Long-term effects of specific stabilizing exercises for first-episode low back pain. Effects of an exercise program on sick leave due to back pain. A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain. Conservative treatment of acute low-back pain. A prospective randomized trial: McKenzie method of treatment versus patient education in "mini back school". A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of exercise therapy in patients with acute low back pain. Effect of exercise on sick leave due to low back pain. A randomized, comparative, long-term study. The effect of a Mensendieck exercise program as secondary prophylaxis for recurrent low back pain. A randomized, controlled trial with 12-month follow-up. Does early intervention with a light mobilization program reduce long-term sick leave for low back pain: a 3-year follow-up study.
A randomized clinical trial with 1-year and 3-year telephone questionnaire follow-ups.
                To report a specific exercise intervention's long-term effects on recurrence rates in acute, first-episode low back pain patients.
                The pain and disability associated with an initial episode of acute low back pain (LBP) is known to resolve spontaneously in the short-term in the majority of cases. However, the recurrence rate is high, and recurrent disabling episodes remain one of the most costly problems in LBP. A deficit in the multifidus muscle has been identified in acute LBP patients, and does not resolve spontaneously on resolution of painful symptoms and resumption of normal activity. Any relation between this deficit and recurrence rate was investigated in the long-term.
                Thirty-nine patients with acute, first-episode LBP were medically managed and randomly allocated to either a control group or specific exercise group. Medical management included advice and use of medications. Intervention consisted of exercises aimed at rehabilitating the multifidus in cocontraction with the transversus abdominis muscle. One year and three years after treatment, telephone questionnaires were conducted with patients.
                Questionnaire results revealed that patients from the specific exercise group experienced fewer recurrences of LBP than patients from the control group. One year after treatment, specific exercise group recurrence was 30%, and control group recurrence was 84% (P < 0.001). Two to three years after treatment, specific exercise group recurrence was 35%, and control group recurrence was 75% (P < 0.01).
                Long-term results suggest that specific exercise therapy in addition to medical management and resumption of normal activity may be more effective in reducing low back pain recurrences than medical management and normal activity alone. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the effect of a weekly exercise program on short-term sick leave (less than 50 days) attributable to back pain and to determine whether changes in absenteeism were related to changes in cardiovascular fitness. Subjects were randomly assigned to an exercise group (n = 58) and a control group (n = 53). Sick leave attributable to back pain was determined in the intervention period of 1 1/2 years and a comparable 1 1/2-year period prior to the study. In the exercise group, the number of episodes of back pain and the number of sick-leave days attributable to back pain in the intervention period decreased by over 50%. Absenteeism attributable to back pain increased in the control group. The decrease in sick leave in the exercise group was not accompanied by any change in cardiovascular fitness. Suggestions for establishing exercise programs are given. There are few data on the relative effectiveness and costs of treatments for low back pain. We randomly assigned 321 adults with low back pain that persisted for seven days after a primary care visit to the McKenzie method of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, or a minimal intervention (provision of an educational booklet). Patients with sciatica were excluded. Physical therapy or chiropractic manipulation was provided for one month (the number of visits was determined by the practitioner but was limited to a maximum of nine); patients were followed for a total of two years. The bothersomeness of symptoms was measured on an 11-point scale, and the level of dysfunction was measured on the 24-point Roland Disability Scale.
                After adjustment for base-line differences, the chiropractic group had less severe symptoms than the booklet group at four weeks (P=0.02), and there was a trend toward less severe symptoms in the physical therapy group (P=0.06). However, these differences were small and not significant after transformations of the data to adjust for their non-normal distribution. Differences in the extent of dysfunction among the groups were small and approached significance only at one year, with greater dysfunction in the booklet group than in the other two groups (P=0.05). For all outcomes, there were no significant differences between the physical-therapy and chiropractic groups and no significant differences among the groups in the numbers of days of reduced activity or missed work or in recurrences of back pain. About 75 percent of the subjects in the therapy groups rated their care as very good or excellent, as compared with about 30 percent of the subjects in the booklet group (P<0.001). Over a two-year period, the mean costs of care were $437 for the physical-therapy group, $429 for the chiropractic group, and $153 for the booklet group.
                For patients with low back pain, the McKenzie method of physical therapy and chiropractic manipulation had similar effects and costs, and patients receiving these treatments had only marginally better outcomes than those receiving the minimal intervention of an educational booklet. Whether the limited benefits of these treatments are worth the additional costs is open to question. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of the McKenzie method of treatment with patient education in "mini back school" in patients with acute low-back pain. The study included 100 patients, 23 women and 77 men with the average age 34.4 +/- 9.7 (range 18-61) years. The study included only those who were employed. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups, one group receiving treatment according to the McKenzie technique and the other group receiving education in a "mini back school." Assessments were made after 3 weeks by an independent observer and after 52 weeks they were seen by one of the authors. Patients were assessed on seven variables: return to work, sick-leave during the initial episode, sick-leave during recurrences, recurrences of pain during the year of observation, patients' ability to self-help, pain and movement. Although the effect of attention placebo cannot be ruled out, the results demonstrated that the McKenzie method of treatment for patients with acute low-back pain was superior for five out of seven variables studied. The only variables that did not show any statistically significant differences were sick-leave during recurring episodes of pain and patients' ability to self-help. To assess the efficacy of exercise therapy for acute low back pain, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial was performed in 40 Dutch general practices. Patients received either exercise instruction with advice for daily life by a physiotherapist; placebo ultrasound therapy by a physiotherapist; or usual care by the general practitioner. All patients received analgesic agents and information on low back pain before randomization. Four hundred seventy-three patients were included. No differences in number of recurrences, functional health status, or medical care usage could be found among the three groups. In the exercise group, duration of recurrences was shorter and patients were less tired during the first 3 months than in the usual care group, but no differences were found between the exercise and placebo groups. It was concluded that exercise therapy for patients with acute low back pain has no advantage over usual care from the general practitioner. The study was carried out as an open, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group study with an observation period of 12 months. Four norwegian physiotherapy institutes took part. Patients were subsequently followed for 12 months of home exercise on their own, without for 12 months of home exercise on their own, without the supervision of a physiotherapist.
                1) To investigate and compare the effects of two different exercise programs on low back problems in patients after a 1-year training program under the supervision of a physiotherapist. 2) To investigate the effect supervision by, and motivation from, physiotherapists has on training compliance and efficacy.
                After ordinary physiotherapy treatment for low back problems, patients were randomly allocated either to a conventional training program designed by physiotherapists or to a training program using a new Norwegian-developed training apparatus called the TerapiMaster. The study included 153 patients with low back problems, all of whom had been referred to physiotherapy by their general practitioners. One hundred twenty-six patients were followed for an additional 12 months when performing home exercise programs on their own.
                Monitoring patient satisfaction with the training program, compliance with the program, and absenteeism from work during the training period.
                Patient satisfaction with both training programs was high, with about 83% of participating patients completing the study in accordance with the protocol. Mean absenteeism (SD) during the preceding year totaled 82.5 days (19.8) in the conventional training group and 61.6 days (14.7) in the TerapiMaster group. Significant reductions to 17.2 days (6.0) and 16.4 days (5.3) in the two groups, respectively, were recorded during the training period, corresponding to a 75% to 80% reduction compared with the preceding 1-year period. Mean absenteeism showed a further significant decline during the 12-month period without supervised training. The average values were 9.9 days (3.2) for conventional training and 9.3 days (3.1) for the TerapiMaster, respectively.
                Both exercise programs reduced absenteeism significantly (75-80%). No difference in the effects of the two different programs was discernible. Regular follow-up through encouragement and variation in the training programs appear to be important factors for motivating patients to adhere to regular exercise programs for low back problems. This thesis was corroborated by the 12-month study of unsupervised exercise. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial with a stratification block design in which a Mensendieck exercise program was compared with the experience of a control group.
                To evaluate the effect of a Mensendieck program on the incidence of recurrent episodes of low back pain in patients with a history of the condition who currently are working.
                One episode of low back pain increases the risk of further episodes of the condition. The Mensendieck approach combines education and exercise. This approach has been used for many years in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. However, the effects on low back pain have not been evaluated previously in a randomized, controlled trial.
                A total of 77 men and women, mean age 39.6 years (range, 21.2-49.8 years), who had finished treatment for a low back pain episode, were stratified according to incidence of low back pain episodes and symptoms of sciatica over the preceding 3 years. The patients were assigned at random to either the Mensendieck program or a control group. The Mensendieck group received 20 group sessions of exercises and ergonomic education in 13 weeks. At 5- and 12-month follow-up examinations, the patients were assessed for recurrence of low back pain, days of sick leave, low back pain, and functional scores.
                After 12 months, there was a significant reduction in recurrent low back pain episodes in the Mensendieck group compared with the control group (P < 0.05). There was a trend toward fewer days of sick leave because of low back pain in the Mensendieck group, but no significant differences between the groups. There was reduction in pain and improvement in function in both groups, with no significant differences between the groups.
                A secondary prophylaxis Mensendieck exercise program of 20 group sessions significantly reduced the incidence of low back pain recurrences in a population with history of the condition. However, there were no differences between the groups with regard to days of sick leave, low back pain, and function. A randomized clinical trial.
                To evaluate long-term clinical and economical effects of a light mobilization program on the duration of sick leave for patients with subacute low back pain.
                Twelve-month follow-up results from a previous study showed that early intervention with examination at a spine clinic, giving the patients information, reassurance, and encouragement to engage in physical activity as normal as possible had significant effect in reducing sick leave. At 12-month follow-up, 68.4% in the intervention group were off sick leave, as compared with 56.4% in the control group. Patients in this study were followed-up for a period of 3 years to investigate possible long-term effects.
                Four hundred fifty-seven patients placed on a sick list for 8 to 12 weeks for low back pain were randomized into two groups: an intervention group (n = 237) and a control group (n = 220). The intervention group was examined at a spine clinic and given information and advice to stay active. The control group was not examined at the clinic but was treated within the primary health care.
                Over the 3 years of observation, the intervention group had significantly fewer days of sickness compensation (average 125.7 d/person) than the control group (169.6 d/person). This difference is mainly caused by a more rapid return to work during the first year. There was no significant difference for the second or third year. In particular, there is no increased risk for reoccurrence of illness from early return to work. At 6-month follow-up, patients in the intervention group were less likely to use bed rest and more likely to use stretching and walking to cope with their back pain compared with the control group. This effect diminished. At 12-month follow-up, the only significant difference between the groups was in the use of stretching. Economic returns of the intervention were calculated in terms of increases in the net present value of production for the society because of the reduction in number of days on sick leave. Net benefits accumulated over 3 years of treating the 237 patients in the intervention group amount to approximately 2,822 dollars per person.
                For patients with subacute low back pain, a brief and simple early intervention with examination, information, reassurance, and encouragement to engage in physical activity as normal as possible had economic gains for the society. The effect occurred during the first year after intervention. There were no significant long-term effects of the intervention. The initial gain obtained during the first year does not lead to any increased costs or increased risks for reoccurrence of illness over the next 2 years.
There is moderate quality evidence that post-treatment exercise programmes can prevent recurrences of back pain but conflicting evidence was found for treatment exercise. Studies into the validity of measurement of recurrences and the effectiveness of post-treatment exercise are needed.