Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Effect of REPEX in patients with low back pain |
Dionne C, Herbowy S, Miller MJ, Smith S, Donelson R |
International Journal of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy 2007;2(1):17-24 |
clinical trial |
5/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
STUDY DESIGN: Pretest-posttest, matched pairs design. OBJECTIVE: Determine the effect of using REPEX on pain, perceived disability, and number of physical therapy visits in treatment of selected patients with low back pain (LBP). BACKGROUND: The REPEX (Repeated Endrange Passive EXercise) is an electronic treatment table based on the concept of continuous passive motion used to decrease pain and increase function of the lumbar spine. Little published research has been conducted to justify use of the REPEX in clinical practice. METHODS AND MEASURES: Forty-eight patients (25 men, 23 women, mean 40.7 years, SD 10.3) were consecutively selected and randomly assigned to one of two groups matched by mechanical diagnosis. Patients received either REPEX with standardized physical therapy intervention or standardized physical therapy intervention without REPEX. The groups were compared on pain scale and Oswestry Questionnaire scores using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests and on the number of visits using a dependent t-test. RESULTS: The 24 pairs of patients upon study completion were equivalent in initial pain and Oswestry scores. No differences in posttest Oswestry scores (z = -0.033, p = -0.97) or pain scores (z = -0.134, p = 0.89) were found. Overall, patients who received REPEX had fewer visits than matched patients who received intervention without REPEX (t = -2.21, df = 23, p = 0.02). Specifically, patients with symptoms below the knee who received REPEX had fewer visits than comparable patients who received intervention without REPEX (t = -3.18, df = 10, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LBP, specifically those with symptoms below the knee who meet the criteria for REPEX, may require fewer physical therapy visits than comparable patients who do not receive REPEX with physical therapy intervention.
|