Non Specific Low Back Pain, Muscle Energy Technique
Conditions
Keywords
Muscle energy, PRT, Non specific low back pain
Brief summary
Objective:The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Positional Release Technique (PRT) and Muscle Energy Technique (MET) in reducing pain and improving outcomes for patients suffering from non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Materials and Methods: Thirty-six patients between the ages of 25 and 50, all referred by an orthopedic surgeon for treatment of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), were enrolled in the study. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups (n=18 per group) using a computer-generated randomization sequence. However, details regarding allocation concealment and blinding of participants or assessors were not specified, which may influence the risk of bias. Group A received Positional Release Technique (PRT), while Group B received Muscle Energy Technique (MET). Prior to each treatment session, both groups received a standardized 15-minute hot pack application as a co-intervention to promote muscle relaxation and ensure consistency across interventions. Pain intensity was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and functional outcomes were measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ). Participants in both groups attended three physiotherapy sessions per week over a four-week treatment period.
Detailed description
1. Study Identification Official Title: Positional Release Technique Versus Muscle Energy Technique for Patients with Non-Specific Low Back Pain With Facet Joint Restriction Brief Title: PRT vs MET in Non-Specific Low Back Pain Study Type: Interventional (Clinical Trial) Phase: Not Applicable 2. Study Description Brief Summary: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Positional Release Technique (PRT) and Muscle Energy Technique (MET) in reducing pain and improving outcomes for patients suffering from non-specific low back pain with suspected facet joint dysfunction. Thirty-six patients were randomized into two groups and received treatment for 4 weeks, 3 sessions per week. Pain intensity (VAS) and functional disability (Roland-Morris Questionnaire) were assessed pre- and post-intervention. 3. Study Design Allocation: Randomized Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment Masking: None (Open Label) Primary Purpose: Treatment 4. Conditions & Interventions Condition: Non-Specific Low Back Pain (NSLBP) Interventions: Group A (PRT): Positional Release Technique - 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention. Group B (MET): Muscle Energy Technique - 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention. 5. Outcome Measures Primary Outcome Measures: Pain intensity (VAS) - Baseline and after 4 weeks. Functional disability (Roland-Morris Questionnaire, RMQ) - Baseline and after 4 weeks. 6. Eligibility Ages Eligible for Study: 25-50 years Sexes Eligible for Study: All Inclusion Criteria: Chronic NSLBP \>3 months, suspected facet joint dysfunction. Exclusion Criteria: History of spinal surgery, vertebral fracture, osteoporosis, inflammatory/metabolic bone disease, spondylolisthesis. 7. Enrollment Enrollment: 36 participants (actual) 8. Locations Maqassed Hospital, East Jerusalem, Palestine
Interventions
BEHAVIORALPositional release technique (PRT)
Group A (PRT): Patients lay prone for the application of the hot pack. PRT was then applied to the erector spinae muscles. The therapist identified tender points and passively positioned the patient into a position of comfort, typically involving lateral trunk flexion toward the symptomatic side. Each session involved three 90-second holds per tender point. PRT procedures followed standardized positioning principles as described in previous literature.
BEHAVIORALMuscle energy technique
Group B (MET): Following the hot pack application, patients were assessed for segmental dysfunction via palpation of lumbar transverse processes in prone position. MET was applied using isometric contractions aimed at correcting lumbar rotational or side-bending dysfunctions. Each contraction was held for 7-10 seconds, followed by a passive stretch. The technique was repeated for 3-5 cycles per session.
Sponsors
Palestine Ahliya University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
Group A (PRT): Positional Release Technique - 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention Group B (MET): Muscle Energy Technique - 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
25 Years to 50 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Participants in the age category of 25 to 50 years old. * both male and female, with a diagnosis of low back pain (LBP), with or without referred leg pain. * chronic LBP lasting more than three months.
Exclusion criteria
* Osteoporosis. * bone disease. * Spondylolisthesis. * History of vertebral fracture. * History of spinal surgery.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| VAS - Baseline and after 4 weeks. Functional disability (Roland-Morris Questionnaire, RMQ) - Baseline and after 4 weeks. | 4 weeks | A popular instrument for measuring pain is the visual analogue scale (VAS). Typically, it's a 10-cm line with the words worst pain imaginable at one end and no pain at the other. In order to quantify their level of pain, patients mark the line, and the distance from no pain serves as a proxy for pain |
| RMQ | 4 weeks | It asks about 24 different activities and functions that could be impacted by back pain. Patients indicate if they now find it difficult to be active owing to back discomfort by answering yes or no to each topic. The total number of yes responses is added up to determine the score; a higher score denotes a larger disability |
Countries
Palestinian Territories
Outcome results
None listed