Non Specific Low Back Pain
Conditions
Keywords
Pain, Flexibility, Disability, Strength, Lumbar
Brief summary
Background: The diaphragm muscle is a respiratory muscle with postural function. Patients with chronic LBP (CLBP) are more susceptible to diaphragm fatigue than healthy people and, therefore, can likely benefit from exercises designed to improve strength/endurance in this muscle. Studying the results of diaphragmatic training versus myofascial release was a strategy for determining which of them was the most effective in improving pain, flexibility and disability in the patients with chronic non- specific low back pain. Objective: The objective of the study will be to compare the effect of Diaphragm training and myofascial release back pain patients. Methods: A randomized clinical trial will be conducted on 44 patients aged 20-45 years. The patients will be randomized using lottery method. Group A will underwent diaphragmatic training with four positions with hot-pack and therapeutic ultrasound as baseline treatment NPRS will be used to measure the intensity of pain, ODI for the measurement of disability and Schober's test for lumbar flexibility before and after the completion of treatment sessions. Group B will receive myofascial release of diaphragm for 15 minutes with two sets of repetition of 10 breaths with a one-minute interval between them. Total duration will be 4 weeks.
Interventions
OTHERDiaphragm Training
The diaphragm serves dual roles in respiration and postural control, yet its contribution is often overlooked in core stability exercise (CSE) programs for low back pain (LBP) rehabilitation. Abdominal hollowing, or the 'tummy tuck,' targets TrA and lumbar multifidus. Diaphragmatic breathing (DB) increases intra-abdominal pressure, contributing to lumbar stability. The intervention included four progressive weeks: Week 1-Supine and Crocodile breathing; Week 2-Supine and Crocodile with TheraBand; Week 3-Seated and 90/90/90 breathing; Week 4-Seated and 90/90/90 with TheraBand. Supine emphasized diaphragmatic expansion with resistance at the thoracolumbar junction; Crocodile focused on lateral rib expansion; Seated required upright posture with rib control; 90/90/90 integrated deep breathing with resisted stabilization. This study evaluates DB combined with CSE on pain, disability, muscle activity, and sleep quality in chronic LBP.
OTHERMyofascial Release Technique
The myofascial release technique for the diaphragm was performed with the participant lying supine and limbs relaxed. The therapist, positioned at the head, placed the pisiform, hypothenar, and last three fingers bilaterally under the seventh to tenth rib costal cartilages, forearms aligned toward the shoulders. During inspiration, gentle traction was applied cephalad and slightly laterally, accompanying rib elevation. On exhalation, pressure was directed inward along the costal margin to maintain resistance. With each breath, traction was gradually deepened to improve release. The maneuver consisted of two sets of 10 deep breaths with a 1-minute rest between sets. Figure 1 illustrates the manual diaphragm release technique (source: author's photo). This method, adapted from Rocha et al. (2015), emphasizes progressive traction and controlled resistance to facilitate diaphragmatic mobility and rib cage expansion.
Sponsors
Rashid Latif Medical College
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
20 Years to 45 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* with intermittent nonspecific CLBP for ≥12 weeks, with VAS between 3 to 7. All participants will be active at a recreational level, history of at least 12 weeks of NLBP, absence of radiculopathy or spinal damage due to tumors, stenosis, or fractures, and a minimum level of physical activity to be able to perform the exercises.
Exclusion criteria
* lumbar surgery experience, * inflammatory spinal disease, * spinal deformities, * neurologic radiating pain
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Pain Level | Pre-intervention and 4 weeks Post-intervention | Pain level will be assessed by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). The participants rated their pain on a defined 0-10 scale, where 0 is no pain, and 10 is the worst pain imaginable. NRS has different advantages, such as simplicity, reproducibility, and sensitivity to small changes in pain. NRS takes less than 1 min to complete and is a valid and reliable scale to measure pain intensity |
| Disability | Pre and 4 week post-intervention | The disability due to NSLBP will be assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), which is a self-administered questionnaire to evaluate the limitations of various daily living activities. The ODI is one of the most common scoring systems used for patients with LBP. The total score ranges from 0 to 100, where a higher score indicates a higher level of disability. |
| Flexibility | Pre and 4 weeks Post intervention | The lumbar flexibility will be measured by Modified Schober test. The examiner puts his thumbs on the inferior margin of the subject's PSIS. An ink mark is drawn along the midline of the lumbar spine horizontal to the PSIS (lower landmark). While the examiner holds the tape firmly against the subject's skin, he marks a second line 15 cm above the original one (higher landmark). Then the subject is asked to do an active anterior flexion of the trunk without increasing the pain. The new distance between the lower and higher landmarks is then measured. The subject returns to the neutral position. The difference in the initial distance between the skin markings in the neutral position and the new measurements made in the flexion position is used to indicate the amount of lumbar flexion. Each therapist recorded measurements to the nearest mm |
Countries
Pakistan
Outcome results
None listed