Background: Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis show abnormal changes in muscle activity due to pain and limited range of motion of the lumbar spine. Excessive increased muscle tone and decreased muscle activity patterns threaten the patients’ quality of life. However, there have been a few studies showing how to improve muscle performance in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Among these, joint mobilization is one way of improving muscle performance through pain relief and increasing the range of motion. Objectives: To investigate the effect of lumbar mobilization by orthopedic manual physical therapy on paravertebral muscle activity and tone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Design: A randomized controlled trial. Methods: In this study, 24 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were randomized (1:1 ratio) into two groups. The experimental group underwent lumbar posteroanterior mobilization, and the control group underwent conventional physical therapy (conventional transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) for 15 minutes each. For outcome measures, MyotonⓇPRO was used to evaluate muscle tone when resting of the paravertebral muscle in the pain area. For muscle activity evaluation, the reference voluntary contraction of the paravertebral muscle was evaluated using surface electromyography. Results: Muscle tone and activity were significantly improved after intervention in both the experimental and control groups. In addition, the experimental group showed more significant decrease in muscle tone and activity than the control group. Conclusion: These results suggest that lumbar mobilization improving muscle performance in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Background: In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), lumbar flexion exercise (LFE) is considered a standard therapeutic exercise that widens the space between the spinal canal and intervertebral foramen. However, some researchers have reported that lumbar extension exercise (LEE) may improve lumbar pain and functional ability in patients with LSS. Although exercise intervention methods for patients with LSS have been widely applied in clinical settings, few studies have conducted comparative analysis of these exercise methods. Objects: This study aimed to compare the effects of LFE, LEE, and lumbar flexion combined with lumbar flexion-extension exercise (LFEE) on pain, range of motion (ROM), pelvic tilt angle, and functional gait ability in patients with LSS. Methods: A total of 30 patients with LSS, LFE (n1=10), LEE (n2=10), and LFEE (n3=10) were assigned to each of the three exercise groups. The numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), modified-modified schober test (MMST)-flexion, MMST-extension, pelvic tilt inclinometer, and 6-minute walking test (6MWT) were measured. Results: After the intervention, statistically significant differences were observed in the NPRS (p=.043), MMST-flexion (p<.001), MMST-extension (p<.001), and 6MWT (p=.005) between groups. According to the post hoc test, the NPRS was statistically significant difference between the LFEE and LEE groups (p=.034). The MMST-flexion was statistically significantly different between the LFE and LEE (p=.000), LFE and LFEE (p=.001), and LEE and LFEE (p=.001) groups. The MMST-extension was statistically significantly different between the LFE and LEE (p<.001), LFE and LFEE (p=.002), and LEE and LFEE (p=.008) groups. The 6MWT was statistically significantly different between the LFE and LFEE (p=.042) and the LEE and LFEE (p=.004) groups. Conclusion: This study suggested that LFEE was the most effective exercise for pain and functional gait ability in patients with LSS, LFE was the most effective exercise for lumbar flexion ROM, and LEE was the most effective exercise for lumbar extension ROM.

Background: Surgery has been known as an inefficient approach to reduce back pain in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis; therefore, non-surgical treatments are necessary. However, there has been little research to analyze the effect of non-surgical treatments on lumbar spinal stenosis pain. Objective: To identify the effectiveness of 2 physiotherapeutic treatment approaches to relieve pain due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Design: Randomized controlled trial Methods: The participants were 36 lumbar spinal stenosis patients who were randomized in the joint mobilization group (JMG) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation group (TENSG). Joint mobilization (JM) was conducted at the posteroanterior joint in the spinous process of the lumbar spine with stenosis. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was applied on the lumbar spine with stenosis at a high frequency and intensity. Results: Visual analog scale (VAS) pain score significantly decreased in both groups, and the VAS value decreased more after JMG than that after TENSG. The pain thresholds of both groups also significantly increased, and that of JMG increased more compared to TENSG. In both the groups, significant improvements in VAS and pain thresholds were found, and JMG showed better results than TENSG. Conclusions: JM and TENS showed significant relief in both pain threshold and painpain, and JM showed more advanced relief compared to TENS.

Background: The continuous co-contraction of the trunk muscles through trunk stabilization exercises is important to patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, intentional abdominal muscle contraction (IAMC) for trunk stabilization has been used only for specific training in the treatment room. Objects: The purpose of this study was to provide feedback to adults with LSS to enable IAMC during activities of daily living (ADLs). Methods: The participants with spinal stenosis were divided into an experimental group of 15 adults and a control group of 16 adults. Electromyographic signals were measured while the subjects kept their both hands held up at 90°. The measured muscles were the rectus abdominis (RA), external oblique (EO), internal oblique (IO), and erector spinae (ES). Pelvic tilt was measured using a digital pelvic inclinometer. The degree of pain was measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and functional capacity was measured using the Korean version of the Oswestry disability index (KODI). Results: While the experimental group showed statistically significantly higher activities in the RA, EO, and IO after the intervention compared with the control group. Pelvic tilt was significantly decreased only in the experimental group. Both the experimental and control groups exhibited statistically significant declines in the VAS and KODI (p<.01). In terms of the levels of changes, the experimental group exhibited a statistically significant larger decline only in the VAS and the pelvic tilt when compared with the control group (p<.05). Conclusions: The subjects could stabilize their trunks, and relieve their pain and dysfunctions and reduce pelvic tilt by learning abdominal muscle contraction during ADLs.