| ObjectiveThis study was conducted to observe the clinical efficacy of functional training in the treatment of non-specific low back pain,objectively analyze its principle of action and evaluate its clinical efficacy and safety,and compare its therapeutic effect with that of patients with low back pain treated by traditional rehabilitation,so as to provide more ideas and directions for the subsequent treatment of non-specific low back pain.MethodsResearch subjects in this study were selected from Defender Sports Medicine Fitness Center,and a total of 90 patients were eligible after screening according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria for nonspecific low back pain.They were randomly divided into rest control group,tui na treatment group and functional training group.The tui-na treatment group referred to the tui-na prescription for the treatment of chronic lumbar strain in Tui-na,and treated the patients’ lumbar pain with tui-na manipulation treatment once every other day for 20-30 minutes,with a rest period of1 day after 6 days,and a total of 1 course of treatment for 4 weeks.In the functional training group,functional movement screen(FMS)was given to patients with low back pain and a protocol was developed to address the causes of low back pain.Then,according to the experimental program,the back-related functions were first improved and then strengthened and consolidated.A single session of 20-30 minutes,once every other day,was given for 4 weeks,for a total of 14 sessions.Cases in the rest group received no other treatment modalities,rested daily in their own comfortable position,reduced free movement,giving health education and recorded daily by filling out a non-specific low back pain diary.In this study,three therapeutic interventions of tui na therapy method,functional training therapy and rest control were used to treat non-specific low back pain,which were evaluated by pain sensation score(VAS),ODI dysfunction score,subject’s trunk range of motion,subject’s back extensor strength,FMS movement pattern score,and rehabilitation satisfaction survey.The test results were analyzed using mathematical and statistical methods.The data were statistically compared and analyzed according to the corresponding evaluation indexes,and then the clinical efficacy of the different therapies in the three groups was analyzed.Results1.Analgesic effect: after the study analysis,the patients in each group of the rest group,the massage therapy group and the functional training group showed a significant reduction in(VAS)scores after treatment compared with those before treatment;after the end of treatment,the three groups were compared with each other,and the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H test showed that the differences between the groups were statistically different(P<0.05),and the rest group The VAS score was significantly smaller than that of the massage treatment group(P<0.05)and functional training group(P<0.05),the massage treatment group The VAS score was significantly smaller than that of the functional training group(P<0.05).2.Dorsal extensor muscle strength: after the study analysis,the patients in the two groups of the tui na treatment group and functional training group had a significant improvement in dorsal extensor muscle strength scores after treatment compared with those before treatment,with statistical differences;the rest group did not get a better improvement after treatment,and there was no statistical difference before and after treatment;after the end of treatment,the comparison between the three groups was confirmed by Dunnett’s T3(F=394.809,P<0.05)test,the muscle strength of dorsal extensor muscles in the rest group was significantly smaller than that in the massage treatment group(P<0.05)and functional training group(P<0.05),and that in the massage treatment group was significantly smaller than that in the functional training group(P<0.05).3.Trunk range of motion: After the analysis of the study,the trunk range of motion of the patients in the two groups of the tui-na treatment group and the functional training group showed significant improvement after treatment compared with that before treatment,with statistical differences;the rest group showed some improvement after treatment,but the improvement result was not satisfactory;after the end of treatment,the comparison between the three groups was obtained by LSD test(F=266.902,P<0.05),the data of trunk range of motion in the rest group was significantly smaller than that in the massage treatment group(P<0.05)and functional training group(P<0.05),and the difference between the massage treatment group and functional training group was not statistically different(P>0.05).4.ODI score: After the analysis of the study,the lumbar spine dysfunction of the patients in the two groups of the tui na treatment group and the functional training group had significant improvement after treatment compared with that before treatment,with statistical differences;while the rest group did not get better improvement after treatment,with no statistical differences before and after treatment;after the end of treatment,the comparison between the three groups,by the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H test yielded a statistically significant difference between the groups(P<0.05),with the ODI scores of the rest group significantly smaller than those of the massage treatment group(P<0.05)and functional training group(P<0.05),and the massage treatment group significantly smaller than the functional training group(P<0.05).5.FMS movement pattern score: After the analysis of the study,the movement pattern scores of the patients in the two groups of the tui-na treatment group and the functional training group were significantly improved after treatment compared with those before treatment,with statistical differences;the rest group did not improve satisfactorily after treatment,and there was no statistical difference before and after treatment;after the end of treatment,the comparison between the three groups was performed by the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis H test yielded statistically significant differences between the groups(P<0.05),with the action score of the rest group significantly smaller than that of the massage treatment group(P<0.05)and the functional training group(P<0.05),and the massage treatment group significantly smaller than that of the functional training group(P<0.05).6.Post-rehabilitation patient satisfaction survey: after the end of treatment,comparison between the rest group,the tui-na treatment group and the functional training group,the difference between the groups was statistically different by the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H test(P<0.05),and the satisfaction score of the rest group was significantly smaller than that of the tui-na treatment group(P<0.05)and the functional training group(P<0.05),and the difference between the tui-na treatment group and the The differences between the functional training group were not statistically different(P>0.05).ConclusionNo significant exacerbation or other adverse reactions were observed in any of the three therapies during treatment,proving that all three methods have a good safety profile.Among the current non-surgical treatments,the pushing therapy has a considerable importance,but compared with the functional training group,the functional training group has certain advantages in improving the muscle strength of the back extensor muscles,improving the function of the lumbar spine,improving the quality of life and movement,and preventing recurrence,which is worthy to be used as a reference for clinical treatment. |
PDF Full Text Request