Next Article in Journal
Differences in Young Adults’ Perceptions of and Willingness to Use Nicotine Pouches by Tobacco Use Status
Next Article in Special Issue
Predicting Response to Anthracyclines in Ovarian Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
Statistical Methods for Assessing the Explained Variation of a Health Outcome by a Mixture of Exposures
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 5
10.3390/ijerph19052694
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Pain Neuroscience Education and Motor Control Exercises versus Core Stability Exercises on Pain, Disability, and Balance in Women with Chronic Low Back Pain

by
Sahar Modares Gorji
1,*,
Hadi Mohammadi Nia Samakosh
2,
Peter Watt
3,
Paulo Henrique Marchetti
4 and
Rafael Oliveira
5,6,7
1
Department of Biomechanics and Corrective Exercises and Sports Injuries, University of ARAK, Arak 38156879, Iran
2
Department of Biomechanics and Corrective Exercises and Sports Injuries, University of Kharazmi, Tehran 15719-14911, Iran
3
Environmental Extremes Lab, Sport and Exercise Science and Medicine Research and Enterprise Group, University of Brighton, Eastbourne, East Sussex, Brighton BN2 4AT, UK
4
Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Northridge, CA 91330, USA
5
Sports Science School of Rio Maior–Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, 2140-413 Rio Maior, Portugal
6
Research Center in Sport Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal
7
Life Quality Research Centre, 2140-413 Rio Maior, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(5), 2694; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052694
Submission received: 25 January 2022 / Revised: 20 February 2022 / Accepted: 23 February 2022 / Published: 25 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Strategies in Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention for Women's Health)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Several interventions have been used to relieve chronic low back pain (CLBP). This study aimed to compare the effects of pain neuroscience education (PNE) followed by motor control exercises (MCEs) with core stability training (CST) on pain, disability, and balance in women with CLBP. Methods: Thirty-seven women with CLBP were randomly divided into two groups of PNE/MCE (n = 18, 55.2 ± 2.6 years) or CST (n = 19, 54.6 ± 2.4 years). Eight weeks of PNE/MCE or CST were prescribed for each group, independently. Pain intensity (VAS scale), disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), unipodal static balance, and dynamic balance (time up and go test) were measured at the beginning and 8 weeks after the intervention. Two-way mixed ANOVA was used to analyze the results with alpha of 5%. Results: After 8 weeks, there was a significant difference in VAS scale between groups (p = 0.024), with both PNE/MCE and CST showing 58% and 42% reductions, respectively. There were no differences for all other variables between groups. Regarding pre- to post-comparisons, both groups showed improvements in all dependent variables (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The treatment with PNE/MCE was more effective in improving pain disability and unipodal static and dynamic balance than treatment with CST. Even so, both treatments were shown to be valid and safe in improving all dependent variables analyzed in women with CLBP.

1. Introduction

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is considered a frequent condition in women that has increased significantly worldwide, but few studies have been conducted to explain it [1,2]. Low back pain (LBP) is associated with disorders and disabilities in balance [3,4] and movement [5]. Several non-surgical treatments have been offered to help and decrease LBP, such as joint manipulation [2], acupuncture [6], traditional therapeutic exercises [7,8], and medication [9,10]. However, the small effects of these treatments indicated that effective treatment methodologies are needed to achieve a significant therapeutic effect.
Moreover, several methodologies such as strength, endurance, and core training programs available for treating CLBP seem to be weak because they ignore pain recognition, behavioral aspects, and knowledge of pain physiology [1].
Meanwhile, spinal stabilization exercises for CLBP have received some research attention and are regarded to be effective, through improved core stability of the central axis of the role of these muscles in this area during limb use and movement [11]. In fact, it was found that a core stability training (CST) program significantly increased the multifidus muscle cross sectional area in women without and with CLBP [12]. This type of exercise focuses on the ability of the spine to stabilize in different positions and emphasize smaller, deeper, and posterior muscles. By increasing the endurance of these muscles, they retrain and maintain the correct physical condition to stabilize the spine to improve pain, performance, and balance [13]. Moreover, the weakness of lumbar multifidus muscles can impair the function of the spine during both dynamic movements and static positions. Thus, training protocols for LBP have aimed to reduce it through lumbar stability exercises that target multifidus muscles [14,15].
In addition, more knowledge of spinal motor dysfunction in patients with CLBP has emerged [16,17]. Patients with CLBP that present reduced motor control usually have difficulties to control postures and movements [16,18].Therefore, addressing pain recognition and a better spinal muscle function to improve spinal motor control could be more effective [19,20,21].
A methodology that included pain neuroscience education (PNE) followed by motor control exercises (MCEs) has recently been used [22,23]. This methodology aims to educate about the mechanism of CLBP (central pain, central sensitivity, and cognitive–sensory mechanisms of pain) followed by individual MCEs to help patients develop activities that they do with fear and hesitation [24].
In this sense, a study showed that a PNE program combined with motor control education with cognitive goals presented decreases in pain and disability and an increase in spinal function compared to physiotherapy intervention in patients with CBP. Moreover, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed that exercise training programs obtained identical clinical effects when compared with physiotherapy interventions [25].
Given the scarce knowledge on how effective the previous interventions are, the scarce information on what kind of exercises are best to improve LBP [25,26,27,28,29,30], and that supervised exercise therapies have been suggested as primary methodology for CLBP in recent years [11], more studies are needed to better combat CLBP. For instance, a recent meta-analysis regarding CST versus general exercise training programs found that CST is more effective than general exercise in decreasing pain and improving physical function in patients with chronic LBP [31]. However, PNE/MCE was not taken in consideration. Based on the previous information, this study aimed to compare two interventions (PNE/MCE and CST) on pain, disability, and balance in women with CLBP. We hypothesized that participants that underwent PNE/MCE would present a better improvement in pain intensity, disability, and balance compared to CST.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Sixty-five participants aged between 50 and 60 years with CLBP were enrolled in this study. CLBP was diagnosed by a specialist physician by the cross straight leg raise test. The participants were purposefully selected, and only those registered for physiotherapy treatment through brochures displayed in physiotherapy clinics were enrolled by physiotherapists. The sample size was calculated using G*Power as in a previous study [22] with the effect size difference of 0.80, alpha value of 0.05 (two-way test), and a power (1 − 𝛽) of 0.80. A total sample size of 42 (21 patients in each group) was required.
Thus, the following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) native Persian-speaking women between 50 and 60 years old and (2) primary complaints of low back pain (more than 3 months, usually between the lower ribs and the creased part of the buttocks without nonspecific pathoanatomical cause) diagnosed by an experienced physiotherapist and completion of the consent form. The exclusion criteria were (1) any history of surgery on the spine, (2) pathological records (disease) of the spine, (3) orthopedic and neurological injuries, (4) unwillingness to continue to participate in the exercises, (5) failed any exercise session (2 consecutive or 3 non-consecutive sessions, n = 3), and (6) absence in the post-test stage (n = 2) [24]. Additionally, participants were excluded from the study if they engaged in parallel therapy, in special work activities, or regular exercise. Prior to randomization, socio-descriptive data and primary clinical outcome variables were collected from all participants and recorded by an uninformed evaluator. Then, forty-two participants were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups with a ratio of 1:1 as follows: PNE/MCE group (n = 21) and CST group (n = 21). Figure 1 describes the participants’ enrollment in the study. Randomization was performed by a blinded researcher who had no knowledge of the study. Randomization was performed with naming codes specific to each person (up to 42), which had already been sealed: the blinded person was asked to place 21 papers in both balls. The participants were informed of the risks and benefits of the study prior to any data collection, and then, participants signed the informed consent form to be examined according to the Declaration of Helsinki, and they declared their voluntary participation. The present study was registered and approved by the local ethics committee of ARAK (1399.12.2.5).

2.2. Procedures

The present research design was a two-group study with exercise intervention in the experimental groups (PNE/MCE and CST groups) without a control group with pre- to post-test. A random method to allocate participants in the groups was used with blinding in the experimental group. The following evaluation was applied to all participants:
Visual Analog Scale (VAS): A visual analog scale was used to measure the severity of pain in the subjects. The scale is a 10 cm horizontal strip starting from 0 (no pain) to 10 (the most severe pain possible). This scale is one of the most reliable quantitative scales widely used in research [32].
Disability: The Persian version of the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) was used to assess disability by LBP [33]. The RMDQ is a 24-item questionnaire reported by the patient. Among the questions related to disability is LBP-induced pain. Items are scored from 0 to 24 for a total RMQ score: 0 and 1 are the scores of blank and confirmed items, respectively. Higher scores indicate higher levels of pain-induced disability [33].
Unipodal static balance (USB): The test of standing on the dominant foot on a square piece of wood (40 cm × 40 cm) was used to measure the static balance of the subjects. The procedure is performed in a manner that the subject stands barefoot in such a way that the superior foot is on the ground and the non-superior foot is above the ground, and the hands are placed on the waist on the crown of the pelvis. The length of time a person can maintain this position (in seconds) is counted as their score. Time recording stops when the support foot moves, the free foot touches the ground, or the hand is detached from the waist [33].
Dynamic balance: The “Timed Up and Go (TUG) test” was used as a rapid way to determine balance problems affecting motor skills in the daily lives [34]. The TUG test consists of three steps: (1) getting up from the chair, (2) walking 3 m away, (3) turning around a cone, walking back, and sitting on the chair. The subject raises from a chair (without a handle) without using their hands. The time is defined from the moment the examiner commands the subject to get up to the time the subject sits back on the chair in the correct position (leaning on the back of the chair). The subject has to perform this test in the shortest possible time [35].

2.3. Interventions

Core stability training: After familiarization with all core stability exercises, all participants performed the CST for eight weeks (3 sessions per week, 45–60 min each session) supervised by a physiotherapist. The CST in each session was composed of a warm-up (walk for 5 min, stretching exercises for 5 min, the main intervention for 30 min (in the initial weeks) to 45 min (in the final weeks), and cool down for 5 min. Progress in exercises was based on the principles of overload and gradual increase in the volume of exercises; progress was in the duration or repetition of each exercise [36]. Table 1 presents all exercises performed across the eight weeks.
Pain neuroscience education/motor control exercises: Three PNE sessions took 30–60 min and were conducted by a physical therapist. The purpose of PNE was to control patients’ negative perceptions of recurring pain [22,37]. These beliefs may be imposed on patients by potentially useless diagnostic, prognostic, or therapeutic conclusions. During the PNE sessions, pain information was given to avoid fear beliefs and behaviors, thus providing keywords at this stage to promote self-efficacy using verbal instructions, charts, and freehand drawings [22,37] (Figure 2).
The MCEs were similar to Malfliet et al. [22]. This phase consists of a proprioception, coordination, and sensorimotor control training program based on the principles and ideas of researchers and clinicians such as Sahrmann [38], Comerford and Mottram [39], and Richardson and Jull [40]. Participants underwent 16 sessions of MCEs (twice a week) for eight weeks. In the first session, participants were examined individually by a physical therapist (who performed the PNE exercises). The exercises prescribed were based on the participant’s tolerance/ability. MCEs were performed separately and supervised by a physical therapist, and it was composed of three parts with specific criteria for each patient. MCEs included sensory–motor control training with the facilitation of the proprioceptive system and optimization of coordinated muscle patterns. Patients were instructed to contract the deep muscles of their spine (e.g., transversus abdominis and multifidus) that are separate from the superficial muscles. The exercises progressed with the addition of specific exercises for the diaphragm and pelvic floor muscles. The exercise progression was ensured to the extent that each individual could maintain 10 s per repetition of isolated contractions. Then, another part of progression was applied [22]. In the second part, additional loads were added on the spine by performing different patterns of lower limb (shoulder bridge) and trunk movement (lumbar extension) while using the deep and superficial muscles of the spine. In the third part, functional exercise was added, focusing on static followed by dynamic functional exercises aiming at improving coordination, alignment, and stability of the spine. During all sessions, the posture, movement technique, and breathing status were assessed. In order to adapt the exercises to the daily situations of people, the progress of the exercise was done during physical activities and daily activities or sports in stressful psychological conditions [22]. Table 2 presents MCE training.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The Shapiro–Wilk test and Levene’s tests were conducted to confirm the normality and homogeneity of the dependent variables, respectively. After both were confirmed, a 2 × 2 ANOVA (treatment group × time) with Bonferroni correction post hoc was conducted with a mixed model analyses design. For each dependent variable, mean ± standard deviation (SD) was used. The percentage of change was calculated and compared with the baseline. A p-value < 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance, while Partial Eta Squared (ηp2) values were calculated as effect size (ES), which were considered as 0.2 = small effect, 0.5 = moderate effect, and 0.8 = large effect based on the study of Cohen [41]. All data analyses were conducted on SPSS software version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

There was no significant difference between the two groups in the pre-test stage in terms of demographic and clinical variables (p > 0.05). The demographic and clinical variables of the participants are presented in Table 2. Five patients did not participate in the post-test for personal reasons (PNE/MCE = 3 and CSE = 2), with 88% retention in the study (37 of 42) (Figure 2).
Table 3 shows the effect of 8 weeks of intervention and the comparisons between time and groups. Overall, there were significant improvement between baseline and after 8 weeks for both groups. VAS presented significant differences between groups, while no significant differences were found in the dependent variables of RMDQ, USB, and dynamic balance between groups.
There was a difference in the mean score of pain (−0.78) (PNE/MCE, ES = 2.14, CSE, ES = 3.43) and disability (0.79) (PNE/MCE, ES = 5.13, CSE, ES = 2.62) (RMDQ) (better performance in the PNE/MCE group) in the post-tests. Additionally, the mean difference in the PNE/MCE group and the core stability group was 0.79 (PNE/MCE, ES = −4.87, CSE, ES = −4.12) in the USB and −0.62 (PNE/MCE, ES = 4.49, CSE, ES = 4.46) in the dynamic balance variable (better performance in the PNE/MCE group) (Table 4; Figure 3 and Figure 4).

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to compare two interventions, PNE/MCE and CST, on pain, disability, and balance in women with CLBP. The results showed a significant effect of both interventions after eight weeks. Additionally, the comparison of the two exercise programs showed a greater effect of motor control with cognitive purpose compared to the core stability exercises on the variables of pain and disability (VAS and RMDQ, respectively). A possible justification could be associated with the individualized, PNE treatment employed using cognitive-based education followed by an exercise program as previously suggested [21].
Moreover, the findings of many previous studies are consistent with the present results in terms of core stability and motor control exercises with a cognitive goal [1,24,42,43]. Core stability exercises are designed and performed to improve body trunk muscles with the aim of developing muscle strength and functional coordination [44,45]. On the other hand, CLBP is aggravated by improper activities and causes most patients not to use their back, which leads to the atrophy of trunk muscles, decreased muscle strength and endurance, and stiffness of ligaments and joints, which in turn aggravate the symptoms of CLBP [46].
The results of some studies have shown that the size of type II muscle fibers is reduced in people with LBP [34,47]. Stability exercises with maximal or submaximal effort can reverse the atrophy of type II fibers in multifidus muscle and affect the diameter of the muscle fiber [48]. Regarding the effect of CST on balance, it should be noted that the body’s center of gravity is constantly shifted during dynamic activities. Every voluntary movement disturbs the physical condition. If this perturbation is not anticipated, the balance may be disturbed. The muscles that surround the core play a vital role in center of gravity [49]. A stable proximal region is required to create a better distal motor chain with pre-programmed muscle activations. The preventive contraction of deep trunk muscles and multifidus before limb movement improves trunk stability, which reduces joint forces and abnormal movements in the distal parts [50]. In our study, despite the fact that improvements in USB and TUG were found, the non-significant group x interaction analysis could not support the effectiveness of CST for both tests, which require more studies to confirm the results.
In people with CLBP, the trunk protection response is inadequate due to a delay in predictive activation and a reduction in relative muscle thickness [51]. The disability of trunk muscles can contribute to an instable pelvic floor, which may consequently increase the risk of injury. In this regard, Hooper et al. reported that Y balance test performance (anterior, posterolateral, and posteromedial directions) decreased in patients with CLBP [52].
When compared with static balance, dynamic balance requires the body to balance during the transition from dynamic to static status, which is difficult [53] for people with CLBP who struggle to adapt to changing conditions [54]. Core stability exercises improve torso stability, pelvic floor stability, the simultaneous contraction of the abdominal muscles, multifidus, and improved motor performance of the spine [55], and reduce the shear force applied to the waist [56], thereby improving the movements of the lower limbs in static positions and dynamic movements, which corroborates with the present study. Exercises such as the simultaneous contraction of abdominal muscles, multifidus, diaphragm, and pelvic floor along with exercises related to improving performance and controlling limb function in the program of motor control exercise with cognitive purpose can be an effective factor in improving static and dynamic balance [57]. In general, the muscles of the central region are the postural muscles. During whole-body exercises, an important role in the stability of the trunk and control of the body position was performed, which neutralize the muscle imbalances to maintain the body position, thus reducing disability [58].
With regard to the effect of PNE/MCE with a cognitive goal, a growing body of evidence shows that brain abnormality changes in the structure and function of the brain and excessive brain sensitization have major importance in patients with CLBP [1,24]. Central sensitization includes altered sensory processing in the brain [1]. In addition, brain plasticity causes pain and fatigue, which can lead to disability even without actual tissue damage or pain [24]. In this regard, PNE intervention presents significant improvements to combat these issues [22]. In the present study, central sensitization was not assessed. Even so, it has been speculated that educating patients about how to control pain and their feeling perceptions will help in the excessive reduction in central nervous system sensitization and pain relief [42,43,59]. This factor, along with the practice of exercises related to the muscles of the central region, may have been a factor in the greater effectiveness of this exercise program than the exercises of core stability on pain and disability. Physical feedback and cognitive biofeedback along with the implementation of exercise programs have been suggested in some studies to obtain better results in the elderly [60].
The addition of PNE to MCE seems to help patients by reducing pain and disability by activating proprioception, coordination, and sensory–motor control of the spine [42,43,59]. Malfliet et al. also found that PNE/MCE with a cognitive goal is more effective than the current most common physiotherapy exercises to reduce trunk pain and disability [22]. Furthermore, Fletcher et al. found that patients with more pain knowledge showed lower levels of pain fear and disabilities [61]. Moreover, the USB and TUG tests showed improvements after 8 weeks of training, but the non-significant group x interaction analysis could not support the absolute effectiveness of PNE/MCE.
This study presents limitations, namely: (a) only eight weeks were evaluated, which suggests more longitudinal studies are needed to access long-term effects of the interventions; (b) central sensitization was not accessed because there is no translated Persian version; (c) brain imaging techniques were not used, which could be relevant for future studies to understand brain communication during CLBP recovery and during the application of the different training methodologies; (d) it was not possible to apply the ideal division for all groups, which would include five different groups: (1) MCE; (2) PNE/MCE; (3) CST; (4) PNE/CST, and (5) the control group. For those reasons, we recommend such an approach for future studies.

5. Conclusions

According to the percentage of changes, PNE/MCE was shown to provide more improvements than CST in relieving pain and to some extent in the RMDQ disability than in the CST group. This is probably due to the focus of neuroscience with motor control exercises on the correction of incorrect postures during daily activities. In addition, PNE/MCE were shown to possibly be effective in improving static and dynamic balance, although further studies would be needed to substantiate this. Even so, both PNE/MCE and CST protocols improved all variables analyzed (pain, disability, and static and dynamic balance). Therefore, both training programs seem to be recommended for women with CLBP.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M.G. and H.M.N.S.; Methodology, R.O. and H.M.N.S.; Software, S.M.G. and H.M.N.S.; Validation, P.W. and P.H.M.; Formal Analysis, S.M.G. and H.M.N.S.; Investigation, S.M.G. and H.M.N.S.; Resources, H.M.N.S. and R.O.; Data Curation, R.O.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, S.M.G., H.M.N.S., and R.O.; Writing—Review and Editing, S.M.G., H.M.N.S., and R.O.; Visualization, P.W. and P.H.M.; Supervision, R.O.; Project Administration, S.M.G. and H.M.N.S.; Funding Acquisition, S.M.G. and H.M.N.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received no specific financial support.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local ethics committee of ARAK (1399.12.2.5).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

All authors contributed to this article. We thank our fellow citizens from ARAK, Iran who participated.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Abbreviations

CSTcore stability training
CLBPchronic low back pain
PNE/MCEpain neuroscience education/motor control exercise
LBPlow back pain
GEgroup-based exercise
VASVisual Analog Scale
RMDQRoland–Morris Disability Questionnaire
TUGTimed Up and Go

References

  1. Nijs, J.; Clark, J.; Malfliet, A.; Ickmans, K.; Voogt, L.; Don, S.; den Bandt, H.; Goubert, D.; Kregel, J.; Coppieters, I. In the spine or in the brain? Recent advances in pain neuroscience applied in the intervention for low back pain. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 2017, 35, S108–S115. [Google Scholar]
  2. Oh, Y.-J.; Park, S.-H.; Lee, M.-M. Comparison of effects of abdominal draw-in lumbar stabilization exercises with and without respiratory resistance on women with low back pain: A randomized controlled trial. Med. Sci. Monit. Int. Med. J. Exp. Clin. Res. 2020, 26, e921295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Da Silva, R.A.; Vieira, E.R.; Fernandes, K.B.; Andraus, R.A.; Oliveira, M.R.; Sturion, L.A.; Calderon, M.G. People with chronic low back pain have poorer balance than controls in challenging tasks. Disabil. Rehabil. 2018, 40, 1294–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Berenshteyn, Y.; Gibson, K.; Hackett, G.C.; Trem, A.B.; Wilhelm, M. Is standing balance altered in individuals with chronic low back pain? A systematic review. Disabil. Rehabil. 2019, 41, 1514–1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Koch, C.; Hänsel, F. Chronic non-specific low back pain and motor control during gait. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Mu, J.; Furlan, A.D.; Lam, W.Y.; Hsu, M.Y.; Ning, Z.; Lao, L. Acupuncture for chronic nonspecific low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 2020, CD013814. [Google Scholar]
  7. Sonmezer, E.; Özköslü, M.A.; Yosmaoğlu, H.B. The effects of clinical pilates exercises on functional disability, pain, quality of life and lumbopelvic stabilization in pregnant women with low back pain: A randomized controlled study. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 2021, 34, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Ghavipanje, V.; Rahimi, N.M.; Akhlaghi, F. Six Weeks Effects of Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization (DNS) Training in Obese Postpartum Women with Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Biol. Res. Nurs. 2022, 24, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Foster, N.E.; Anema, J.R.; Cherkin, D.; Chou, R.; Cohen, S.P.; Gross, D.P.; Ferreira, P.H.; Fritz, J.M.; Koes, B.W.; Peul, W. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: Evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet 2018, 391, 2368–2383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Qaseem, A.; Wilt, T.J.; McLean, R.M.; Forciea, M.A.; for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians *. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: A clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann. Intern. Med. 2017, 166, 514–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Stuge, B. Evidence of stabilizing exercises for low back-and pelvic girdle pain–A critical review. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2019, 23, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kliziene, I.; Sipaviciene, S.; Klizas, S.; Imbrasiene, D. Effects of core stability exercises on multifidus muscles in healthy women and women with chronic low-back pain. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 2015, 28, 841–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Costa, L.O.; Maher, C.G.; Latimer, J.; Hodges, P.W.; Herbert, R.D.; Refshauge, K.M.; McAuley, J.H.; Jennings, M.D. Motor control exercise for chronic low back pain: A randomized placebo-controlled trial. Phys. Ther. 2009, 89, 1275–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hides, J.; Stanton, W.; McMahon, S.; Sims, K.; Richardson, C. Effect of stabilization training on multifidus muscle cross-sectional area among young elite cricketers with low back pain. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2008, 38, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. França, F.R.; Burke, T.N.; Hanada, E.S.; Marques, A.P. Segmental stabilization and muscular strengthening in chronic low back pain: A comparative study. Clinics 2010, 65, 1013–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. D’hooge, R.; Hodges, P.; Tsao, H.; Hall, L.; MacDonald, D.; Danneels, L. Altered trunk muscle coordination during rapid trunk flexion in people in remission of recurrent low back pain. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2013, 23, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Roussel, N.; De Kooning, M.; Schutt, A.; Mottram, S.; Truijen, S.; Nijs, J.; Daenen, L. Motor control and low back pain in dancers. Int. J. Sports Med. 2013, 34, 138–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Radebold, A.; Cholewicki, J.; Polzhofer, G.K.; Greene, H.S. Impaired postural control of the lumbar spine is associated with delayed muscle response times in patients with chronic idiopathic low back pain. Spine 2001, 26, 724–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Louw, A.; Zimney, K.; Puentedura, E.J.; Diener, I. The efficacy of pain neuroscience education on musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review of the literature. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2016, 32, 332–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pardo, G.B.; Girbés, E.L.; Roussel, N.A.; Izquierdo, T.G.; Penick, V.J.; Martín, D.P. Pain neurophysiology education and therapeutic exercise for patients with chronic low back pain: A single-blind randomized controlled trial. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2018, 99, 338–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rabiei, P.; Sheikhi, B.; Letafatkar, A. Comparing Pain Neuroscience Education Followed by Motor Control Exercises with Group-Based Exercises for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pain Pract. 2021, 21, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Malfliet, A.; Kregel, J.; Coppieters, I.; De Pauw, R.; Meeus, M.; Roussel, N.; Cagnie, B.; Danneels, L.; Nijs, J. Effect of pain neuroscience education combined with cognition-targeted motor control training on chronic spinal pain: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2018, 75, 808–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Moseley, G.L. Joining forces–combining cognition-targeted motor control training with group or individual pain physiology education: A successful treatment for chronic low back pain. J. Man. Manip. Ther. 2003, 11, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nijs, J.; Meeus, M.; Cagnie, B.; Roussel, N.A.; Dolphens, M.; Van Oosterwijck, J.; Danneels, L. A modern neuroscience approach to chronic spinal pain: Combining pain neuroscience education with cognition-targeted motor control training. Phys. Ther. 2014, 94, 730–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. O’Keeffe, M.; Hayes, A.; McCreesh, K.; Purtill, H.; O’Sullivan, K. Are group-based and individual physiotherapy exercise programmes equally effective for musculoskeletal conditions? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017, 51, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hayden, J.A.; Van Tulder, M.W.; Tomlinson, G. Systematic review: Strategies for using exercise therapy to improve outcomes in chronic low back pain. Ann. Intern. Med. 2005, 142, 776–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ferreira, P.H.; Ferreira, M.L.; Maher, C.G.; Herbert, R.D.; Refshauge, K. Specific stabilisation exercise for spinal and pelvic pain: A systematic review. Aust. J. Physiother. 2006, 52, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Macedo, L.G.; Smeets, R.J.; Maher, C.G.; Latimer, J.; McAuley, J.H. Graded activity and graded exposure for persistent nonspecific low back pain: A systematic review. Phys. Ther. 2010, 90, 860–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Saragiotto, B.T.; Maher, C.G.; Yamato, T.P.; Costa, L.O.; Costa, L.C.M.; Ostelo, R.W.; Macedo, L.G. Motor control exercise for chronic non-specific low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 1, CD012004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shiri, R.; Coggon, D.; Falah-Hassani, K. Exercise for the prevention of low back and pelvic girdle pain in pregnancy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur. J. Pain 2018, 22, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, X.-Q.; Zheng, J.-J.; Yu, Z.-W.; Bi, X.; Lou, S.-J.; Liu, J.; Cai, B.; Hua, Y.-H.; Wu, M.; Wei, M.-L. A meta-analysis of core stability exercise versus general exercise for chronic low back pain. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e52082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Scrimshaw, S.V.; Maher, C. Responsiveness of visual analogue and McGill pain scale measures. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2001, 24, 501–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Mousavi, S.J.; Parnianpour, M.; Mehdian, H.; Montazeri, A.; Mobini, B. The Oswestry disability index, the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, and the Quebec back pain disability scale: Translation and validation studies of the Iranian versions. Spine 2006, 31, E454–E459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Agten, A.; Verbrugghe, J.; Stevens, S.; Eijnde, B.O.; Timmermans, A.; Vandenabeele, F. High Intensity Training Increases Muscle Area Occupied by Type II Muscle Fibers of the Multifidus Muscle in Persons with Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Trial. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kerzman, H.; Chetrit, A.; Brin, L.; Toren, O. Characteristics of falls in hospitalized patients. J. Adv. Nurs. 2004, 47, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gheitasi, M.; Khaledi, A.; Daneshjoo, A. The effect of combined core stability and sensory-motor exercises on Pain, Performance and movement fear in retired male athletes with non-specific chronic low back pain. Anesthesiol. Pain 2020, 11, 38–48. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dolphens, M.; Nijs, J.; Cagnie, B.; Meeus, M.; Roussel, N.; Kregel, J.; Malfliet, A.; Vanderstraeten, G.; Danneels, L. Efficacy of a modern neuroscience approach versus usual care evidence-based physiotherapy on pain, disability and brain characteristics in chronic spinal pain patients: Protocol of a randomized clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2014, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Sahrmann, S.A. Does postural assessment contribute to patient care? J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2002, 32, 376–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Comerford, M.J.; Mottram, S.L. Functional stability re-training: Principles and strategies for managing mechanical dysfunction. Man. Ther. 2001, 6, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Richardson, C.; Jull, G. Muscle control–pain control. What exercises would you prescribe? Man. Ther. 1995, 1, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Keselman, H.J.; Huberty, C.J.; Lix, L.M.; Olejnik, S.; Cribbie, R.A.; Donahue, B.; Kowalchuk, R.K.; Lowman, L.L.; Petoskey, M.D.; Keselman, J.C. Statistical practices of educational researchers: An analysis of their ANOVA, MANOVA, and ANCOVA analyses. Rev. Educ. Res. 1998, 68, 350–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Saragiotto, B.T.; Maher, C.G.; Yamato, T.P.; Costa, L.O.; Costa, L.C.M.; Ostelo, R.W.; Macedo, L.G. Motor control exercise for nonspecific low back pain: A cochrane review. Spine 2016, 41, 1284–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hodges, P.; van den Hoorn, W.; Dawson, A.; Cholewicki, J. Changes in the mechanical properties of the trunk in low back pain may be associated with recurrence. J. Biomech. 2009, 42, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Omkar, S.; Vishwas, S. Yoga techniques as a means of core stability training. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2009, 13, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Cabanas-Valdés, R.; Bagur-Calafat, C.; Girabent-Farrés, M.; Caballero-Gómez, F.M.; Hernández-Valiño, M.; Urrutia Cuchi, G. The effect of additional core stability exercises on improving dynamic sitting balance and trunk control for subacute stroke patients: A randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2016, 30, 1024–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Jeffreys, I. Developing a progressive core stability program. Strength Cond. J. 2002, 24, 65–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Demoulin, C.; Crielaard, J.-M.; Vanderthommen, M. Spinal muscle evaluation in healthy individuals and low-back-pain patients: A literature review. Jt. Bone Spine 2007, 74, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ong, A.; Anderson, J.; Roche, J. A pilot study of the prevalence of lumbar disc degeneration in elite athletes with lower back pain at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Br. J. Sports Med. 2003, 37, 263–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Sandrey, M.A.; Mitzel, J.G. Improvement in dynamic balance and core endurance after a 6-week core-stability-training program in high school track and field athletes. J. Sport Rehabil. 2013, 22, 264–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hooper, T. The Effect of Low Back Pain Status and a Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction on Dynamic Balance Test Performance in People Iwth Low Back Pain. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  51. Djordjevic, O.; Konstantinovic, L.; Miljkovic, N.; Bijelic, G. Relationship between electromyographic signal amplitude and thickness change of the trunk muscles in patients with and without low back pain. Clin. J. Pain 2015, 31, 893–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hooper, T.L.; James, C.R.; Brismée, J.-M.; Rogers, T.J.; Gilbert, K.K.; Browne, K.L.; Sizer, P.S. Dynamic balance as measured by the Y-Balance Test is reduced in individuals with low back pain: A cross-sectional comparative study. Phys. Ther. Sport 2016, 22, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Kang, S.H.; Kim, C.W.; Kim, Y.I.; Kim, K.B.; Lee, S.S.; Shin, K.O. Alterations of muscular strength and left and right limb balance in weightlifters after an 8-week balance training program. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2013, 25, 895–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Emami, F.; Yoosefinejad, A.K.; Razeghi, M. Correlations between core muscle geometry, pain intensity, functional disability and postural balance in patients with nonspecific mechanical low back pain. Med. Eng. Phys. 2018, 60, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Behm, D.G.; Anderson, K.; Curnew, R.S. Muscle force and activation under stable and unstable conditions. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2002, 16, 416–422. [Google Scholar]
  56. Hwangbo, G.; Lee, C.-W.; Kim, S.-G.; Kim, H.-S. The effects of trunk stability exercise and a combined exercise program on pain, flexibility, and static balance in chronic low back pain patients. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2015, 27, 1153–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Gardner, T.; Refshauge, K.; McAuley, J.; Hübscher, M.; Goodall, S.; Smith, L. Combined education and patient-led goal setting intervention reduced chronic low back pain disability and intensity at 12 months: A randomised controlled trial. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019, 53, 1424–1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Waseem, M.; Karimi, H.; Gilani, S.A.; Hassan, D. Treatment of disability associated with chronic non-specific low back pain using core stabilization exercises in Pakistani population. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 2019, 32, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Macedo, L.G.; Latimer, J.; Maher, C.G.; Hodges, P.W.; McAuley, J.H.; Nicholas, M.K.; Tonkin, L.; Stanton, C.J.; Stanton, T.R.; Stafford, R. Effect of motor control exercises versus graded activity in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: A randomized controlled trial. Phys. Ther. 2012, 92, 363–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Thiamwong, L.; Stout, J.R.; Sole, M.L.; Ng, B.P.; Yan, X.; Talbert, S. Physio-Feedback and Exercise Program (PEER) improves balance, muscle strength, and fall risk in older adults. Res. Gerontol. Nurs. 2020, 13, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fletcher, C.; Bradnam, L.; Barr, C. The relationship between knowledge of pain neurophysiology and fear avoidance in people with chronic pain: A point in time, observational study. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2016, 32, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 02694 g001 550
Figure 1. CONSORT flow diagram of the study.
Figure 1. CONSORT flow diagram of the study.
Ijerph 19 02694 g001
Ijerph 19 02694 g002 550
Figure 2. Parts related to pain neuroscience.
Figure 2. Parts related to pain neuroscience.
Ijerph 19 02694 g002
Ijerph 19 02694 g003 550
Figure 3. Pre- to post-test of VAS scores (range from 0, “no pain” to 10, “high pain”) and Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), scores range from 0, “no pain-related disability,” to 24, “high pain-related disability”. * denotes difference between pre to post test (p < 0.05). # denotes difference between PNE/MCE versus CST (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Pre- to post-test of VAS scores (range from 0, “no pain” to 10, “high pain”) and Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), scores range from 0, “no pain-related disability,” to 24, “high pain-related disability”. * denotes difference between pre to post test (p < 0.05). # denotes difference between PNE/MCE versus CST (p < 0.05).
Ijerph 19 02694 g003
Ijerph 19 02694 g004 550
Figure 4. Pre- to post-test of USB and Timed Up and Go test (TUG). * denotes difference between pre to post test (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Pre- to post-test of USB and Timed Up and Go test (TUG). * denotes difference between pre to post test (p < 0.05).
Ijerph 19 02694 g004
Table
Table 1. Core stability exercises in one session.
Table 1. Core stability exercises in one session.
ExerciseSets and Repetitions per Week
1–2 Weeks3–4 Weeks5–6 Weeks7–8 Weeks
SetR/SSetR/SSetR/SSetR/S
Stomach abduction (static contraction of the abdominal muscles) (S)320325430530
Four-legged position with raising the opposite arm and leg (R)320325430530
Single leg adjusted side bridge for each side of the body (R)310315415515
Supine on a Swiss ball with static contraction of the abdominal muscles (S)310315415515
Raise the opposite arm and leg on the Swiss ball (R)310315415515
Standing on one leg with the knee flexed (S)310315415515
Standing on two legs with balance sandals in an anatomical position or with eyes closed (S)38312415515
Standing with feet on the wobble board (S)38312415515
Standing and walking with balance sandals on two legs38312415515
Stride using balance sandals38312415515
Standing and walking with balance sandals and with the knee flexed at feet38312415515
Legend: S = second, R = repetition.
Table
Table 2. MCE training for 8 weeks.
Table 2. MCE training for 8 weeks.
PhaseWeeksSetR/SExercises
A1–2 Weeks310Pelvic tilt, double leg stance, bridge, cat and cow exercise
3–4 Weeks310Single leg stance, single leg bridge, cobra with hands off floor, quadruped trunk rotation
B5–6 Weeks415Single leg stance eyes closed, flexion and extension of the back without weights, straight leg raise, walking on stable board
7–8 Weeks515Forward bending, flexion and extension of the back with weights on unstable board, walking on unstable board, cross straight leg raise, eccentric squat
S = Second, R = Repetition.
Table
Table 3. Demographic data and baseline values of patients with chronic low back pain.
Table 3. Demographic data and baseline values of patients with chronic low back pain.
CharacteristicPNE/MCE (n = 18)CST (n = 19)p-Value
Age (years)55.16 ± 2.6154.63 ± 2.380.52
Body weight (kg)1.63 ± 0.0663.36 ± 4.750.55
Body height (m)63.72 ± 5.471.65 ± 0.040.83
Body Mass Index (kg/m2)23.56 ± 1.6123.08 ± 0.890.47
Low back pain duration, months4.00 ± 0763.89 ± 0.730.67
Legend: CST, core stability training; PNE/MCE, pain neuroscience education followed by motor control exercises.
Table
Table 4. Pre- and post-test comparisons of the outcomes assessed in the study and between groups.
Table 4. Pre- and post-test comparisons of the outcomes assessed in the study and between groups.
Dependent
Variables		GroupBaseline
Mean ± SD		Post 8 Weeks
Mean ± SD		Δ
Pre–Post		Main Effect:
Time		Main Effect:
Group		Interaction:
Time × Group
Fpηp2Fpηp2Fpηp2
VAS (au)PNE/MCE5.16 ± 0.702.16 ± 0.072↓58%563.34<0.001 *0.9716.160.024 *0.2664.210.05 *0.198
CST5.10 ± 0.802.94 ± 0.91↓42%
RMDQ (au)PNE/MCE14.38 ± 1.946.61 ± 0.92↓54%567.06<0.001 *0.9713.450.080.16913.690.002 *0.446
CST14.57 ± 2.779.05 ± 3.55↓37%
USB (sec)PNE/MCE13.62 ± 1.3723.59 ± 2.05↑73%712.9<0.001 *0.9770.0310.8630.0023.710.0710.179
CST14.13 ± 2.1622.80 ± 1.69↑61%
TUG (sec)PNE/MCE18.70 ± 0.7412.84 ± 1.26↑31%654.38<0.001 *0.9750.2620.6150.0152.980.1020.149
CST18.46 ± 0.9613.46 ± 1.12↑27%
Legend: PNE/MCE, pain neuroscience education followed by motor control exercise; CST, core stability training; Δ, percent change (↓decrease, ↑increase); ηp2, partial eta squared (effect size). VAS: scores range from 0 (“no pain”) to 10 (“high pain”); RMDQ, Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire: scores range from 0 (“no pain-related disability”) to 24 (“high pain-related disability); au, arbitrary units; STB, unipodal static balance test; TUG, Timed Up and Go Test; sec, second. * significant differences (p ≤ 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gorji, S.M.; Mohammadi Nia Samakosh, H.; Watt, P.; Henrique Marchetti, P.; Oliveira, R. Pain Neuroscience Education and Motor Control Exercises versus Core Stability Exercises on Pain, Disability, and Balance in Women with Chronic Low Back Pain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2694. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052694

AMA Style

Gorji SM, Mohammadi Nia Samakosh H, Watt P, Henrique Marchetti P, Oliveira R. Pain Neuroscience Education and Motor Control Exercises versus Core Stability Exercises on Pain, Disability, and Balance in Women with Chronic Low Back Pain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(5):2694. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052694

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gorji, Sahar Modares, Hadi Mohammadi Nia Samakosh, Peter Watt, Paulo Henrique Marchetti, and Rafael Oliveira. 2022. "Pain Neuroscience Education and Motor Control Exercises versus Core Stability Exercises on Pain, Disability, and Balance in Women with Chronic Low Back Pain" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 5: 2694. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052694

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop