Comparing Muscle Energy Technique and Kaltenborn-Evjenth Orthopaedic Manual Therapy: A Study on Effectiveness in Treating Chronic Low Back Pain

Authors

  • Maryam Shahzadi Doctors Institute of Health sciences- Sargodha
  • Shanza Tanveer Doctors Institute of Health sciences- Sargodha
  • Misdaq Batool Physio Pain Relief Rehabilitation Center, Khushab
  • Sabahat Ali Sheikh University of Lahore- Sargodha Campus- Sargodha
  • Kashaf Faraz University of Lahore- Sargodha Campus- Sargodha
  • Zara Fatima Alkhidmat Hospital Fazal Town- Sargodha

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61919/jhrr.v3i2.202

Keywords:

Chronic Low Back Pain, Muscle Energy Technique, Kaltenborn-Evjenth Orthopedic Manual Therapy, Physical Therapy, Randomized Control Trial, Pain Management

Abstract

Background: Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is a prevalent condition globally, affecting quality of life and work efficiency. Traditional treatment methods often fall short in providing long-term relief, highlighting the need for alternative therapeutic approaches.

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Muscle Energy Technique (MET) and Kaltenborn-Evjenth Orthopedic Manual Therapy (KEOMT) against conventional treatment methods in reducing pain and improving mobility in patients with CLBP.

Methods: This randomized control trial involved 120 patients with CLBP from Sargodha, who were divided into three groups: Control Group (conventional treatment), Group A (MET), and Group B (KEOMT). All treatments were administered over a period of six months, with interventions carried out for four weeks totaling 12 sessions. Baseline and post-intervention measurements included pain scale (VAS), Flexion and Extension Range of Motion (ROM) using a Goniometer, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Data were analyzed using ANOVA and SPSS version 25.

Results: All groups showed significant improvements post-treatment. The Control Group's pain scale decreased from 6.63 ± 0.925 to 4.68 ± 1.206, Group A from 6.70 ± 0.939 to 2.75 ± 0.899, and Group B from 6.77 ± 0.891 to 3.00 ± 1.038. Flexion ROM increased in the Control Group from 40.80 ± 3.023 to 42.10 ± 3.003, in Group A from 40.78 ± 2.684 to 44.97 ± 1.804, and in Group B from 40.53 ± 2.746 to 44.90 ± 1.751. Similar trends were observed in Extension ROM and ODI scores. The improvements in Groups A and B were significantly greater than in the Control Group (P=0.00).

Conclusion: Both MET and KEOMT were found to be more effective than conventional treatment in reducing pain and improving ROM in patients with CLBP. These findings suggest that MET and KEOMT could be incorporated as part of the standard physical therapy regimen for CLBP, offering potentially more effective and lasting relief.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Maryam Shahzadi, Doctors Institute of Health sciences- Sargodha

Lecturer

Shanza Tanveer, Doctors Institute of Health sciences- Sargodha

Lecturer

Misdaq Batool, Physio Pain Relief Rehabilitation Center, Khushab

Consultant Physiotherapist

Sabahat Ali Sheikh, University of Lahore- Sargodha Campus- Sargodha

Lecturer

Kashaf Faraz, University of Lahore- Sargodha Campus- Sargodha

Lecturer

Zara Fatima, Alkhidmat Hospital Fazal Town- Sargodha

Clinical Physiotherapist

References

Patrick N, Emanski E, Knaub MA. Acute and chronic low back pain. The Medical clinics of North America. 2014;98(4):777-89, xii.

Will JS, Bury DC, Miller JA. Mechanical Low Back Pain. American family physician. 2018;98(7):421-8.

Vlaeyen JWS, Maher CG, Wiech K, Van Zundert J, Meloto CB, Diatchenko L, et al. Low back pain. Nature reviews Disease primers. 2018;4(1):52.

Lizis P, Kobza W, Jaszczur-Nowicki J, Wisniewski D. Osteopathic Manual Treatment Compared to Kaltenborn-Evjenth Orthopedic Manual Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Study. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 2021:AT6593-AT.

Osama M, Mustafa M. THE PREVALENCE OF CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN AND RELATIVE DISABILITY AMONG FARMERS OF SWAT. International Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences (IJRS). 2017;5(01):37-42.

Hlaing SS, Puntumetakul R, Khine EE, Boucaut R. Effects of core stabilization exercise and strengthening exercise on proprioception, balance, muscle thickness and pain related outcomes in patients with subacute nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):998.

Buchbinder R, van Tulder M, Öberg B, Costa LM, Woolf A, Schoene M, et al. Low back pain: a call for action. Lancet (London, England). 2018;391(10137):2384-8.

Almoallim H, Alwafi S, Albazli K, Alotaibi M, Bazuhair T. A Simple Approach of Low Back Pain. International Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2014;5(17):1087.

Franke H, Fryer G, Ostelo RW, Kamper SJ. Muscle energy technique for non-specific low-back pain. A Cochrane systematic review. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine. 2016;20:41-52.

Selkow NM, Grindstaff TL, Cross KM, Pugh K, Hertel J, Saliba S. Short-term effect of muscle energy technique on pain in individuals with non-specific lumbopelvic pain: a pilot study. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy. 2009;17(1):14E-8E.

Do Moon G, Lim JY, Da YK, Kim TH. Comparison of Maitland and Kaltenborn mobilization techniques for improving shoulder pain and range of motion in frozen shoulders. Journal of physical therapy science. 2015;27(5):1391-5.

Ellythy MA. Efficacy of Muscle Energy Technique Versus Strain Counter Strain on Low Back Dysfunction. Bulletin of Faculty of Physical Therapy. 2012;17(2).

Chaitow L, Crenshaw K. Muscle energy techniques: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006.

Anwar N, Khalid K, Rana AA, Hayat MK, Idrees MQ, Zafar S. EFFICACY OF KALTENBORN GRADE III MOBILIZATIONS, MUSCLE ENERGY TECHNIQUES AND THEIR COMBINATION TO IMPROVE RANGE AND FUNCTIONAL ABILITY IN ADULTS WITH MECHANICAL NECK PAIN. International Journal of Physiotherapy. 2016;3(4):482-6.

Gillani S, Rehman S, Masood T. Effects of eccentric muscle energy technique versus static stretching exercises in the management of cervical dysfunction in upper cross syndrome: a randomized control trial. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association. 2020;70(3):1.

Koes B, Assendelft W, Van der Heijden G, Bouter L, Knipschild P. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: a blinded review. Bmj. 1991;303(6813):1298-303.

Gui dM, Kim T-h, Lim J-y. Changes in joint space width during Kaltenborn traction according to traction grade in healthy adults. Journal of physical therapy science. 2016;28(1):246-9.

Irshad A, Khan MF, Khan M, Rabia K, Aslam J, Zafar I, et al. Comparison between Static Stretching Exercises and Eccentric Muscle Energy Techniques in Upper Cross Syndrome: Randomized control trial: Static Stretching Exercises and Eccentric Muscle Energy. Pakistan BioMedical Journal. 2022:190-4.

Do Moon G, Lim JY, Kim TH. Comparison of Maitland and Kaltenborn mobilization techniques for improving shoulder pain and range of motion in frozen shoulders. Journal of physical therapy science. 2015;27(5):1391-5.

Adkitte R, Rane SG, Yeole U, Nandi B, Gawali P. Effect of muscle energy technique on flexibility of hamstring muscle in Indian national football players. Saudi Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016;16(1):28.

Wang L, Wang C, Youssef AS, Xu J, Huang X, Xia N. Physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises performed immediately after spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of mild adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled pilot trial. Trials. 2021;22(1):1-12.

Downloads

Published

2023-12-31

How to Cite

Shahzadi, M., Tanveer, S., Batool, M., Sheikh, S. A., Faraz, K., & Fatima, Z. (2023). Comparing Muscle Energy Technique and Kaltenborn-Evjenth Orthopaedic Manual Therapy: A Study on Effectiveness in Treating Chronic Low Back Pain. Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research, 3(2), 1200–1205. https://doi.org/10.61919/jhrr.v3i2.202