Comparing Motor Control Exercise and General Exercise on Lumbo-Pelvic Stability of Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain Sufferers Using Endurance Stability Tests

There is a controversy regarding whether Motor Control Exercise (MCE) is more effective than General Exercise (GE) for Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP). MCE has been compared to other exercises using outcomes such as pain, but they have not been compared with outcomes related to lumbopelvic stability. As it is claimed that MCE enhances back stability, endurance (as a component of stability) tests that assess lumbopelvic stability were selected. The aim of this study was to compare MCE and GE on CLBP patients based on lumbopelvic stability through three endurance tests.
This study was conducted in Rasool Akram hospital and Motor Control Lab of School of Rehabilitation Science. While being admitted, 43 people (aged 18-60 yrs) with chronic non-specific Low Back Pain (LBP) were alternately allocated to either motor control (n=22) or general exercise group (n=21). Inclusion criteria included having LBP for more than three months and pain intensity 3-6 in the Visual Analogue Scale. Exclusion criteria included having pathology or anomaly lower limb such as hyperplasia, inflammatory diseases, sever osteoporosis, arthritis or other bone diseases. Labeling patients as CLBP was based on physical examination and clinical tests. Three endurance score stability tests such as: Trunk flexor, Trunk extensor, and side bridge tests used as primary outcomes. Pain and disability were also measured as secondary variables at two levels, prior to the start and end of the program. The MCE and GE programs of 16 sessions each were provided to the two groups of participants. Both groups performed their exercises three times a week. In the MCE group, anatomy and function of local back stabilizing muscles and the way they could be activated were taught. For the GE group, exercises activating the extensor (paraspinals) and flexor (abdominals) muscle groups were used.
At the beginning of the study, there was no significant difference in the variables of test time, pain intensity, and disability index. After the intervention, test times increased, and disability and pain decreased within the groups. There was no significant difference between two groups in increasing test times (P=0.23 to 0.36) or decreasing disability and pain, P=0.16, P=0.73 respectively.
Though it is claimed that MCE increases spinal stability, the lack of significant difference in the results of variables between the two groups may be due to our MCE not being specific for increasing spinal stability or equal effects of both interventions on increasing spinal stability and no preference of MCE. It may also be due to poor sensitivity of our outcome measures in detecting changes in spinal stability, especially with respect to the sample size. Based on these results, it could be concluded that MCE is not more effective than GE in improving endurance core stability tests and reducing disability and pain in chronic non-specific LBP patients.