Repository logo

The relative effect of manipulation and core rehabilitation in the treatment of acute mechanical lower back pain in athletes

dc.contributor.advisorKorporaal, Charmaine Maria
dc.contributor.advisorWhite, Rowan
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, Jenniferen_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-06-01T13:50:31Z
dc.date.available2009-06-01T13:50:31Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.descriptionDissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master's Degree in Technology: Chiropractic at Durban Institute of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2007.en_US
dc.description.abstractObjectives The objectives were to compare the relative effect of manipulation and core rehabilitation in the treatment of acute mechanical lower back pain in athletes. Project Design: The study design was a randomized controlled parallel group trial. A quantitative study was performed, by making use of a pre à à à ¢ and post experimental investigation (Nansel et al. 1993 and Naidoo, 2002). Setting: Participants presenting with acute low back pain with an onset of 7 days or less, to the Chiropractic Day Clinic at the Durban University of Technology. Subjects: Thirty athletic participants, either male or female, between the ages of 18 and 45 years presented at the initial consultation which included participant screening and establishment of their suitability for the study. These were then divided into either group A (which received a manipulation) or group B (which received core exercises). Outcome measure: A correct contraction of the core stability muscles was maintained, with a decrease in pressure (in mm Hg) on a Pressure Biofeedback Unit, and an increase in length of time (in seconds). Results: It was found that there was no significant difference between the manipulation and the core rehabilitation groups. Although both groups showed v improvement with regards to their acute mechanical low back pain, the core rehabilitation group improved at a significantly faster rate than the manipulation group with regards to endurance on the stabilizer. Conclusions: Both treatments were equally beneficial for most of the quantitative outcomes measured in this study. However, for the outcome of time on the stabilizer, the core rehabilitation group improved at a significantly faster rate than the manipulation group (p=0.006).en_US
dc.description.levelMen_US
dc.dut-rims.pubnumDUT-000413en_US
dc.format.extent140 pen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.51415/10321/428
dc.identifier.other310095
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10321/428
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectChiropracticen_US
dc.subjectAthletesen_US
dc.subject.lcshBackache--Chiropractic treatmenten_US
dc.subject.lcshChiropracticen_US
dc.titleThe relative effect of manipulation and core rehabilitation in the treatment of acute mechanical lower back pain in athletesen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Cambell_2007.pdf
Size:
1.75 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.65 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: