fingertip-floor distance), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire over 3 days of treatment and 2 days of follow-up.
                Heatwrap therapy was shown to provide significant therapeutic benefits when compared with placebo during both the treatment and follow-up period. On day 1, the heatwrap group had greater pain relief (1.76+/-.10 vs 1.05+/-.11, P <.001), less muscle stiffness (43.1+/-1.21 vs 47.6+/-1.21, P=.008), and increased flexibility (18.6+/-.44 cm vs 16.5+/-.45 cm, P=.001) compared with placebo. Disability was also reduced in the heatwrap group (5.3 vs 7.4, P=.0002). Adverse events were mild and infrequent.
                Continuous low-level heatwrap therapy was shown to be effective for the treatment of acute, nonspecific LBP.
                Copyright 2003 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Prospective randomized blinded trial in a prehospital emergency system.
                To evaluate the effects of external active warming on acute back pain during rescue transport to hospital.
                Acute low back pain is one of the complaints that most often entails a visit to the physician or use of the emergency system. Superficial (e.g., hydrocolloid packs) and deep heating (e.g., ultrasound) can relieve acute low back pain in a clinical setting. Recent data showed significant benefit for patients in pain from minor trauma treated by active warming during emergency transport. Accordingly, we tested the hypothesis that active warming would reduce pain and anxiety in patients with acute low back pain being transported to a hospital.
                A total of 100 patients were included in our study. We selected only those suffering from acute pain > 60 mm on a visual analog scale in the lower back. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: active warming with a carbon-fiber electric heating blanket (Group 1) versus passive warming with a woolen blanket (Group 2) during transfer to hospital. RESULTS.: Pain scores on arrival at the hospital differed significantly between Group 1 and Group 2 (P < 0.01). In Group 1, pain reduction from 74.2 +/- 8.5 mm VAS to 41.9 +/- 18.9 mm VAS (P < 0.01) was noted between departure from the emergency site and arrival at the hospital. Pain scores remained practically unchanged in Group 2 (73.3 +/- 11.9 mm VAS and 74.1 +/- 12.0 mm VAS).
                Active warming reduces acute low back pain during rescue transport. It has recently been shown that ice massage of the web between the thumb and index finger produces significantly greater relief of dental pain than a placebo control procedure. These results indicate that ice massage may be comparable to transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) and acupuncture, and may be mediated by similar neural mechanisms. The purpose of this study was to examine the relative effectiveness of ice massage and TES for the relief of low-back pain. Patients suffering chronic low-back pain were treated with both ice massage and TES. The order of treatments was balanced, and changes in the intensity of pain were measured with the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). The results show that both methods are equally effective: based on the Pain Rating Index of the MPQ, 67-69% of patients obtained pain relief greater than 33% with each method. The results indicate that ice massage is an effective therapeutic tool, and appears to be more effective than TES for some patients. It may also serve as an additional sensory-modulation method to alternate with TES to overcome adaptation effects. Evidence that cold signals are transmitted to the spinal cord exclusively by A-delta fibers and not by C fibers suggests that ice massage provides a potential method for differentiating among the multiple feedback systems that mediate analgesia produced by different forms of intense sensory input.
The evidence base to support the common practice of superficial heat and cold for low back pain is limited and there is a need for future higher-quality randomised controlled trials. There is moderate evidence in a small number of trials that heat wrap therapy provides a small short-term reduction in pain and disability in a population with a mix of acute and sub-acute low-back pain, and that the addition of exercise further reduces pain and improves function. The evidence for the application of cold treatment to low-back pain is even more limited, with only three poor quality studies located. No conclusions can be drawn about the use of cold for low-back pain. There is conflicting evidence to determine the differences between heat and cold for low-back pain.