Original Article · Originalarbeit
Akupunktmassage nach Penzel versus klassische Teilmassage und Einzel- versus Gruppenkrankengymnastik bei chronischen Rückenschmerzen – eine randomisierte, kontrollierte klinische Studie in 2 × 2-faktoriellem DesignFranke A.a · Gebauer S.b · Franke K.b · Brockow T.a
aForschungsinstitut FBK Bad Elster; bPark Reha-Klinikum Bad Gandersheim
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Acupuncture Massage vs Swedish Massage and Individual Exercises vs Group Exercises in Low Back Pain Sufferers – a Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial in a 2 × 2 Factorial Design Objective: Rehabilitation programs for low back pain (LBP) almost always contain massage and exercise therapy in one form or another. Aim:This study aimed to quantify the effectiveness of therapeutic ''Acupuncture'' massage (APM; i.e. tonic stimulation of entire meridians) according to Penzel versus Swedish massage (SM) and individual medical exercises (IE) versus group exercises (GE) in LBP sufferers. Patients and Methods:109 patients participating in a complex in-patient rehabilitation program were randomised to four groups in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Main outcome measures were functional ability/disability (Functional Questionnaire Hanover, FFbH) and pain intensity (10 cm visual analogue scale, VAS). Pre/post changes were evaluated by means of 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Additionally, lumbar motility was measured by a 2-inclinometer technique. Results:Baseline mean FFbH score was 66 (SD = 18) %, mean pain intensity on VAS was 4.5 (SD = 2.4) cm. Lumbar flexion and extension were 49 (13) and 13 (7). Because of some differences between groups at baseline, group-standardized outcomes were used for analysis. APM showed beneficial effects for both disability and pain compared with SM (group differences: ΔFFbH 7.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5–11.6], p = 0.003; ΔVAS 0.8 cm [95% CI: 2–15], p = 0.024). Standardized response means were SRMFFbH = 0.5 and SRMVAS = 0.8 for APM, as opposed to SRMFFbH = -0.01 and SRMVAS = 0.4 for SM. Neither significant group differences between both exercise groups [ΔFFbH -0.5% (95% CI -5.2 to 4.2); ΔVas 0.4 cm (95% CI 0.3 to 1.1)] nor significant interactions between medical exercise and massage were found. Conclusions:Given the fact that even the treatments considered to be the best available achieve at best moderate effects, the observed effect sizes with APM are promising and warrant further investigation in replication studies. In contrast to common view, no superiority of individual versus group exercises could be found in the present study.
© 2000 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.