4.5 Article

Early initiation of a strength training based rehabilitation after lumbar spine fusion improves core muscle strength: a randomized controlled trial

期刊

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-018-0853-7

关键词

Rehabilitation; Lumbar spine fusion; Randomized controlled trial; Strength training; Early initiation; Intra-abdominal pressure

资金

  1. Slovenian Research Agency Grant [P5-142]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: To analyze the safety and effects of early initiation of rehabilitation including objective measurement outcomes after lumbar spine fusion based on principles of strength training. Methods: The study recruited 27 patients, aged 45 to 70 years, who had undergone lumbar spine fusion. The method of concealed random allocation without blocking was used to form two groups. The strength training group started rehabilitation 3 weeks after surgery. Patients exercised twice weekly over 9 weeks focusing on muscle activation of lumbopelvic stabilization muscles. The control group followed a standard postoperative protocol, where no exercises were performed at that stage of rehabilitation. Functional outcomes and plain radiographs were evaluated at 3 weeks and subsequently at 3 and 18 months after the surgery. Results: No hardware loosening of failure was observed in the training group. Both groups improved their walking speed after 3 months (p < 0.01), although improvement in the training group was significantly greater than in the control group (p < 0.01). Moreover, the training group significantly improved after the training period in all isometric trunk muscles measurements (p < 0.03), standing reach height (p < 0.02), and pre-activation pattern (p < 0.05). After 18 months, no training effects were observed. Conclusions: The study showed that early initiation of a postoperative rehabilitation program based on principles of strength training is safe, 3 weeks after lumbar spine fusion, and enable earlier functional recovery than standard rehabilitation protocol.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据