Presentation on theme: "Effectiveness of a Global Posture Reeducation Program for patients with Low Back Pain Francesca Bonetti 1, Mirella Curti 2, Stefania Curti 1, Claudia Ferrari."— Presentation transcript:
Effectiveness of a Global Posture Reeducation Program for patients with Low Back Pain Francesca Bonetti 1, Mirella Curti 2, Stefania Curti 1, Claudia Ferrari 3, Stefano Mattioli 1, Raffaele Mugnai 1, Cristina Pasanisi 4, Carla Vanti 1, Paolo Pillastrini 1 1 Section of Occupational Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Geriatrics and Nephrology, University of Bologna, Italy; 2 Azienda Ospedaliera 'Complesso Ospedaliero San Giovanni Addolorata', Rome, Italy; 3 A.I.R.R.I. Centro Clodio, Rome, Italy; 4 Casa di cura San Domenico, Rome, Italy Acknowledgements Medical Ethics Committee of the Azienda Ospedaliero- Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi (Bologna). Sp.clin. n° 57/2008/USper - Clinical Trials Registration: NCT Presented at World Physical Therapy 2011, Amsterdam June 2011 References Bonetti F, Curti S, Mattioli S, Mugnai R, Vanti C, Violante FS, Pillastrini P. Effectiveness of a 'Global Postural Reeducation' program for persistent low back pain: a non- randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord Dec 16;11:285. Participants 100 consecutive patients with a primary complaint of LBP were enrolled in the study: 50 were allocated to the GPR group and 50 to the ST group. Introduction Approximately 70-85% of individuals will experience low back pain (LBP) during their lifetime, and over 80% of them will report recurrent episodes. The Global Posture Reeducation (GPR) is a physiotherapy approach which consists of balancing the miofascial tension, probably responsible for articular overloading. The method stretches the shortened muscles using the creep property of viscoelastic tissue and enhances contraction of the antagonist muscles, thus avoiding postural asymmetry. Although this method is widely employed in countries where Romance languages are spoken, few studies support its theoretical basis and clinical effectiveness. Methods Outcome measures were captured at baseline and at 3/6 months by a physical therapist blind to group allocation. Both groups received a treatment delivered by experienced physical therapists. The number of sessions, the duration of each session and the total amount of treatment were identical. Moreover, both treatments consisted of a one-to-one supervised exercise program actively involving the patient. An intention to treat approach was used to analyze participants according to the group to which they were originally assigned. A) B) C) Results Of the 100 initial participants, 78 completed the study: 42 in GPR and 36 in ST group. At baseline, the two groups did not differ significantly with respect to gender, age, BMI and outcome measures. At 6 th -month follow-up, when examining differences from baseline, the GPR group revealed a significant reduction of all outcome measures with respect to ST Group. Discussion & Conclusions Our findings point to the relevance of a GPR intervention performed by a physical therapist in improving pain, disability and flexibility as opposed to a ST program, in patients with LBP. These results must be confirmed by further studies with higher methodological standards, including randomization, larger sample size, long-term follow-up and initial clinical assessment for subgrouping classification. Recommendations When considering the clinical impact of our research, we can state that the GPR program produced a clinically meaningful improvement. In fact, 48% of subjects in the GPR group obtained a reduction of at least 30% in their RMDQ and VAS scores, compared to the 12% in the ST group. Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a GPR program in comparison to a physical therapy Standard Treatment (ST) in patients with LBP at short- and mid-term follow- up (ie. 3 and 6 months). Contact details Prof. Paolo Pillastrini, UO Medicina del Lavoro, Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi, via Palagi 9, I Bologna (Italy) Figure 1. Positions. A) lying posture with legs extension progression: anterior muscle chain stretching; B) lying posture with hip joints flexion progression: posterior muscle chain stretching; C) standing posture with trunk flexion progression: posterior muscle chain loading stretching. Figure 3. Distribution of definitely improved, possibly improved and not improved subjects in the GPR and ST group. Definitely improved: reduction of at least 30% on RMDQ and VAS scores from baseline. Possibly improved: reduction of at least 30% on RMDQ score from baseline. Figure 2. Flow-chart of participants through the trial. GPR Group: Global Posture Reeducation Group. ST Group: Standard Physical Therapy Treatment Methods A non-randomized controlled study was conducted between March 2008 and September Primary outcome measures were Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcome measures were lumbar Visual Analogical Scale and Fingertip-to-Floor test.