Pelvic floor muscle training for women with lumbopelvic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It has been suggested that pelvic floor dysfunction may contribute to the development of lumbopelvic pain as a result of changes in trunk muscle control. However, there is limited evidence that pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) can improve clinical outcomes in women with lumbopelvic pain. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Six databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of PFMT to other conservative interventions (usual physiotherapy care or minimal intervention), no treatment or placebo interventions on pain and disability in women with lumbopelvic pain. RESULTS: We included eight RCTs totalling 469 participants. PFMT was more effective than minimal intervention for lumbopelvic pain [mean difference (MD) 15.9/100 (95% confidential interval (CI), 8.2 to 23.6; p = 0.00; I2  = 3.92%)] and disability [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.5 (95% CI 0.1-0.9; p = 0.00; I2  = 0%)] during pregnancy. PFMT was more effective than usual physiotherapy care for pain (MD 11.7/100 [95% CI 7.5-15.9; p = 0.00; I2  = 94.14%]) and disability (SMD 0.3 (95% CI 0.0-0.6; p = 0.01; I2  = 82.54%]) in non-pregnant women. Effect sizes were in general of arguable clinical relevance. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low. There is no conclusive evidence that the addition of PFMT to usual physiotherapy care or minimal intervention is superior to minimal intervention and usual care alone given the small number of studies and high levels of heterogeneity of included studies. Further well-designed trials are needed to establish the effectiveness of PFMT for lumbopelvic pain in women.

Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial.

Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise and manipulative therapy for chronic back pain but there have been few head-to-head comparisons of these interventions. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare effects of general exercise, motor control exercise and manipulative therapy on function and perceived effect of intervention in patients with chronic back pain. Two hundred and forty adults with non-specific low back pain 3months were allocated to groups that received 8weeks of general exercise, motor control exercise or spinal manipulative therapy. General exercise included strengthening, stretching and aerobic exercises. Motor control exercise involved retraining specific trunk muscles using ultrasound feedback. Spinal manipulative therapy included joint mobilization and manipulation. Primary outcomes were patient-specific function (PSFS, 3-30) and global perceived effect (GPE, -5 to 5) at 8weeks. These outcomes were also measured at 6 and 12months. Follow-up was 93% at 8weeks and 88% at 6 and 12months. The motor control exercise group had slightly better outcomes than the general exercise group at 8weeks (between-group difference: PSFS 2.9, 95% CI: 0.9-4.8; GPE 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9-2.4), as did the spinal manipulative therapy group (PSFS 2.3, 95% CI: 0.4-4.2; GPE 1.2, 95% CI: 0.4-2.0). The groups had similar outcomes at 6 and 12months. Motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy produce slightly better short-term function and perceptions of effect than general exercise, but not better medium or long-term effects, in patients with chronic non-specific back pain.