Efficacy of an integrated, active rehabilitation protocol in patients ≥ 65 years of age with chronic mechanical low back pain
This retrospective study aimed to determine the efficacy of an integrated active, rehabilitation protocol in patients ≥ 65 years of age with chronic mechanical low back pain and compare the results in similar patients in 50–64 years age group.
Pre- and post-treatment mean numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) score, mean Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, treatment outcome category and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds achieved for NPRS and ODI scores post-treatment were compared among 697 patients in the 50–64 years and 495 patients in the ≥ 65 years age groups.
At a mean treatment duration of 57 days (range, 30–90 days), both mean NPRS score (p < 0.0001) and mean ODI score (p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the ≥ 65 years age group when compared to the 50–64 years age group. However, post-treatment outcome categories (p = 0.17) and percentage of patients who achieved MCID thresholds for NPRS score (p = 0.13) and ODI score (p = 0.18) were not significantly different between the two groups. There was a significant correlation between post-treatment NPRS score and patient age and pre-treatment NPRS score and between post-treatment ODI score and incidence of osteoporosis and pre-treatment ODI score.
Although mean NPRS and ODI scores achieved were significantly better in patients of 50–64 years of age, our integrated active, rehabilitation protocol helped achieve significant improvement in NPRS score, MCID thresholds for NPRS and ODI scores and treatment outcomes in patients ≥ 65 years of age, similar to patients in the 50–64 years of age group, at the end of 3 months of treatment.
KeywordsLow back pain Rehabilitation Physical therapy modalities Spine Elderly
No benefits or funds were received in support of this study by any of the authors. This article is original and has not been published before or currently submitted to any other journal.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This study has been approved by an Institutional Ethics Committee and has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 1.GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators (2017) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 390:1211–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Williams JS, Ng N, Peltzer K, Yawson A, Biritwum R, Maximova T, Wu F, Arokiasamy P, Kowal P, Chatterji S (2015) Risk factors and disability associated with low back pain in older adults in lowand middle-income countries. Results from the WHO Study on Global AGEing and Adult Health (SAGE). PLoS ONE 10:e0127880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.McKenzie R, May S (2003) The lumbar spine: mechanical diagnosis and therapy, 2nd edn. Spinal Publications, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
- 31.Ishak NA, Zahari Z, Justine M (2016) Effectiveness of strengthening exercises for the elderly with low back pain to improve symptoms and functions: a systematic review. Scientifica (Cairo) 2016:3230427Google Scholar
- 35.Garcia AN, Costa LOP, Costa LDCM, Hancock M, Cook C (2019) Do prognostic variables predict a set of outcomes for patients with chronic low back pain: a long-term follow-up secondary analysis of a randomized control trial. J Man Manip Ther 4:1–11Google Scholar