Search

Study DesignClinical pilot study.PurposeTo objectively evaluate the compliance rate of lumbar-support use in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain, as well as to assess low back pain intensity, disability, and fear-avoidance beliefs.Overview of LiteratureWearing time is an important factor in the assessment of the efficacy of lumbar-support use in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Previous studies have measured lumbar-support wearing time based on subjective assessment, and these evaluations are not easily verifiable and are usually overestimated by subjects.MethodsTwelve subjects with chronic nonspecific low back pain who had been wearing semirigid lumbar supports for 6 weeks were evaluated. Compliance was objectively monitored using temperature sensors integrated into the semirigid lumbar supports. Subjects wore their lumbar supports for 8 hour/day on workdays and 3 hour/day on holidays during the first 3 weeks. During the next 3 weeks, subjects were gradually weaned off the lumbar supports. Pain intensity was measured using a numerical rating scale. The Oswestry disability index was used to assess the subjects' disability. Fear-avoidance behavior was evaluated using a fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire.ResultsThe mean compliance rate of the subjects was 78.16%±13.9%. Pain intensity was significantly lower in patients with a higher compliance rate (p=0.001). Disability index and fear-avoidance beliefs (functional outcomes) significantly improved during the second 3-weeks period of the treatment (p

Study Design: Clinical pilot study. Purpose: To objectively evaluate the compliance rate of lumbar-support use in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain, as well as to assess low back pain intensity, disability, and fear-avoidance beliefs. Overview of Literature: Wearing time is an important factor in the assessment of the efficacy of lumbar-support use in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Previous studies have measured lumbar-support wearing time based on subjective assessment, and these evaluations are not easily verifiable and are usually overestimated by subjects. Methods: Twelve subjects with chronic nonspecific low back pain who had been wearing semirigid lumbar supports for 6 weeks were evaluated. Compliance was objectively monitored using temperature sensors integrated into the semirigid lumbar supports. Subjects wore their lumbar supports for 8 hour/day on workdays and 3 hour/day on holidays during the first 3 weeks. During the next 3 weeks, subjects were gradually weaned off the lumbar supports. Pain intensity was measured using a numerical rating scale. The Oswestry disability index was used to assess the subjects’ disability. Fear-avoidance behavior was evaluated using a fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire. Results: The mean compliance rate of the subjects was 78.16%±13.9%. Pain intensity was significantly lower in patients with a higher compliance rate (p=0.001). Disability index and fear-avoidance beliefs (functional outcomes) significantly improved during the second 3-weeks period of the treatment (p<0.001, p=0.02, respectively). Conclusions: The compliance rate of patients wearing lumbar supports is a determining factor in chronic low back pain management. Wearing semirigid lumbar supports, as advised, was associated with decreased pain intensity, improved disability index scores, and improved fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]