An open study of diflunisal, conservative and manipulative therapy in the management of acute mechanical low back pain. Cyclobenzaprine and naproxen versus naproxen alone in the treatment of acute low back pain and muscle spasm. Cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride effect on skeletal muscle spasm in the lumbar region and neck: two double-blind controlled clinical and laboratory studies. Lower back pain is reduced and range of motion increased after massage therapy. Acute back pain and spasm. A controlled multicenter trial of combined analgesic and antispasm agents. A prospective, randomized, double-blind evaluation of trigger-point injection therapy for low-back pain. A randomized clinical trial comparing chiropractic adjustments to muscle relaxants for subacute low back pain. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of exercise therapy in patients with acute low back pain. Injection of steroids and local anaesthetics as therapy for low-back pain.
One hundred and twelve patients with acute mechanical low back pain were randomly divided into three treatment groups. All patients received ergonomic advice and then either a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug or conservative or manipulative types of physiotherapy. Serial assessments of pain and spinal mobility showed similar response rates in all three treatment groups and no significant difference between therapies. The overall improvement ratings, time off work, and economic cost favoured the group treated with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, but this group had a better range of spinal flexion at the onset so firm conclusions regarding the preferred management of these patients in general practice cannot be drawn. Treatment failures occurred in all groups highlighting the need for a variety of therapeutic approaches in managing the patient with low back pain. Two groups of 20 patients each, with mild to moderate acute low back pain with associated muscle spasm of ten days' duration or less, were treated with a combination of cyclobenzaprine and naproxen or naproxen alone in a randomized, 14-day open-label trial. Cyclobenzaprine was added to the naproxen regimen as an adjunct to rest and physical therapy for relief of muscle spasm associated with acute, painful, musculoskeletal conditions. The clinical characteristics of each study group, including the number of worker's compensation patients, were comparable. Combination therapy was associated with less objective muscle spasm and tenderness and greater motion of the lumbosacral spine (P less than 0.05). There were trends toward faster resolution of functional deficits and pain with combined therapy. Combination therapy was associated with more side effects, due primarily to drowsiness from the cyclobenzaprine. The results of this study demonstrated that patients with muscle spasm associated with acute low back strain benefited from the use of combination therapy consisting of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent (naproxen) and a muscle relaxant (cyclobenzaprine). A new drug, Cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride (Flexeril), was compared with diazepam (Valium) and placebo in double-blind trials for efficacy in treating spasms and pain in the neck and low back. Complex recording methods involving clinical evaluations (graded), patient self-ratings, goniometry, motion analysis by computer, electromyography of controlled motions and detailed statistical analysis were used. Clinical improvement over two weeks was statistically significant in all treatment groups with a statistically significant preference for Cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride. The most striking improvements recorded were in the electromyographic findings, which showed statistically significant changes for the Cyclobenzaprine group. Clinical muscle spasms are not accompanied by increased myoelectric activity; the reverse is true. With improvement, myoelectric activity in back muscles is augmented during prescribed stressful movements as measured by electromyography and computer analysis combined with complex electrogoniometry. A randomized between-groups design evaluated massage therapy versus relaxation for chronic low back pain.
                Treatment effects were evaluated for reducing pain, depression, anxiety and stress hormones, and sleeplessness and for improving trunk range of motion associated with chronic low back pain. SUMMARY of
                Twenty-four adults (M age=39.6 years) with low back pain of nociceptive origin with a duration of at least 6 months participated in the study. The groups did not differ on age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity or gender.
                Twenty-four adults (12 women) with lower back pain were randomly assigned to a massage therapy or a progressive muscle relaxation group. Sessions were 30 minutes long twice a week for five weeks. On the first and last day of the 5-week study participants completed questionnaires, provided a urine sample and were assessed for range of motion.
                By the end of the study, the massage therapy group, as compared to the relaxation group, reported experiencing less pain, depression, anxiety and improved sleep. They also showed improved trunk and pain flexion performance, and their serotonin and dopamine levels were higher.
                Massage therapy is effective in reducing pain, stress hormones and symptoms associated with chronic low back pain.
                Adults (M age=39.6 years) with low back pain with a duration of at least 6 months received two 30-min massage or relaxation therapy sessions per week for 5 weeks. Participants receiving massage therapy reported experiencing less pain, depression, anxiety and their sleep had improved. They also showed improved trunk and pain flexion performance, and their serotonin and dopamine levels were higher. A double-blind, 18-center, balanced trial of diflunisal vs. cyclobenzaprine HCl vs. these two drugs combined vs. placebo produced complete results from 175 patients. They had sought treatment at the cooperating centers for acute painful spasms of the back within a day or two of trauma or strain. Global results over the 7 to 10 days of observations revealed a clinically and statistically significant superiority of the combined therapy by Day 4 (P = 0.006) and almost all patients recovered within a week to 10 days. A combination therapy with an effective safe analgesic and a true muscle relaxant for less than a week appears to be an excellent relief measure for acute back problems. The efficacy of trigger-point injection therapy in treatment of low-back strain was evaluated in a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. The patient population consisted of 63 individuals with low-back strain. Patients with this diagnosis had nonradiating low-back pain, normal neurologic examination, absence of tension signs, and lumbosacral roentgenograms interpreted as being within normal limits. They were treated conservatively for 4 weeks before entering the study. Injection therapy was of four different types: lidocaine, lidocaine combined with a steroid, acupuncture, and vapocoolant spray with acupressure. Results indicated that therapy without injected medication (63% improvement rate) was at least as effective as therapy with drug injection (42% improvement rate), at a P value of 0.09. Trigger-point therapy seems to be a useful adjunct in treatment of low-back strain. The injected substance apparently is not the critical factor, since direct mechanical stimulus to the trigger-point seems to give symptomatic relief equal to that of treatment with various types of injected medication. The adult lifetime incidence for low back pain is 75% to 85% in the United States. Investigating appropriate care has proven difficult, since, in general, acute pain subsides spontaneously and chronic pain is resistant to intervention. Subacute back pain has been rarely studied.
                To compare the relative efficacy of chiropractic adjustments with muscle relaxants and placebo/sham for subacute low back pain.
                A randomized, double-blind clinical trial.
                Subjects (N = 192) experiencing low back pain of 2 to 6 weeks' duration were randomly allocated to 3 groups with interventions applied over 2 weeks. Interventions were either chiropractic adjustments with placebo medicine, muscle relaxants with sham adjustments, or placebo medicine with sham adjustments. Visual Analog Scale for Pain, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, and Modified Zung Depression Scale were assessed at baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks. Schober's flexibility test, acetaminophen usage, and Global Impression of Severity Scale (GIS), a physician's clinical impression used as a secondary outcome, were assessed at baseline and 2 weeks.
                Baseline values, except GIS, were similar for all groups. When all subjects completing the protocol were combined (N = 146), the data revealed pain, disability, depression, and GIS decreased significantly (P <.0001); lumbar flexibility did not change. Statistical differences across groups were seen for pain, a primary outcome, (chiropractic group improved more than control group) and GIS (chiropractic group improved more than other groups). No significant differences were seen for disability, depression, flexibility, or acetaminophen usage across groups.
                Chiropractic was more beneficial than placebo in reducing pain and more beneficial than either placebo or muscle relaxants in reducing GIS. To assess the efficacy of exercise therapy for acute low back pain, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial was performed in 40 Dutch general practices. Patients received either exercise instruction with advice for daily life by a physiotherapist; placebo ultrasound therapy by a physiotherapist; or usual care by the general practitioner. All patients received analgesic agents and information on low back pain before randomization. Four hundred seventy-three patients were included. No differences in number of recurrences, functional health status, or medical care usage could be found among the three groups. In the exercise group, duration of recurrences was shorter and patients were less tired during the first 3 months than in the usual care group, but no differences were found between the exercise and placebo groups. It was concluded that exercise therapy for patients with acute low back pain has no advantage over usual care from the general practitioner. Thirty patients with low-back pain of at least one month's duration were included in a double-blind controlled study with third-party administration and treated with either methylprednisolone acetate mixed with lignocaine or isotonic saline, injected at the site of the iliolumbar ligament. The treatment was evaluated by a visual analogue scale, range of spinal flexion ad modum Wright & Moll and of the patients' self-assessments. In the methylprednisolone group, significant decreases in pain score and in patients' self-assessments were found. The range of spinal flexion did not undergo any significant change. No significant changes were found in the control group. No side effects were observed during the study.
Muscle relaxants are effective in the management of non-specific low back pain, but the adverse effects require that they be used with caution. Trials are needed that evaluate if muscle relaxants are more effective than analgesics or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.