European Spine Journal

, Volume 15, Issue 7, pp 1070–1082 | Cite as

A randomized clinical trial and subgroup analysis to compare flexion–distraction with active exercise for chronic low back pain

  • Maruti Ram GudavalliEmail author
  • Jerrilyn A. Cambron
  • Marion McGregor
  • James Jedlicka
  • Michael Keenum
  • Alexander J. Ghanayem
  • Avinash G. Patwardhan
Original Article


Many clinical trials on chiropractic management of low back pain have neglected to include specific forms of care. This study compared two well-defined treatment protocols. The objective was to compare the outcome of flexion–distraction (FD) procedures performed by chiropractors with an active trunk exercise protocol (ATEP) performed by physical therapists. A randomized clinical trial study design was used. Subjects, 18 years of age and older, with a primary complaint of low back pain (>3 months) were recruited. A 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for perceived pain, the Roland Morris (RM) Questionnaire for low back function, and the SF-36 for overall health status served as primary outcome measures. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive either FD or ATEP. The FD intervention consisted of the application of flexion and traction applied to specific regions in the low back, with the aid of a specially designed manipulation table. The ATEP intervention included stabilizing and flexibility exercises, the use of modalities, and cardiovascular training. A total of 235 subjects met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and signed the informed consent. Of these, 123 were randomly allocated to FD and 112 to the ATEP. Study patients perceived significantly less pain and better function after intervention, regardless of which group they were allocated to (P<0.01). Subjects randomly allocated to the flexion–distraction group had significantly greater relief from pain than those allocated to the exercise program (P=0.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that subjects categorized as chronic, with moderate to severe symptoms, improved most with the flexion–distraction protocol. Subjects categorized with recurrent pain and moderate to severe symptoms improved most with the exercise program. Patients with radiculopathy did significantly better with FD. There were no significant differences between groups on the Roland Morris and SF-36 outcome measures. Overall, flexion–distraction provided more pain relief than active exercise; however, these results varied based on stratification of patients with and without radiculopathy and with and without recurrent symptoms. The subgroup analysis provides a possible explanation for contrasting results among randomized clinical trials of chronic low back pain treatments and these results also provide guidance for future work in the treatment of chronic low back pain.


Low back pain Chiropractic Physical therapy Chronic pain Randomized clinical trial 



The authors thank the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for their financial support (Grant # R18 AH 10001), National Chiropractic Mutual Insurance Company, and many chiropractic physicians for their generous donations. We also thank James Cox, DC and Timothy Carey, PhD, Rita Ator, PT for providing invaluable consultation and the clinicians, physical therapists, student assistants, study patients, and clinic support staff for their help with this study.


  1. 1.
    Andersson GB (1999) Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet 354:581–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Assendelft WJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG (2003) Spinal manipulation for low back pain. A meta-analysis of effectiveness relative to other therapies. Ann Intern Med 138:881Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C (1997) Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol 50:79–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW, Irrgang JJ, Johnson KK, Majkowski GR, Delitto A (2004) A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study. Ann Intern Med 141:920–928PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christensen MG, Kerkoff D, Kollasch MW (2000) Job analysis of chiropractic, 2000. National Board of Chiropractic Examiners, GreeleyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cox JM (1999) Low back pain: mechanism, diagnosis, treatment. 6th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cox JM, Gudavalli MR (2005) Traction and distraction techniques. In: Haldeman S, Dagenais S, Budgell B, Grunnet-Nilsson N, Hooper PD, Meeker WC, Triano J (eds) Principles and practice of chiropractic. 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 821–840Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deyo RA, Phillips WR (1996) Low back pain. A primary challenge. Spine 21:2826–2832CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flynn T, Fritz J, Witman J, Wainner R, Magel J, Rendeiro D, Butler B, Garber M, Allison S (2002) A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with spinal manipulation. Spine 27:2835–2843CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Furlan AD, Brosseau L, Imamura M, Irvin E (2002) Massage for low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD001929Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gatchel RJ (ed) (2001) Compendium of outcome instruments for assessment and research of spinal disorders. North American Spine Society, LaGrangeGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gudavalli MR, Cox JM, Baker JA, Cramer GD, Patwardhan AG (1997) Intervertebral disc pressure changes during the flexion–distraction procedure for low back pain. In: Proceedings of the 1997 annual International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, Singapore, p 165Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gudavalli MR, Cox JM, Baker JA, Cramer GD, Patwardhan AG (1997) Intervertebral disc pressure changes during a chiropractic procedure for low back pain. American Society of Mechanical Engineers bioengineering conference, Dallas, TX, pp 215–216Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gudavalli MR, Cox JM, Cramer GD, Baker JA, Patwardhan AG (2000) Vertebral motions during flexion–distraction treatment for low back pain. 2000 ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, Orlando, FL, pp 129–130Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Helmhout PH, Harts CC, Staal JB, Candel MJ, de Bie RA (2004) Comparison of a high-intensity and a low-intensity lumbar extensor training program as minimal intervention treatment in low back pain: a randomized trial. Eur Spine J 13:537–547CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huskisson EC (1982) Measurement of pain. J Rheumatol 9:768–769PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Katz N, Rodgers DB, Krupa D, Reicin A (2004) Onset of pain relief with rofecoxib in chronic low back pain: results of two four-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Curr Med Res Opin 20:651–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koes BW, Assendelft WJ, van der Heijden GJ, Bouter LM (1996) Spinal manipulation for low back pain. An updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Spine 21:2872–2873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lubeck DP (2003) The costs of musculoskeletal disease: health needs assessment and health economics. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 17:529–539CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, Evans TH (2002) Chronic low back pain. In: Fitzgerald RH, Kaufer H, Malkani AL (eds) Orthopaedics. Mosby, St Louis, pp 1192–1197Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McDowell I, Newell C (1996) Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mior S (2001) Exercise in the treatment of chronic pain. Clin J Pain 17:S77–S85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mior S (2001) Manipulation and mobilization in the treatment of chronic pain. Clin J Pain 17:S70–S76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Murphy DR, Morris C (2005) Manual examination of the patient. In: Haldeman S, Dagenais S, Budgell B, Grunnet-Nilsson N, Hooper PD, Meeker WC, Triano J (eds) Principles and practice of chiropractic. 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 593–610Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nielson WR, Weir R (2001) Biopsychosocial approaches to the treatment of chronic pain. Clin J Pain 17:S114–S127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Niemisto L, Kalso E, Malmivaara A, Seitsalo S, Hurri H (2003) Radiofrequency denervation for neck and back pain. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD004058Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ohnmeiss DD, Rashbaum RF (2001) Patient satisfaction with spinal cord stimulation for predominant complaints of chronic, intractable low back pain. Spine J 1:358–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    O’Sullivan PB (2000) Lumbar segmental ‘instability’ clinical presentation and specific stabilizing exercise management. Man Ther 5:2–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    O’Sullivan PB, Phyty GD, Twomey LT, Allison GT (1997) Evaluation of specific stabilizing exercise in the treatment of chronic low back pain with radiologic diagnosis of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. Spine 22:2959–2967CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability and low back pain. Spine 8:141–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Triano JJ, McGregor M, Hondras MA, Brennan PC (1995) Manipulative therapy versus education programs in chronic low back pain. Spine 20:948–955PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Tulder M, Malmivaara A, Esmail R, Koes B (2000) Exercise therapy for low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine 25:2784–2796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Turk DC (2005) The potential of treatment matching for subgroups of patients with chronic pain: lumping versus splitting. Clin J Pain 21:44–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vollenbroek-Hutton MMR, Hermens HJ, Wever D, Gorter M, Rinket J, Ijzerman MJ (2004) Differences in outcome of a multidisciplinary treatment between subgroups of chronic low back pain patients defined using two multiaxial assessment instruments: the multidimensional pain inventory and lumbar dynamometry. Clin Rehabil 18:566–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maruti Ram Gudavalli
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jerrilyn A. Cambron
    • 2
  • Marion McGregor
    • 6
  • James Jedlicka
    • 2
  • Michael Keenum
    • 3
  • Alexander J. Ghanayem
    • 4
    • 5
  • Avinash G. Patwardhan
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Palmer College of Chiropractic, ResearchDavenportUSA
  2. 2.National University of Health Sciences, ResearchLombardUSA
  3. 3.Orthosport Physical Therapy, ResearchForest ParkUSA
  4. 4.Orthopedic SurgeryLoyola University Stritch School of MedicineMaywoodUSA
  5. 5.Rehabilitation ResearchEdward Hines, Jr. VA HospitalHinesUSA
  6. 6.Research ConsultantRichardsonUSA

Personalised recommendations