A083: Effects of Muscle Energy Technique on Neuromuscular Function inPatients with Non-Specific Lower Back Pain

<bold>Background/Purpose:</bold> Non-specific lower back pain (NLBP) is one of the most common causes of disability worldwide. In patients with NLBP, reduced lumbar flexion-relaxation and reduced variability of muscle activity distribution are reported as abnormal muscle activity. Muscle energy technique (MET) is used to be a conservative, non-pharmacological treatment method for somatic dysfunctions of the musculoskeletal system. However, the effect of MET approach on the flexion-relaxation phenomena (FRP) is unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of MET on pain, lumbar function, and FRP in patients with NLBP. <bold>Methods/Design:</bold> Thirty patients with NLBP were randomized into the MET group (21.9±2.0 yrs, 1.72±0.09 m, 67.3±14.0 kg) and control group (20.9±1.2 yrs., 1.73±0.09 m, 65.0±9.6 kg). They received MET intervention and health lecture series for 4-weeks, respectively. Pain scores (Visual Analogue Scale, VAS), the lumbar dysfunction index (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI), and FRR of the erector spinae (FRR-ES) and multifidus (FRR-M) during trunk flexion-relaxation tests were assessed before and after the intervention. Two-way analysis of variance tests with repeated measures was used to evaluate MET effects. <bold>Results:</bold> Significant interactions were detected in VAS (<italic>P</italic>=0.001, <italic>&amp;eta;</italic> ²=0.308) and ODI (<italic>P</italic>=0.005, <italic>&amp;eta;</italic> ²=0.244). The VAS (from 5.07±1.39 to 2.20±1.32, <italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.001) and ODI (from 18.53±5.83 to 10.00±8.45, <italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.001) were decreased at week 5 compared to week 0, respectively. Additionally, the VAS ( P &lt; 0.001) and ODI (P &lt; 0.001) were lower in the MET group compared to the control group at week 5, respectively. Similarly, significant interactions were detected in FRR-ES (<italic>P</italic>=0.009, <italic>&amp;eta;</italic> ²=0.244) and FRR-M (<italic>P</italic>=0.047, <italic>&amp;eta;</italic> ²=0.148). The FRR-M (from 11.72±5.73 to 14.79±6.52, <italic>P</italic>=0.028) was increased in the MET group, while the FRR-ES (from 17.30±4.19 to 14.92±4.47, <italic>P</italic>=0.009) was decreased in the control group at week 5 compared to week 0, respectively. No significant differences were detected for both FRR-ES (<italic>P</italic>=0.328) and FRR-M (<italic>P</italic>=0.864) between the MET group and the control group at week 5. <bold>Conclusion:</bold> MET could be recommended as one of the clinical treatments for NLBP to relieve pain and improve lumbar function.