Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2012 Jul;21(7):1301-10.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2155-9. Epub 2012 Jan 24.

Spine Stabilisation Exercises in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Good Clinical Outcome Is Not Associated With Improved Abdominal Muscle Function

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Clinical Trial

Spine Stabilisation Exercises in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Good Clinical Outcome Is Not Associated With Improved Abdominal Muscle Function

A F Mannion et al. Eur Spine J. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Introduction: Various studies have shown that spine stabilisation exercise therapy elicits improvements in symptoms/disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (cLBP). However, few have corroborated the intended mechanism of action by examining whether clinical improvements (1) are greater in patients with functional deficits of the targeted muscles and (2) correlate with post-treatment improvements in abdominal muscle function.

Methods: Pre and directly after 9 weeks' therapy, 32 cLBP patients (44.0 ± 12.3 years) rated their LBP intensity (0-10) and disability (0-24, Roland-Morris; RM) and completed psychological questionnaires. At the same timepoints, the voluntary activation of transversus abdominis (TrA), obliquus internus and obliquus externus during "abdominal-hollowing" and the anticipatory ("feedforward") activation of these muscles during rapid arm movements were measured using M-mode ultrasound with tissue Doppler imaging.

Results: Pre-therapy to post-therapy, RM decreased from 8.9 ± 4.7 to 6.7 ± 4.3, and average pain, from 4.7 ± 1.7 to 3.5 ± 2.3 (each P < 0.01). The ability to voluntarily activate TrA increased by 4.5% (P = 0.045) whilst the anticipatory activation of the lateral abdominal muscles showed no significant change (P > 0.05). There was no significant correlation between the change in RM scores after therapy and either baseline values for voluntary (r = 0.24, P = 0.20) or anticipatory activation (r = 0.04, P = 0.84), or their changes after therapy (voluntary, r = 0.08, P = 0.66; anticipatory, r = 0.16, P = 0.40). In multiple regression, only a reduction in catastrophising (P = 0.0003) and in fingertip-floor distance (P = 0.0006) made unique contributions to explaining the variance in the reduction in RM scores.

Conclusion: Neither baseline lateral abdominal muscle function nor its improvement after a programme of stabilisation exercises was a statistical predictor of a good clinical outcome. It is hence difficult to attribute the therapeutic result to any specific effects of the exercises on these trunk muscles. The association between changes in catastrophising and outcome serves to encourage further investigation on larger groups of patients to clarify whether stabilisation exercises have some sort of "central" effect, unrelated to abdominal muscle function per se.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Self-rated pain and disability before and after therapy (all scores normalised such that 100% = maximum possible score for the scale)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Onset of the earliest activation of the lateral abdominal muscles before and after therapy

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 11 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback