Search In this Thesis
   Search In this Thesis  
العنوان
Effect of cervical posture correction and lumbar stabilization exerciseson mechanical low back pain /
الناشر
Aliaa Mohamed Ali Elabd ,
المؤلف
Aliaa Mohamed Ali Elabd
هيئة الاعداد
باحث / Aliaa Mohamed Ali Elabd
مشرف / Haytham Mohamed Elhafez
مشرف / Ahmed Ibrahim Elerian
مشرف / Salah Eldin Bassit
تاريخ النشر
2020
عدد الصفحات
152 P. :
اللغة
الإنجليزية
الدرجة
الدكتوراه
التخصص
العلاج الطبيعي والرياضة والعلاج وإعادة التأهيل
تاريخ الإجازة
26/9/2020
مكان الإجازة
جامعة القاهرة - علاج طبيعي - Basic Science
الفهرس
Only 14 pages are availabe for public view

from 212

from 212

Abstract

Background: Although current lumbar stabilization exercises are beneficial for mechanical low back pain, further research is recommended focusing on normalizing global sagittal spinal alignment. Purpose: This study was conducted to examine the effects of adding cervical posture correction to lumbar stabilization exercises on mechanical low back pain. Methods: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted. Fifty adult patients of both genders with chronic mechanical low back pain and forward head posture were assigned into one of two groups to receive three sessions/ week for 12 weeks treatment; group A: cervical posture correction and lumbar stabilization, and group B (control): lumbar stabilization. The primary outcome was back pain intensity level. Secondary outcomes included disability, craniovertebral angle, lumbopelvic alignment parameters (lumbar lordosis, sacral slope, pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence), and sagittal lumbar intervertebral movements (translation and rotation). They were measured from lateral views X-ray. Reported data were analyzed by Two-ways-MANOVA. Results: MANOVA indicates significant effects. Pain, disability, lumbar lordosis, and sacral slope were significantly reduced in group A more than B (p< 0.05). Craniovertebral angle and pelvic tilt were increased in A more than B (p< 0.05). However, pelvic incidence and all other intervertebral movements revealed no significant differences (p>0.05). Within-group-comparisons were significant for all variables in both groups except for pelvic incidence