Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a common musculoskeletal disorder. Effect of massage in the management of CLBP has been documented, but it is not clear which massage regimen is more effective. This study was carried out to compare the effect of connective tissue massage and classical massage on pain, lumbar mobility, function, disability, and well-being among patients with CLBP.
METHODS: The study included 30 participants who were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: the connective tissue massage group (CTMG; n = 10), the classical massage group (CMG; n = 10), and a standard physiotherapy/control group (CG; n = 10). The interventions were administered three times a week for four consecutive weeks. Assessments were conducted at baseline and at the end of the fourth week. Pain severity (Visual Analog Scale), lumbar mobility (Modified Schober Test), function (Back Pain Functional Scale), disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), and well-being (Short Form-36/SF-36) was evaluated.
RESULTS: All groups exhibited improvements in pain, lumbar mobility, function, and disability after 4 weeks (p < 0.05). The CMG showed enhancements in physical function, bodily pain, role physical, and role emotional subgroups of SF-36. The CTMG demonstrated improvements in all subgroups of SF-36 except general health (p < 0.05), while the CG only improved in the physical function subgroup (p < 0.05). A 2-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant group-time interaction for MST (p = 0.04), Bodily Pain (p = 0.025) and Role Physical (p = 0.015).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings obtained from this study showed that CTMG was superior to CMG and CG in increasing lumbar mobility, and both massage applications were superior to the CG in increasing the well-being.
METHODS: The study included 30 participants who were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: the connective tissue massage group (CTMG; n = 10), the classical massage group (CMG; n = 10), and a standard physiotherapy/control group (CG; n = 10). The interventions were administered three times a week for four consecutive weeks. Assessments were conducted at baseline and at the end of the fourth week. Pain severity (Visual Analog Scale), lumbar mobility (Modified Schober Test), function (Back Pain Functional Scale), disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), and well-being (Short Form-36/SF-36) was evaluated.
RESULTS: All groups exhibited improvements in pain, lumbar mobility, function, and disability after 4 weeks (p < 0.05). The CMG showed enhancements in physical function, bodily pain, role physical, and role emotional subgroups of SF-36. The CTMG demonstrated improvements in all subgroups of SF-36 except general health (p < 0.05), while the CG only improved in the physical function subgroup (p < 0.05). A 2-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant group-time interaction for MST (p = 0.04), Bodily Pain (p = 0.025) and Role Physical (p = 0.015).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings obtained from this study showed that CTMG was superior to CMG and CG in increasing lumbar mobility, and both massage applications were superior to the CG in increasing the well-being.
摘要：
背景：慢性下腰痛（CLBP）是一种常见的肌肉骨骼疾病。按摩在CLBP管理中的效果已有文献记载，但尚不清楚哪种按摩方案更有效。这项研究是为了比较结缔组织按摩和经典按摩对疼痛的影响，腰椎活动度,函数,残疾,以及CLBP患者的幸福感。
方法：该研究包括30名参与者，他们被随机分配到三个干预组之一：结缔组织按摩组（CTMG；n=10），经典按摩组(CMG；n=10)，和标准物理治疗/对照组（CG;n=10）。干预措施每周三次，连续四周。在基线和第四周结束时进行评估。疼痛严重程度（视觉模拟量表），腰椎活动度（改良Schober测试），功能（背痛功能量表），残疾(罗兰·莫里斯残疾问卷)，和幸福感（简表-36/SF-36）进行评估。
结果：所有组的疼痛都有改善，腰椎活动度,函数,4周后残疾（p<0.05）。CMG显示身体功能增强，身体疼痛,物理角色，和SF-36的作用情绪亚组。除一般健康外，所有SF-36亚组的CTMG均有改善（p<0.05），而CG仅在身体功能亚组有所改善（p<0.05）。双向重复测量方差分析显示，MST存在显著的群体时间相互作用(p=0.04)，身体疼痛（p=0.025）和身体作用（p=0.015）。
结论：从这项研究中获得的结果表明，在增加腰椎活动度方面，CTMG优于CMG和CG，两种按摩应用在增加幸福感方面均优于CG。
方法：该研究包括30名参与者，他们被随机分配到三个干预组之一：结缔组织按摩组（CTMG；n=10），经典按摩组(CMG；n=10)，和标准物理治疗/对照组（CG;n=10）。干预措施每周三次，连续四周。在基线和第四周结束时进行评估。疼痛严重程度（视觉模拟量表），腰椎活动度（改良Schober测试），功能（背痛功能量表），残疾(罗兰·莫里斯残疾问卷)，和幸福感（简表-36/SF-36）进行评估。
结果：所有组的疼痛都有改善，腰椎活动度,函数,4周后残疾（p<0.05）。CMG显示身体功能增强，身体疼痛,物理角色，和SF-36的作用情绪亚组。除一般健康外，所有SF-36亚组的CTMG均有改善（p<0.05），而CG仅在身体功能亚组有所改善（p<0.05）。双向重复测量方差分析显示，MST存在显著的群体时间相互作用(p=0.04)，身体疼痛（p=0.025）和身体作用（p=0.015）。
结论：从这项研究中获得的结果表明，在增加腰椎活动度方面，CTMG优于CMG和CG，两种按摩应用在增加幸福感方面均优于CG。
