| Objective: To observe the core training on chronic pain treatment andrehabilitation.Methods: Selection of inpatient treatment in sports Hospital Affiliated to ChengduSport University, and diagnosis for patients with lower back pain patients. Arandomized, controlled, single blind experiment method,120patients with chroniclower back pain were divided into the experimental group, positive controlgroup and negative control group three groups, each group of40cases. Theexperimental group received routine treatment (acupuncture, massage, TDPirradiation) and core strength training, hereinafter referred to as the A group, thepositive control group by basic treatment plus gymnastics training, hereinafterreferred to as the B group, negative control group treated by basictreatment, hereinafter referred to as the C group. Three groupsof baseline data (age, gender) are basically the same, treatment before each testindex score no difference. All subjects were before treatment,3weeks after thetreatment,8weeks after the treatment, observation index: VAS score, the modifiedJOA, finger floor distance (FFD), abdominal muscle endurance, balance testand core strength test. Subjective scale index using the method of nonparametricstatistics analysis, t-test and variance analysis using quantitative index, changes inoverall scores before and after treatment observation index, calculate theimprovement rate, combined with Ridit analysis were evaluated, and the analysisand evaluation of adverse reactions.Results:According to the rehabilitation of chronic lower back pain, A group foreight weeks of core strength training on the basis of conventional treatment, B groupfor eight weeks of gymnastics training based on the foundation treatment, groupC was treated. Experimental results show that, between the three groups. The testindexes were changed.1．Curative effect comparison:In A group, the total effective rate was94.1%,88.6%in B group, C group was86.5%, A group and B C group, therewere significant differences in Ridit(p<0.01), B group and C group had nodifference among groups(p>0.05). 2．Comparison of the VAS score: Before intervention, there were no significantdifferences between the. The intervention group, three decrease in VAS score inthe evaluation of intervention, and improved. The VAS score in groupA wasreduced by an average of4.68points, B group lost an average of3.77points, C group lost an average of3.81points, A group before andafter experiment is improved with B, C twogroups were significantlydifferent (p<0.05), B group and C grouphad no significant difference (p>0.05). Inthe evaluation after8weeks in the A group VAS scores were significantly lowerthan theB, C group, A group and B, C groups had significantdifferences(p<0.01), B group and C group had no significantdifference(p>0.05), showed that the A group on the index is better than B, Cgroup.3．Comparison of JOA score improvement: There was no significantdifference before the experiment, the three groups after treatment JOAscore were improved significantly compared with beforetreatment. The difference in score before and after treatment, A group lost anaverage of6.74points, B group lost an average of4.34points, C group lost anaverage of4.16points,before and after the A intervention group and the othertwo groups had significant differences (p<0.01), the two groups had no significantdifference (p>0.05). In8weeks after the test, A group and B, C groupshad significant differences (p<0.01), B group and C group had no significantdifference (p>0.05).4．Comparison of FFD integral:In FFD this is a test, A group before and after thetest is reduced by an average of4.66points, B group lost an average of4.21points, C group lost an average of4.79points, while the three groupwere improved, but did not reflect thechanges between the threegroups (p>0.05). The three groups before the intervention of FFD integral was ofno significant difference between three groups after the intervention, the totalscore were lower than those before intervention has improved, but the differencebetween the three groups before and after thechange in the index of totalintegral intervention, comparison between groups showed no significant difference (p>0.05), showed that the rehabilitation effect of the indexes of threegroups had nooverall effect significant difference.5．Comparison of abdominal muscle endurance: Group A abdominalmuscle endurance than before intervention, there were significantdifferences (p<0.01), compared with the other two groups, there was significantdifference between them (p<0.01), B group and C group had no significantdifference (p>0.05). Indicates that the improvement of core training on abdominalmuscle endurancehave significant effect.6．Comparison of core strength: A group compared with the other two groups allits strength has markedly improved, the comparison between the twogroups were highly significant difference (p<0.01),but not after two groups ofcore training in this test are notobviously improved, and no difference betweentwo groups(p>0.05). Three groups of extensor/flexor strength ratio, left and rightlateral bending strength ratio and left/right rotation strength ratio in theexperimental intervention had no significant difference(p>0.05). A group after8weeks of core strength training, to improve the lot of all indexes. Amongthem, the ratio change ofextensor/flexor muscle strength, A group aftertreatmentcompared with the other two groups had significant difference(p<0.01); left/right bending strength ratio shows, A group and Bgroup (p<0.05), there was significant difference with C group (p<0.01); left rightrotation strength ratio/before and after theintervention of three groups had nosignificant difference (p>0.05).7．Comparison of equilibrium stability: The three groups before treatment werenot significantly different, passes through the equilibrium stabilitytraining coretraining, balance and stability of A group compared to the othertwo group were significantly increased (p<0.05), while the B group and Cgroup were not significantly improve (p>0.05).8．The follow-up results：On the telephone and outpatient follow-up of3months after theintervention of patients with low back pain,2patients in A grouphadrecurrence,4patients in B group had recurrence,5cases in group Crecurrence. Conclusions:(1) The core strength improved training+foundation treatmentgroup,gymnastics training and basic therapy group and the control group bydifferentschemes are the core strength of rehabilitation therapy, treatment basedongroup for low back pain rehabilitation effect is better than thatof gymnasticstraining+foundation treatment and foundation treatment group;(2)The core strength+foundation treatment group curative effect in VASscore, modified JOA is better than the gymnastics training and basic therapygroupand the control group;(3)The core strength+foundation treatment group can effectively improvethecore muscle strength in patients with CLBP, waist andabdominal enduranceand balance ability, work better than gymnastics training andbasic therapygroup and the control group;(4)The core strength+foundation treatment group by improving the coremuscle, waist and abdominal endurance, balance ability, improve the clinical effectof CLBP. |
PDF Full Text Request