988368

Objectives: Chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) is described as pain whose pathoanatomical cause cannot be determined. The current study aims to evaluate the impact of retro-walking on pain, flexibility, and physical functions in patients with CNSLBP.
Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Physical Therapy Department of District Head Quarter Hospital Nankana Sahib, Punjab, Pakistan from September 2021 to March 2022. The trial was conducted on 36 patients, randomly divided into 2 groups of 18 patients. Conventional treatment and retro-walking were given to the experimental group and the conventional treatment alone was provided to the control group for 1 month with 3 sessions per week. The outcome variables were pain, the flexibility of hamstrings and lumbar region, and physical function assessed by numeric pain rating scale, sit and reach test, modified Schober test, and modified Oswestry disability index, respectively. The data were assessed at pre-treatment after the sixth and twelfth sessions.
Results: This study showed a significant difference in the numeric pain rating scale, sit-and-reach test, and modified Oswestry disability index with a P<0.05 in both groups after intervention. However, in the group comparison, these variables showed better results in the retro-walking group compared to others with a P<0.001 after both the sixth and twelfth sessions.
Discussion: The current study suggested that when added up to conventional treatment, retro-walking was more beneficial in reducing pain and enhancing the flexibility and physical function in patients with CNSLBP when compared to conventional treatment alone; therefore, it should be added to the treatment protocol for chronic non-specific pain in the lower back.

Coresponding author: Tahreem Raza, E-mail: tehreemraza15@gmail.com
 

Objectives: This study determines the effect of the Bobath approach versus task task-oriented approach for motor activity, activities of daily living and quality of life (QoL) in young stroke patients.
Methods: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 60 patients participated in this study from different clinical setups (30 subjects in each group). The patients were analyzed after a three-month follow-up with the following three assessment tools: Barthel index (BI) scale for assessment of activities of daily living, motor assessment scale (MAS) for motor function and stroke-specific QoL scale (SSQOL) in post-stroke patients.
Results: This study included two treatment groups (group A and group B) with an equal distribution of participants. Paired sample t-tests were applied to compare pre and post-treatment measures within each group. The results indicated significant changes in several measures. In pair 1 (pre-BI vs post-BI), the index showed a significant improvement after treatment. In pair 2 (pre-MA vs post-MA), the index also showed a significant improvement after treatment. However, in pair 3 (pre-SSQOL vs post-SSQOL), there were no significant changes in the SSQOL index. Furthermore, the independent sample t-tests were conducted to compare the measures between the groups. Accordingly, the results showed significant differences in some measures. In terms of pre-treatment BI and post-treatment BI, group A showed a significantly higher improvement after treatment. Meanwhile, group A showed a significantly higher improvement after treatment in pre-treatment MA and post-treatment MA. However, in pre-treatment SSQOL and post-treatment SSQOL, there were no significant differences between group A and group B in terms of SSQOL after treatment.
Discussion: This study shows improvement in both treatment groups and effectiveness after the assessment of three different tools which assessed the overall body function of young stroke patients. Following the application of these tools, this study concluded which treatment is most effective as compared to other approaches in young stroke patients. However, in previous studies in which Bobath treatment was also compared with the motor relearning approach in geriatric stroke patients, in patients treated according to motor relearning, in patients who had a short stay in hospitals and those who were treated according to both treatment groups demonstrated effective improvement of body function; however, that study confirmed better results according to gender-wise description, i.e. women treated by motor relearning programme (MRP) are more effective and have better results compared to the Bobath approach.