[Treatment of lumbar sciatica with or without neurological deficit using mechanical traction. A double-blind study]. The efficacy of lumbar traction in the management of patients with low back pain. The efficacy of traction for lumbar back pain: design of a randomized clinical trial. Physical therapy on low back pain and sciatica. An attempt at evaluation. Lumbar traction: a double-blind controlled study for sciatica. Traction therapy in patients with herniated lumbar intervertebral discs. Auto-traction for treatment of lumbago-sciatica. A multicentre controlled investigation. Autotraction versus manual traction in patients with prolapsed lumbar intervertebral discs. A controlled trial of continuous lumbar traction in the treatment of back pain and sciatica. Multicentre trial of physiotherapy in the management of sciatic symptoms. Randomized trial comparing interferential therapy with motorized lumbar traction and massage in the management of low back pain in a primary care setting. A prospective randomized controlled study of VAX-D and TENS for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Comparison of sacrospinalis myoelectric activity and pain levels in patients undergoing static and intermittent lumbar traction. Autotraction versus passive traction: an open controlled study in lumbar disc herniation. Controlled trial of balneotherapy in treatment of low back pain.
Traction therapy for low back pain with sciatica has been evaluated in a double blind study. 60 patients hospitalized for sciatica with or without signs of sensory or motor deficiency were randomized to 3 treatment groups: "placebo traction" (5 kg), "light traction" (15 kg) and "normal traction" (50 kg). Clinical evaluation after 4, 8 and 12 traction sessions showed no difference between the three groups. The literature on the efficacy of traction in the treatment of low back pain (LBP) is conflicting. The aim of this study was to examine its efficacy in this disorder. Forty-two patients with at least 6 weeks of nonspecific LBP were selected. Demographic data were obtained. All patients completed the Oswestry disability index (ODI) to assess disability and the 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) for evaluation of pain. Subjects were randomly assigned into group 1, receiving only standard physical therapy, or group 2, receiving standard physical therapy with conventional lumbar traction. Standard physical therapy consisted of local heat, ultrasound for the lumbar region, and an active exercise program, given for ten sessions in all. The subjects received instruction on correct posture and recommended therapeutic exercises. They were reevaluated at the end of treatment and at 3-month follow-up. The mean outcome measures were global improvement and satisfaction with the therapy, as well as disability by ODI and pain by VAS. There were no group differences in terms of demographic and baseline clinical characteristics. There was a significant reduction in pain intensity and disability at the end of treatment in both groups. There was complete or mild improvement in 47.6% of group 1 and 40% of group 2. The satisfaction rate with both treatments was more than 70% immediately after the therapies. During the 3-month period, the outcome measures except disability remained statistically stable, with no difference amongst groups. Disability was significantly reduced at follow-up in both groups. Of the patients, 51% continued with the recommended exercises and had significantly lower disability scores than those who did not continue with the exercises. Pain and global improvement were also better in this group, but the difference was not statistically significant. In conclusion, no specific effect of traction on standard physical therapy was observed in our study group. We suggest focusing on back education and exercise therapy in the management of patients suffering from this chronic condition. To present the design of a trial on the efficacy of lumbar traction.
                Randomized clinical trial.
                Patients with a minimum of 6 wk, nonspecific low back pain.
                High-dose, motorized, continuous traction with a force between 35% and 50% of the total body weight was compared with sham or low-dose traction with a force between 0 and 20% of body weight. The sham traction was given with a specially developed brace that becomes tighter in the back during traction. This is experienced by patients as if traction were exerted.
                Primary measures were the patient's global impression of the effect and the severity of three main complaints. Secondary effect measures were functional status, pain, range of motion, work absence and recurrences. The effect measures were rated before randomization and 4 wk, 12 wk and 6 months later.
                There have been a number of earlier trials on the efficacy of lumbar traction; they suffer, however, from severe methodological flaws. This trial aimed to avoid these shortcomings. nan A double-blind control study of lumbar traction for sciatica has been carried out. Although there is a tendency for traction to produce improvement in pain and straight-leg raise the extent does not achieve statistical significance. Changing 'control' patients to 'treatment' seemed to produce worthwhile relief of pain for all who were not already improving. It is suggested that a large trial using more discriminating criteria might delineate a group of patients susceptible to help by traction. nan In this controlled prospective study of the Auto-traction method for the treatment of lumbago-sciatica, 82 patients were randomly allocated to either treatment with Auto-traction for up to three 1-hour sessions in 1 week, or they were given a corset and advised to rest. The orthopaedic surgeons participating in the study worked at six different hospitals and all had limited experience of the Auto-traction method obtained during a 1-week course. All patients were clinically evaluated by an independent observer who also performed the follow-up examinations 1 and 3 weeks after the treatment sessions. In addition a 3-month follow-up was performed by letter. The Auto-traction method gave prompt relief of pain and a normalizing of the SLR test more often than treatment with only a corset and rest. The difference between the two treatment groups was statistically significant. The immediate difference noted between the treatment groups had decreased slightly at 3 weeks but was still statistically significant at this time. Forty-nine patients with lumbago-sciatica and prolapsed lumbar intervertebral discs, comparable concerning anamnestical and clinical data were randomized for autotraction and manual traction given by the same therapist for a period of one week while strict bed rest was prescribed. A blind overall assessment performed immediately after the traction period, after two weeks follow-up training and three months after hospitalization showed that the two traction modalities are equally efficient. As treatment for hospitalized patients with lumbar intervertebral disc prolapses the relatively simple manual traction variety should be preferred, if any. Traction is suggested to be used as a prognostical aid. Pain intensity was significantly reduced in all body parts. About one fourth of patients avoided operation. After two years there was no recurrence of symptoms. A controlled trial of continuous lumbar traction in the treatment of back pain and sciatica showed similar improvements in both the treated group (weighted traction) and the control group (simulated traction). The findings of this study question the justification of admitting patients with back pain into hospitals for purposes of traction alone. Four treatments for sciatic symptoms--traction, exercises, manipulation, and corset--were assessed in a randomised controlled trial in 322 outpatients. The design was factorial. There were thus sixteen treatment groups, enabling a comparison of combinations of methods as well as of individual methods. Treatment lasted for four weeks. Patients were reviewed at the end of this period and at four and sixteen months after entry to the trial. Progress was measured by the patient's account of symptomatic improvement or deterioration and by return to work or normal activities. At four weeks each of the treatments was associated with a small degree of benefit over and above the high rate of spontaneous improvement. For manipulation, the benefit was statistically significant on one of the scales used to measure progress. There was a significant increase in symptomatic improvement with increasing numbers of treatments used in combination. This was complemented by a clear tendency for those who had received fewer types of treatment during the trial to have further treatment in the ensuing three months. There were no beneficial effects of treatment detectable at four or sixteen months. In the short-term, active physiotherapy with several treatments appears to be of value in the outpatient management of patients with sciatic symptoms, but it does not seem to confer any longer-term benefit. A randomized trial designed to compare interferential therapy with motorized lumbar traction and massage management for low back pain in a primary care setting.
                To measure and compare the outcome of interferential therapy and management by motorized lumbar traction and massage.
                Management of low back pain by interferential therapy and motorized lumbar traction and massage is common in Germany. No reports of previous randomized trials for the outcome from interferential therapy were found.
                Consenting patients were randomly assigned into one of two groups. A pretreatment interview was performed by the patient using a computer-based questionnaire. It also incorporated the Oswestry Disability Index and a pain visual analog scale. Management consisted of six sessions over a 2- to 3-week period. Oswestry Disability Indexes and pain visual analog scale scores also were obtained immediately after and at 3 months after treatment.
                A total of 152 patients were recruited. The two treatment groups had similar demographic and clinical baseline characteristics. The mean Oswestry Disability Index before treatment was 30 for both groups (n = 147). After treatment, this had dropped to 25, and, at 3 months, were 21 (interferential therapy) and 22 (motorized lumbar traction and massage). The mean pain visual analog scale score before treatment was 50 (interferential therapy) and 51 (motorized lumbar traction and massage). This had dropped, respectively, to 46 and 44 after treatment and to 42 and 39 at 3 months.
                This study shows a progressive fall in Oswestry Disability Index and pain visual analog scale scores in patients with low back pain treated with either-interferential therapy or motorized lumbar traction and massage. There was no difference in the improvement between the two groups at the end of treatment. Although there is evidence from several trials that traction alone is ineffective in the management of low back pain, this study could not exclude some effect from the concomitant massage. Low back pain is one of the most significant medical and socioeconomic problems in modern society. International guidelines call for evidence-based management for the pain and disability associated with musculoskeletal disorders. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to address the question of efficacy and appropriateness of vertebral axial decompression (VAX-D) therapy, a new technology that has been shown in clinical research to create negative intradiscal pressures, and has been shown to be effective in treating patients presenting with chronic low back pain (> 3 months duration) with associated leg pain. Successful outcome was defined as a 50% reduction in pain utilizing a 10 cm Visual Analog Pain Scale and an improvement in the level of functioning as measured by patient-nominated disability ratings. Patients were randomly assigned to VAX-D or to TENS which was used as a control treatment or placebo. The TENS treatment demonstrated a success rate of 0%, while VAX-D demonstrated a success rate of 68.4% (p < 0.001). A statistically significant reduction in pain and improvement in functional outcome was obtained in patients with chronic low back pain treated with VAX-D. The purposes of this study of low back pain patients were to determine: 1) if presence of sacrospinalis myoelectric activity is a consistent phenomenon in supine and prone positions; 2) if there is a difference between magnitudes of myoelectric activity for two types of lumbar traction (static and intermittent); and 3) if there is a difference in patient perceived pain level after traction between the two types of traction. Results show that surface electrode myoelectric activity is absent in resting supine and prone positions, there is no significant difference in magnitude of myoelectric activity between the two different types of traction, and more than 50% of patients in both traction groups experienced decreased pain after traction. Autotraction (AT) is a treatment for low-back pain syndrome of benign etiology that uses a specially designed traction table divided into two movable sections. While lying on the table, the pelvis secured, the patient controls the traction forces by grasping and pulling the bars at the head of the table. There are controls for the therapist to apply, through movable sections of the table, rotation and bending forces to help restore mobility to the lumbar spine without inducing pain. The present study is based upon a randomized treatment trial comparing conventional passive traction (PT) to AT. The following outcome indicators were used: (1) subjective response concerning overall improvement, (2) pain intensity (visual analog scale, 0-100), (3) qualitative pain severity (McGill Pain Questionnaire, short-form, 0-45), and (4) pain related disability (Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Score, 0-100). The favorable response to AT was 75% (30 of the 40 patients) versus the 22% (6 of 27 patients) to PT (p < 0.001). After 3 months, 19 of the 30 responders to AT (63%) reported continued improvement. In these patients, pain ratings remained stable and the disability scores decreased to 0 to 23% of the pretreatment value (median and mean respectively, p < 0.001). Three treatments for non-specific lumbar pain--balneotherapy, underwater traction bath, and underwater massage--were assessed in a randomised prospective controlled trial in 158 outpatients. Each group was treated for four weeks and patients were reviewed at the end of this period and at 12 months after entry to the trial. The prescription of analgesics and the pain score were significantly reduced in all three treated groups, but there was no difference between the three groups. No significant change occurred in spinal motion and the straight leg raising test. After one year only the analgesic consumption was significantly lower than in the control group.
Implications for practice
The results of the available studies involving mixed groups of acute, sub-acute and chronic patients with LBP with and without sciatica were quite consistent, indicating that continuous or intermittent traction as a single treatment for LBP is not likely effective for this group. Traction for patients with sciatica cannot be judged effective at present either, due to inconsistent results and methodological problems in most studies. We conclude that traction as a single treatment for LBP is probably not effective. 

Implications for research
Any future research on traction for patients with LBP should distinguish between symptom pattern and duration, and should be carried out according to the highest methodological standards.