4.2 Article

Physical therapy treatment options for lumbar spinal stenosis

期刊

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/BMR-2010-0245

关键词

Acupuncture; aerobic exercise; modalities; manual therapy; mobilization

资金

  1. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR)
  2. Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  3. Canada Research Chairs
  4. Alberta Provincial Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Given the dearth of high quality research on conservative treatment for spinal stenosis, an empirical understanding of the scope of physical therapy provided in the community can help focus research and build standards of care. Objectives: Provide preliminary insight into current physical therapy practice in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), from both patient and physical therapist perspectives. Methods: Patients greater than 50 years of age with LSS diagnosed by a spine surgeon were recruited to participate in a telephone survey regarding treatment. Physical therapists were recruited to complete a survey regarding treatments offered to patients with LSS. Results: Of the patients participating in the study (n = 75), 44 (59%) reported receiving physical therapy treatment. Treatments most frequently reported by patients were massage (27%), strengthening exercises (23%), flexibility exercises (18%), and heat/ice (14%). The most frequently advocated treatments by the 76 physical therapists included flexibility (87%), stabilization (86%) and strengthening exercises (83%), followed by heat/ice (76%), acupuncture (63%) and joint mobilization (62%). Conclusions: These results can guide both clinical research priorities and standards of care for physical therapy treatments of LSS. Based on the results of this study, future research foci should include massage, flexibility and strengthening exercises, stabilization techniques and heat/ice treatments.

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

4.2
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