- This topic has 14 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
-
-
-
I thought this article was very interesting in that it compared two “schools” of thought and found neither more effective. But what I do question is their exclusion criteria. I understand their reasoning for exclusion criteria but that excluded nearly 90% of all individuals that reported LBP. That’s a pretty big cohort of individuals that will walk into our clinic. Did anyone else find this interesting? Maybe the residual 90% of individuals would have responded to one of the two groups of treatment?
-
Interesting article! I do agree with you Cameron- it does seem like their exclusion criteria included a lot of what I would think would contribute to chronic LBP (BMI, magnification of sx, etc.). I thought it was also interesting that they did not find a delay in APAs and there is so much conflicting evidence about this, yet it is still the goal of their treatment to change this. I think their findings may lead researchers in a little different direction- maybe we need to be seeking out the proper treatment protocol to teach patients how to modulate movement strategies based on the task at hand. They did allude to this when they said “Treatment programs might benefit from additional practice and variation in task context to improve modulation of postural control and transfer of learning beyond treated exercises.” Until the research exists on what exactly this treatment would look like, it seems like it would definitely be beneficial to continue to train TA/mult but in functional positions (specifically where they have movement impairments/pain) and use all the concepts of motor learning (for example train sit to stand with TA from a million different chairs/surfaces/heights, progress from blocked to random training, increase variability in the task, add load/distraction, reduce feedback, etc) to try to encourage subtle changes of movement strategy based on the specific task.
-
Cameron, Such a great catch
That is really strange that so many people are eliminated
I would have loved to see what it looked like with more of these people includedCasey, I agree with the education and motor training/re-learning
We have to use our own concepts and what we do best- movement pattern adjustmentsI will look forward to the next article that gives us more info
-
I agree with everyone that the exclusion criteria eliminates a large percentage of low back pain patients that we treat in the clinic. It’s possible that those individuals that met the exclusion criteria may exhibit even more impaired APAs than those meeting the inclusion criteria given the nature of the dysfunction. It would be interesting to see a study that examined APAs in specific diagnoses of low back pain (i.e. disc herniation, stenosis, hypermobility) to see if a specific dysfunction inhibits APAs more than others. I also wonder if an individual’s prior level of function would affect APAs. For example, would the APA of an athlete that has done prior core work and demonstrates good NM control differ from a sedentary individual.
-
• I wish the authors utilized a table outlining the details for the 3 objectives for each protocol. I’m curious to know what the functional activity modifications were specifically for the MSI protocol.
• I agree with the argument of the exclusion criteria; however, I also have a lot of patients who would fit into this study as well. I’ve seen a large population of young patients with a gradual onset of low back pain that’s chronic in nature. It would be interesting to see like Cameron suggested, having a subgroup of patients that have had spinal surgery or disc herniations and matching them to each tx group to see the results comparatively.
• I would also be interested in seeing results of each treatment approach after 8 weeks or even 12 weeks of treatment. Especially since the STB treatment protocol they referenced was an 8 week program. When thinking about CNS adaptations, I would think a longer program would be indicated.
• I think an important take-away from the article is that both STB and MSI tx protocols significantly reduce pain and increase function which is maintained up to 12 months. So at least we know there’s evidence to support what we’re doing helps. However, maybe the recurrence of LBP is not simply due to APA impairment but rather to non-compliance with continuation of independent management that further contributes to the delay of APA’s. Therefore I think more of the lack of response is due to the treatment duration rather than the paradigm of treatment.
-
-
The article did not provide much detail on the protocols so I’d be interested to learn the specifics and whether or not the STB group performed training in functional positions.
I certainly think that APA is something that should be addressed when treating patients. I like to instruct patients in pre-activating core muscles with functional activities and incorporate perturbation and balance training to teach the system how to react to unanticipated stimuli.
-
The results of the study state that the APA’s in patients with LBP did not change, however the patients got better. It’s tough because we know that patients are more likely to have improved outcomes when they are appropriately matched to a treatment. However, the patients in the study got better regardless of treatment, and regardless of the goal of treatment, which was to improve their APA impairment. So the question is, why did the patients get better? So I feel like if I had a patient meeting the inclusion criteria, I could really use either protocol in the study (STB or MSI) to improve their disability and function. However, if I wanted to be specific in addressing improvement in APA impairments, then I would have to seek out additional sources of treatment that have demonstrated more success. I’ve certainly thought about APA’s with patients and commonly think with my reasoning that impairments in APA’s are a contributor to movement dysfunction and pain. I’ve used TA activation techniques as an early treatment approach on several occasions. Maybe APA’s are too highly focused in on and we’re missing the bigger picture?! Maybe APA impairments are not the end all be all for reoccurring LBP. I have no idea, haha.
Mike- I need your brain! I’m anxious to hear your thoughts.
-
stephanies back and forth is exactly how i think about this
one moment i think great lets do it
but then i go back to the basics and lets keep it simple
then i just want my mentor to tell me what is bestIt seems like for this cohort it didnt make a difference but for one of your patients this may be the key cues needed
It seems like it will help, just not at such a significant rate that showed statistical significance
anyone feel the same?
-
I agree with everyone, I think this article was very interesting and should definitely lead to some further research, but as far as guiding my treatment with patients, I am not sure how useful it is. Like Michelle mentioned, they gave very little detail on the treatment protocols they used. However, they did find improvements in pain and function so I may be inclined to seek out some other articles with more specific treatment protocols similar to the two they mentioned here and use those to guide my treatment more.
Regarding APAs, my thought at this time is that the research doesn’t yet point one way or another (they aren’t always finding delayed APAs for example). While I think it definitely plays a role in some way, I don’t know that I’d hang my hat on fixing this for everyone. My thought of what would fix a delayed APA would be training TA to pre-activate prior to functional movements like Steph mentioned. I do tend to train TA in anyone with back pain since the research is there that this muscle shuts off, however according to this article, this treatment isn’t actually affecting APAs. I don’t think we will ever do harm by training this so I plan to continue until there is more research on it (and it helps with pain and function anyway). I will say that I have had the most success with this type of treatment with patients who report pain with transitions (sit to stand, rolling, etc.) and I may spend much more time and put much more emphasis on pre-activating TA with these people than with someone else.
-
I am on board with all of the above thoughts. I may not let this article guide treatment solely, but would look at the cluster of research available and at my patient’s goals. I believe both theories and protocols for retraining are valid, but are more valid based on the patient’s demographic, previous functional level, and future goals. In regard to lumbar stabilization, I am biased toward more functional re-training and functional movement patterns as I believe standing and transitional movements (i.e. sit to stand, supine to sitting, stooping/bending) are more inclined to provoke a patient’s pain than in a purely supine position.
-
-
i like the input from clinical experience
that helps a lot
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.