Randomized controlled trial of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for acute low back pain.

Study Design. A multi-center assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted. Objectives. To investigate the relative effectiveness of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for patients with acute low back pain when used as sole treatments and in combination. Summary of Background Data. Both manipulative therapy and interferential therapy are commonly used treatments for low back pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulative therapy is available only for the short term. There is no evidence for interferential therapy and no study has investigated the effectiveness of interferential therapy combined with manipulative therapy. Methods. Consenting subjects (n=240) were randomly assigned to receive a copy of the Back Book and either manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80) or combined manipulative therapy and interferential therapy (CT; n=80). Follow-up outcome questionnaires were posted at discharge, 6 and 12 months. Results. The groups were balanced at baseline for low back pain and demographic characteristics. All interventions were found to significantly reduce functional disability and pain and increase quality of life at discharge and to maintain these improvements at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences were found between groups for reported LBP recurrence, work absenteeism, medication consumption, exercise participation and healthcare use at 12 months. Conclusions. For acute low back pain, interferential therapy whether used in isolation or in combination with manipulative therapy was as effective as manipulative therapy alone (in addition to the Back Book).

A descriptive study of the usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques within a randomised clinical trial in acute low back pain

The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately de?ned the terms ‘mobilization’ and ‘manipulation’, nor distinguished between these terms in reporting the trial interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the spinal manipulative therapy techniques utilized within a RCT of manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80), and a combination of both (CT; n=80) for people with acute low back pain (LBP). Spinal manipulative therapy was de?ned as any ‘mobilization’ (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or ‘manipulation’ (high velocity
thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax.
The 16 physiotherapists, all members of the Society of Orthopaedic Medicine, utilized three spinal manipulative therapy patterns in the RCT: Maitland Mobilization (40.4%, n=59), Maitland Mobilization/Cyriax Manipulation (40.4%, n=59) and Cyriax Manipulation (19.1%, n=28). There was a signi?cant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (w2=9.178; df=2;P=0.01); subjects randomized to the CT group received three times more Cyriax Manipulation (29.2%, n=21/72) than those randomized to the MT group (9.5%, n=7/74; df=1; P=0.003).
The use of mobilization techniques within the trial was comparable with their usage by the general population of physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland for LBP management. However, the usage of manipulation techniques was considerably higher than reported in physiotherapy surveys and may re?ect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.

The effect of simultaneous contractions of ipsilateral muscles on changes in corticospinal excitability induced by paired associative stimulation (PAS)

Consideration was given to means of increasing the reliability and muscle specificity of paired associative stimulation (PAS) by utilising the phenomenon of crossed-facilitation. Eight participants completed three separate sessions: isometric flexor contractions of the left wrist at 20% of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) simultaneously with PAS (20s intervals; 14 min duration) delivered at the right median nerve and left primary motor cortex (MI); isometric contractions at 20% of MVC: and PAS only ( 14 min). Eight further participants completed two sessions of longer duration PAS (28 min): either alone or in conjunction with flexion contractions of the left wrist. Thirty motor potentials (MEPs) were evoked in the right flexor (rFCR) and extensor (rECR) carpi radialis muscles by magnetic stimulation of left M1 Prior to the interventions, immediately post-intervention, and 10 min post-intervention. Both 14 and 28 min of combined PAS and (left wrist flexion) contractions resulted in reliable increases in rFCR MEP amplitude, which were not present in rECR. In the PAS only conditions, 14 min of stimulation gave rise to unreliable increases in MEP amplitudes in rFCR and rECR, whereas 28 min of PAS induced small (unreliable) changes only for rFCR. These results support the conclusion that changes in the excitability of the corticospinal pathway induced by PAS interact with those associated with contraction of the muscles ipsilateral to the site of cortical stimulation. Furthermore, focal contractions applied by the opposite limb increase the extent and muscle specificity of the induced changes in excitability associated with PAS. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.