A comparison of the effects of connective tissue massage and classical massage on chronic mechanical low back pain.
Study Goal
The researchers aimed to compare the effects of connective tissue massage (CTM) and classical massage (CM) on pain and autonomic responses in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain to determine the most effective manual therapy method.
Results Summary
Both CTM and CM reduced pain intensity, improved autonomic responses (increased peripheral skin temperature), and enhanced disability, quality of life, and sleep quality, with CM showing slightly better pain relief by the 2nd week. No significant differences were found between the groups for autonomic responses, disability, quality of life, or sleep quality.
Population
70 individuals with chronic mechanical low back pain.
Effective Dosage
20 sessions over 4 weeks (frequency not specified).
Duration
4 weeks of treatment plus a 6-week follow-up.
Interactions
None mentioned
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
connective tissue massage (CTM) | decrease | pain intensity | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | decreased | #1 |
classical massage (CM) | decrease | pain intensity | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | decreased | #2 |
classical massage (CM) | decrease | pain intensity | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | was more effective than CTM | #3 |
connective tissue massage (CTM) | increase | peripheral skin temperatures | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | increased | #4 |
classical massage (CM) | increase | peripheral skin temperatures | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | increased | #5 |
connective tissue massage (CTM) | decrease | disability | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | improved | #6 |
classical massage (CM) | decrease | disability | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | improved | #7 |
connective tissue massage (CTM) | increase | quality of life | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | improved | #8 |
classical massage (CM) | increase | quality of life | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | improved | #9 |
connective tissue massage (CTM) | increase | sleep quality | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | improved | #10 |
classical massage (CM) | increase | sleep quality | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | improved | #11 |
connective tissue massage (CTM) | no change | autonomic responses | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | no differences between the groups | #12 |
classical massage (CM) | no change | autonomic responses | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | no differences between the groups | #13 |
connective tissue massage (CTM) | no change | disability | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | no differences between the groups | #14 |
classical massage (CM) | no change | disability | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | no differences between the groups | #15 |
connective tissue massage (CTM) | no change | quality of life | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | no differences between the groups | #16 |
classical massage (CM) | no change | quality of life | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | no differences between the groups | #17 |
connective tissue massage (CTM) | no change | sleep quality | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | no differences between the groups | #18 |
classical massage (CM) | no change | sleep quality | patients with chronic mechanical low back pain | - | no differences between the groups | #19 |
BACKGROUND: The study aimed to compare the effects of connective tissue massage (CTM) and classical massage (CM) in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain on pain and autonomic responses and to determine the most effective manual therapy method. METHODS: Seventy individuals with chronic mechanical low back pain were randomly divided into CTM (n = 35) and CM (n = 35) groups. The participants were given a 4-week treatment protocol consisting of a hot pack, exercise, and CTM or CM for 20 sessions. A visual analog scale was used to measure pain intensity. Heart rate, blood pressure, and skin temperature were measured for the evaluation of autonomic responses. In addition, disability (Oswestry disability index), quality of life (short form 36), and sleep quality (Pittsburgh sleep quality index) were evaluated. Participants were assessed before and after the 4-week treatment period as well as at the end of the 6-week follow-up period. In addition, visual analog index measurements were repeated at the end of each treatment week. RESULTS: Pain intensity was decreased in both groups (P < .05). However, CM was more effective than CTM at the end of the 2nd week (P < .05). In autonomic responses results, there were increases in peripheral skin temperatures in both groups (P < .05). Disability, quality of life, and sleep quality improved in both groups (P < .05). There were no differences between the groups relating to autonomic responses, disability, quality of life, and sleep quality (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that massages were similar effect. The fact that CM is a frequently used technique in pain management and is as effective as CTM in autonomic responses will make it more preferred in the clinic.