European Spine Journal

, 18:1843

No effect of traction in patients with low back pain: a single centre, single blind, randomized controlled trial of Intervertebral Differential Dynamics Therapy®

  • Janneke J. P. Schimmel
  • M. de Kleuver
  • P. P. Horsting
  • M. Spruit
  • W. C. H. Jacobs
  • J. van Limbeek
Original Article


Low back pain (LBP) poses a significant problem to society. Although initial conservative therapy may be beneficial, persisting chronic LBP still frequently leads to expensive invasive intervention. A novel non-invasive therapy that focuses on discogenic LBP is Intervertebral Differential Dynamics Therapy® (IDD Therapy, North American Medical Corp. Reg U.S.). IDD Therapy consists of intermittent traction sessions in the Accu-SPINA device (Steadfast Corporation Ltd, Essex, UK), an FDA approved, class II medical device. The intervertebral disc and facet joints are unloaded through axial distraction, positioning and relaxation cycles. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of IDD Therapy when added to a standard graded activity program for chronic LBP patients. In a single blind, single centre, randomized controlled trial; 60 consecutive patients were assigned to either the SHAM or the IDD Therapy. All subjects received the standard conservative therapeutic care (graded activity) and 20 sessions in the Accu-SPINA device. The traction weight in the IDD Therapy was systematically increased until 50% of a person’s body weight plus 4.45 kg (10 lb) was reached. The SHAM group received a non-therapeutic traction weight of 4.45 kg in all sessions. The main outcome was assessed using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for LBP. Secondary outcomes were VAS scores for leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-Form 36 (SF-36). All parameters were measured before and 2, 6 and 14 weeks after start of the treatment. Fear of (re)injury due to movement or activities (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia), coping strategies (Utrecht Coping List) and use of pain medication were recorded before and at 14 weeks. A repeated measures analysis was performed. The two groups were comparable at baseline in terms of demographic, clinical and psychological characteristics, indicating that the random allocation had succeeded. VAS low back pain improved significantly from 61 (±25) to 32 (±27) with the IDD protocol and 53 (±26) to 36 (±27) in the SHAM protocol. Moreover, leg pain, ODI and SF-36 scores improved significantly but in both groups. The use of pain medication decreased significantly, whereas scores for kinesiophobia and coping remained at the same non-pathological level. None of the parameters showed a difference between both protocols. Both treatment regimes had a significant beneficial effect on LBP, leg pain, functional status and quality of life after 14 weeks. The added axial, intermittent, mechanical traction of IDD Therapy to a standard graded activity program has been shown not to be effective.


Low back pain Traction IDD therapy® Non-invasive therapy Randomized clinical trial 


  1. 1.
    Anema JR, Steenstra IA, Bongers PM et al (2007) Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for subacute low back pain: graded activity or workplace intervention or both? A randomized controlled trial. Spine 32:291–298. doi:10.1097/ CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beattie PF, Nelson RM, Michener LA et al (2008) Outcomes after a prone lumbar traction protocol for patients with activity-limiting low back pain: a prospective case series study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89:269–274. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.06.778 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ et al (1997) Efficacy of traction for nonspecific low back pain: 12-week and 6-month results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine 22:2756–2762. doi:10.1097/00007632-199712010-00011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borman P, Keskin D, Bodur H (2003) The efficacy of lumbar traction in the management of patients with low back pain. Rheumatol Int 23:82–86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke J, van Tulder M, Blomberg S et al (2006) Traction for low back pain with or without sciatica: an updated systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration. Spine 31:1591–1599. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000222043.09835.72 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fritz JM, Lindsay W, Matheson JW et al (2007) Is there a subgroup of patients with low back pain likely to benefit from mechanical traction? Results of a randomized clinical trial and subgrouping analysis. Spine 32:E793–E800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gay RE, Brault JS (2008) Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with traction therapy. Spine J 8:234–242. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK (2004) Concurrent comparison of responsiveness in pain and functional status measurements used for patients with low back pain. Spine 29:E492–E501. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000143664.02702.0b CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Macario A, Pergolizzi JV (2006) Systematic literature review of spinal decompression via motorized traction for chronic discogenic low back pain. Pain Pract 6:171–178. doi:10.1111/j.1533-2500.2006.00082.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Macario A, Richmond C, Auster M et al (2008) Treatment of 94 outpatients with chronic discogenic low back pain with the DRX9000: a retrospective chart review. Pain Pract 8:11–17. doi:10.1111/j.1533-2500.2007.00167.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McClure D, Farris B (2006) Intervertebral Differential Dynamics Therapy—a new direction for the initial treatment of low back pain. Eur Musculoskeletal Rev 1:45–47 (Ref Type: Report)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ostelo RW, Swinkels-Meewisse IJ, Knol DL et al (2007) Assessing pain and pain-related fear in acute low back pain: what is the smallest detectable change? Int J Behav Med 14:242–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Picavet HS, Schouten JS (2003) Musculoskeletal pain in the Netherlands: prevalences, consequences and risk groups, the DMC(3)-study. Pain 102:167–178. doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00372-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Picavet HS, Vlaeyen JW, Schouten JS (2002) Pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia: predictors of chronic low back pain. Am J Epidemiol 156:1028–1034. doi:10.1093/aje/kwf136 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shealy CN, Borgmeyer V (1997) Decompression, reduction, and stabilization of the lumbar spine: a cost-effective treatment for lumbosacral pain. Am J Pain Manage 7:663–665Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shealy CN, Koladia N, Wesemann MM (2005) Long-term effect analysis of IDD therapy in low back pain: a retrospective clinical pilot study. Am J Pain Manage 15:93–97Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Staal JB, Hlobil H, Twisk JW et al (2004) Graded activity for low back pain in occupational health care: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 140:77–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM (1997) Conservative treatment of acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the most common interventions. Spine 22:2128–2156. doi:10.1097/00007632-199709150-00012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Werners R, Pynsent PB, Bulstrode CJ (1999) Randomized trial comparing interferential therapy with motorized lumbar traction and massage in the management of low back pain in a primary care setting. Spine 24:1579–1584. doi:10.1097/00007632-199908010-00012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janneke J. P. Schimmel
    • 1
  • M. de Kleuver
    • 2
  • P. P. Horsting
    • 2
  • M. Spruit
    • 3
  • W. C. H. Jacobs
    • 1
  • J. van Limbeek
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Research Development and EducationSint MaartenskliniekNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsSint MaartenskliniekNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Dubai Bone and Joint Centre LLCDubai Healthcare CityDubaiUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations