Open AccessEfficacy of Dynamic Muscular Stabilization Techniques (DMST) Over Conventional Techniques in Rehabilitation of Chronic Low Back Pain
Author(s) -
Suraj Kumar,
Vineet Sharma,
Mahendra Pal Singh Negi
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
journal of strength and conditioning research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.569
H-Index - 128
eISSN - 1533-4287
pISSN - 1064-8011
DOI - 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181b3dde0
Subject(s) - medicine , physical therapy , intraclass correlation , rehabilitation , physical medicine and rehabilitation , low back pain , psychometrics , clinical psychology , alternative medicine , pathology
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.