| Title | Efficacy of Dynamic Muscular Stabilization Techniques (DMST) Over Conventional Techniques in Rehabilitation of Chronic Low Back Pain. | | Author(s) | Kumar S, Sharma VP, Negi MP | | Institution | 1Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chatrapati Sahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow, India; and 2Biometry and Statistics Division, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow, India. | | Source | J Strength Cond Res 2009 Oct 24. | | Abstract | Kumar, S, Sharma, VP, and Negi, MPS. Efficacy of dynamic muscular stabilization techniques (DMST) over conventional techniques in rehabilitation of chronic low back pain. J Strength Cond Res 23(x): 000-000, 2009-Low back pain (LBP) is a common health problems. Although it is multifactorial, its treatment varies considerably, including medication, physical therapy modalities, and exercise therapy, and each have several interventions. Despite their effectiveness, their head-to-head comparisons are limited. This study was aimed at 1 such comparison. A total of 30 hockey players, 18 to 28 years of age, with subacute or chronic LBP were randomly assigned equally in 2 groups. One group was treated with conventional treatment-a combination of 2 electrotherapies (ultrasound and short-wave diathermy) and 1 exercise therapy (lumbar strengthening exercises)-and the other group was treated with dynamic muscular stabilization techniques (DMST), an active approach of stabilizing training. The results showed that both the treatments are effective in the management of LBP, but DMST was found to be more effective than conventional treatment. The walking, stand ups, climbing, and pain improved 4.7, 2.0, 1.4, and 2.1 times, respectively, more with DMST than with conventional treatment. With time (days), walking, stand ups, climbing, and pain improved (correlation) significantly (p < 0.01) higher in DMST (r = 0.83 to 0.92) than in conventional treatment (r = 0.40 to 0.75), and their rate of improvement (regression beta coefficients) were also significantly (p < 0.01) higher in DMST (beta = -0.16 to 0.73) than in conventional treatment (beta = -0.07 to 0.15). Subjects matching were perfect (p < 0.01) and test-retest reliability of all dependent variables was significantly (p < 0.01) high (intraclass correlation coefficient approximately 1). No major adverse effects were recorded in any of the patients in either group. This study concluded that for early recovery, DMST is more suitable than conventional treatment. | | Language | ENG | | Pub Type(s) | JOURNAL ARTICLE
| | PubMed ID | 19858754 |
|
