Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 3:46 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-03-13 @ 3:22 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT00555802
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2008-01-29
First Post:
2007-11-08
Is Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
The Effect of Motor Control Exercise Versus General Exercise on Lumbar Local Stabilizing Muscles Thickness
Sponsor:
Zahedan University of Medical Sciences
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
The Effect of Motor Control Exercise Versus General Exercise on Lumbar Local Stabilizing Muscles Thickness
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2007-11
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of motor control exercises. For this, before and after motor control and general exercises, we determined transverses abdominis and multifidus thickness, activity limitation and pain. We hypothesized that the motor control exercises would increase transverses abdominis and multifidus muscles thickness. Activity limitation and pain would decrease following two protocols that it was more in motor control group than general one.
Detailed Description:
Musculoskeletal disorders, of which back pain accounts for more than half the number of cases, are the most common cause of chronic incapacity in industrialized countries. Approximately 10-20 percent of patients with low back pain develop chronic pain, defined as low back pain persisting more than 3 months. Low back pain represents a particularly costly sociomedical problem because of the expenditure associated with repeated treatment and the long-term absence from work and need for social support. These patients use more than 80% of health care resources for back problems, and treatment has a low success rate. Thus, the development of effective interventions aimed at management of the chronic problems is urgently required.
Review of studies showed that the effectiveness of stabilization exercises in patients with nonspecific LBP is not yet fully established. In clinical trials that improvement reported after motor control exercise, other intervention accompanied with these exercises. Also, the results of motor control exercise studies are different. On the other hand, the evidence underpins the primary aim of motor control exercise, which is to re-establish normal control of the deep spinal muscles, reducing the activity of more superficial muscles that tend to stiffen the spine and have increased activity in low back pain, and then maintain normal control during progressively more demanding physical and functional tasks. For these reasons, we decided to identify the efficacy of motor control exercises, usually considered as specific trunk muscle stabilization exercises. A randomized controlled trial was only way for identifying the role of these exercises in treating chronic low back pain. Also, our choice coincides with the research agenda set by the 2004 European Guideline.
Review of studies showed that the effectiveness of stabilization exercises in patients with nonspecific LBP is not yet fully established. In clinical trials that improvement reported after motor control exercise, other intervention accompanied with these exercises. Also, the results of motor control exercise studies are different. On the other hand, the evidence underpins the primary aim of motor control exercise, which is to re-establish normal control of the deep spinal muscles, reducing the activity of more superficial muscles that tend to stiffen the spine and have increased activity in low back pain, and then maintain normal control during progressively more demanding physical and functional tasks. For these reasons, we decided to identify the efficacy of motor control exercises, usually considered as specific trunk muscle stabilization exercises. A randomized controlled trial was only way for identifying the role of these exercises in treating chronic low back pain. Also, our choice coincides with the research agenda set by the 2004 European Guideline.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: