"Active back school", prophylactic management for low back pain: three-year follow-up of a randomized, controlled trial.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the long-term effect of the Active Back School programme on minimizing recurrences of episodes of low back pain. Forty-three subjects were randomly allocated to the Active Back School group and 38 to the control group. There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to baseline characteristics. The Active Back School programme comprised 20 lessons each divided into a 20-min theoretical and a 40-min exercise part during a 13-week period. Nine participants (11%) dropped out during the study period. Recurrence of new low back pain episodes was significantly less (p = 0.04), and the time from inclusion to the first new low back pain episode was significantly on the side of the Active Back School group (p < 0.01). The duration of sick leave was found to be significantly shorter (p < 0.01) in the Active Back School group compared to the control group. The Active Back School reduced the recurrence and severity of new low back pain episodes at 36 months' follow-up.

Exercises and education as secondary prevention for recurrent low back pain.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Exercise and education is a common physiotherapy approach in the prevention of low back pain. A Mensendieck exercise programme consisting of exercises and ergonomical education has, in a previous study, been shown to be effective in preventing recurrent low back pain during one-year follow-up. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the long-term effect of the Mensendieck exercise programme on people with recurrent episodes of low back pain who, when entering the study, had finished treatment for their last episode of low back pain. METHOD: A randomized controlled clinical trial in which 41 women and 36 men were allocated to either a Mensendieck or control group. The Mensendieck subjects received 20 group sessions of exercises and ergonomical education over 13 weeks. The control subjects were not offered any prophylactic therapy, but were free to receive treatment or exercises. Outcome measures were the number of recurrences of low back pain, sick leave, low back function and general functional status. RESULTS: At three-year follow-up, 11 subjects had been lost to the study. Survival analysis showed a significant reduction (p = 0.02) in subjects experiencing recurrent low back pain in the Mensendieck group compared to the control group. Significant improvements in pain and function scores were reported in both groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in pain, function or sick leave. CONCLUSION: A Mensendieck exercise programme seems efficient in reducing recurrent episodes of low back pain at three-year follow-up, but it did not influence sick leave, pain or function scores.

The effect of a Mensendieck exercise program as secondary prophylaxis for recurrent low back pain. A randomized, controlled trial with 12-month follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial with a stratification block design in which a Mensendieck exercise program was compared with the experience of a control group. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a Mensendieck program on the incidence of recurrent episodes of low back pain in patients with a history of the condition who currently are working. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: One episode of low back pain increases the risk of further episodes of the condition. The Mensendieck approach combines education and exercise. This approach has been used for many years in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. However, the effects on low back pain have not been evaluated previously in a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 77 men and women, mean age 39.6 years (range, 21.2-49.8 years), who had finished treatment for a low back pain episode, were stratified according to incidence of low back pain episodes and symptoms of sciatica over the preceding 3 years. The patients were assigned at random to either the Mensendieck program or a control group. The Mensendieck group received 20 group sessions of exercises and ergonomic education in 13 weeks. At 5- and 12-month follow-up examinations, the patients were assessed for recurrence of low back pain, days of sick leave, low back pain, and functional scores. RESULTS: After 12 months, there was a significant reduction in recurrent low back pain episodes in the Mensendieck group compared with the control group (P < 0.05). There was a trend toward fewer days of sick leave because of low back pain in the Mensendieck group, but no significant differences between the groups. There was reduction in pain and improvement in function in both groups, with no significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: A secondary prophylaxis Mensendieck exercise program of 20 group sessions significantly reduced the incidence of low back pain recurrences in a population with history of the condition. However, there were no differences between the groups with regard to days of sick leave, low back pain, and function.

Active back school: prophylactic management for low back pain. A randomized, controlled, 1-year follow-up study.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, controlled, single-center trial with a stratified group design. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the secondary prophylactic effect of the Active Back School program on minimizing recurrences of low back pain episodes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The results of back school interventions are controversial. Previous work often used short intervention periods and low doses of practical training. However, studies with the highest methodologic scores have shown the best results, especially when conducted in occupational settings and coupled with a comprehensive rehabilitation program. METHODS: By block randomization, 19 men and 24 women were allocated to Active Back School, with 18 men and 20 women as control subjects. The Slumps test and number of low back pain episodes during the previous 36 months were used as stratification factors. There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to demographic factors and initially observed variables. Active Back School consisted of 20 lessons over a 13-week period. Each lesson was divided into a 20-minute theoretical part and a 40-minute exercise part. All participants were examined on enrollment, then 5 and 12 months after initiation of the program. Outcome measures were recurrence of low back pain episodes and number of days of sick leave. RESULTS: The recurrence of new low back pain episodes was significantly lower (P < 0.05) and the time from inclusion to the first new episode significantly longer (P < 0.01) in the Active Back School group than in the control group. In the Active Back School group, seven participants took sick leave because of low back pain episodes during the first 12 months of follow-up compared with 11 among the control subjects. The number of sick leave days was significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the Active Back School group than in the control group. CONCLUSION: Active Back School reduced the recurrence and severity of new low back pain episodes according to results of follow-up examinations performed 5 and 12 months after enrollment.