A Comparative Study of Kinesiotaping Versus Coordinating Exercises in Non-Specific Low Back Pain

Low back pain is the fifth most common reason for doctor visits that affects between 60-80% of people during their lives (Burton A.K., Hollis S., 1995). The frequency of low back pain over the lifespan is projected to be as high as 84% and the prevalence of chronic low back pain is around 23% with low back pain affecting 11-12% of the population (Balague F.I., Mannion A.F., 2012). Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) affects more than 90% of primary care patients (Koes B.W., 2006). Non-specific low back pain (Simple or Mechanical) is the generic term that refers to any form of back pain that is not linked to severe disease in the lumber area and has no specific cause. Traumatic injury, timber sprain or strain or pastural pressure may cause non-specific low back pain. Conditions such as spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis, disk harniation, spinal stenosis, compressed osteoparasis (Lumber Compression Fracture) or any congenital disease such as kyphosis and scoliosis may be secondary (Atlas S.J., 2001). The nature of physical activity varies with signs of non-specific low back pain (Waddell G., 2004). Non-specific low back pain, however, occurs as pressure, muscle tension or weakness that is found below the costal margin and above the lower gluteal folds and is not due to a specific disease with or without involvement in leg pain (Nachemson A.L., 2000). Low back pain is considered a health condition that is largely self-limiting (Pongel L.H., 2003). 80-90% of people with acute low back pain conditions are expected to recover within six weeks. Nonetheless, chronic lower back pain can occur between 10 and 20 percent (Van Tulder M.W., Koes B.W. 1997). The 10 to 20 percent of patients with chronic low back pain are linked to about 70-80 percent of health care and social costs. When low back pain is chronic, it can be a significant source of long-term disability and work loss, resulting in a heavy socio-economic burden on health care systems in developed countries (Nachemson A.L., Jonsson E., 2000). Chronic low back pain is commonly associated with sleep problems, including longer sleep time, sleep disturbances, shorter sleep time, and less sleep satisfaction. Additionally, most people with chronic low back pain experience symptoms of depression or anxiety. Since the back anatomy is complex and pain perception is subjective and influenced by social factors, it is not easy to treat low back pain (Koes B.W., Van Tulder, 2006). Treatments for non-specific low back pain such as chemotherapy, compression, TENS, eye injections, laser therapy, massage, medical mri, spinal manipulation and lumbar aids are commonly back pain issue. Reduction in the number of chronic low back pain related complaints is minimal in most patients while unabated pain continues (Paoloni M, Bernetti A., 2011). A modern approach to treating non-specific low back pain is to help the affected area, calm the muscles and reduce the sensation of pain, and is called kinesiotaping. Extensive research studies found limited evidence for combining Kinesiotaping with co-ordination training to treat non-specific low back pain. Hence, this study aimed at contrasting the efficacy of kinesiotaping and pain and physical injury co-ordination is participants with non-specific low back pain.

60 patients having non-specific low back pain (male and female) were selected from the Department of Physiotherapy, Subharti University, Meerut. The age of the subjects were 30-40 years. The method of sampling was non-randomized.

• Male and female both • Low back pain non-specific (for example, between 6-12 weeks) • No analgesics and no anti-inflammatory drugs were taken 3 days before the visit • Not engaged in regular exercises programme for minimum of 2 months

• Pregnancy • Corticosteroid treatment in the previous 2 week • Central nervous system disease • Chronic Cardio-respiratory disease • Nerve root compression (disc herniation and spondylolisthesis and Neurological compromise and Spinal stenosis) • Serious spinal pathologies (fracture, tumars and inflammatory pathologies For example, spondylitis ankylosing or osteoporosis)

Subjects met the requirements for inclusion and exclusion were included in the analysis with their written consent and were easily split into two In Group-A Kinesiotaping, after washing the cotton treatment area to enhance tape consistency, was added to the middle point of pain. Those subjects were held for seven days.

In Group-B coordinating exercises were performed with the intensity of 15 repetitions per day for seven days. The co-ordination exercises protocol was given below: • In standing position the subjects touched the knee with the hand with the height of heart. • In quadruped position, elevate the arm and leg of contra lateral sides to place them in line with the trunk. • Proprioception balance training on ball. • Stretching exercise to stretch lower back and rear end muscles.

The outcome measures of pain were taken using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at base line (i.e., on 1st day before the treatment and on 8th day after the completion of treatment).

To assess the effects of concern treatment mean, standard deviation and ‗t‘ ratio were computed. The data was analyzed using the software SPSS-15.0. the level of significance was set at 0.05 level.

To find out the significance differences between pre-test and post test means of visual analog scale and between both the groups ‗t‘ test was applied. The at 0.05 level. The findings pertaining, to it are presented in Table 1-3.

It is observed from Table-1 that the calculated ‗t‘ (15.5) was more than the tabulated ‗t‘ (2.05). Hence it may be considered that there was significant difference found between pre-test and post-test means of Visual Analog Scale of Group-A.

It is observed from Table-2 that the calculated ‗t‘ (7.48) was more than the tabulated ‗t‘ (2.05). Hence it may be considered that there was significant difference found between pre-test and post-test means of Visual Analog Scale of Group-B.

It is observed from Table-3 that the calculated ‗t‘ (5.82) was more than the tabulated ‗t‘ (2.05). Hence it may be considered that there was significant difference found between Group-A and Group-B means of Visual Analog Scale according to Post-test.

Kinesiotaping is found to be significantly more effective in reducing pain intensity. The results are consistent with (M. Paolini, et. Al., 2011) findings that pain relief in patients with chronic low back pain was significant. This could be explained as the inhibition of pain perception occurs due to the stimulation of the mechanoreceptor caused by the mechanical displacement of the adhesive tape that occurs due to body movement. Stimulation of their large pressure and touch nerve fibers, thus over rides the small pain nerve fibres are causing decreased perception of pain. reduce the pressure on the lymph vessels and allows more space for absorption, discharge and increase the drainage of lymph through the tape region, which can help decrease swelling and pain in wounded regions.

This could be explained as the unique elastic properties of Kinesiotape provide additional anatomical support to the muscles and joints during activities provide continues corrective proprioception from The region involved, which discourages dangerous movements while still promoting safe and healthy travel. Kinesiotaping also improves the balance by strengthening the proprioception and the sound of the muscle. Various uses of kinesiology tape can also be used to enhance joint cohesion and improve the function of a joint that affects competing muscle groups and joint mobility.

Burton A.K., Tillotson K.M., Main C.J., Hollis S., (1976). Psychological predictors of outcome in acute and sub-chronic low back trouble, Spine (Philapa, 1976), 20(6): pp. 722-28. Balague F.I., Mannion A.F., Pellise F., Cedraschi C., (2012). Non-specific low back pain. Lancet 379 (9814): pp. 482-91. Keos B.W., Van Tulder M.W., Thomas S., (2006). Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. BMJ 332: pp. 1430-34. Allas S.J., (2001). Evaluating and Managing acute low back pain in the primary care setting. J. Gen In Term Med. 16(2): pp. 120-131. Weddel G., (2004). The back pain revolution, 2nd ed. Edinburgh : Churchill Livingston, pp. 115-136. Nachemson A.L., Waddell G., Norleind A.L., (2000). Epidemiology of neck and low back pain. In : Nachemson A., Jonsson E. (eds) Neck and Back pain, the scientific Evidence of Causes, Diagnosis and Treatment. Philadelphia : Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, pp. 165-187. Van Tulder M.W., Koes B.W., Bouter L.M., (1997). Conservative Treatment of Acute and Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain, A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of the most Common Interventions Spine, 22: pp. 2128-2156.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain BMJ; 332: pp. 1430-34. Paoloni M., Bernetti A., Kinesio et. al., (2011). Taping applied to lumber muscles influences clinical and electromyographic characteristics in chronic low back pain patients. European Journal of Physiotherapy. Rehabilitation Medicine, 47(2): pp. 237-44. Melzack R.,m Wall P.D., (1965). Pain Mechanism : a new theory science, 150(699): pp. 971-979. Shaji John K., Aqeel M., et.al., (2014). Comparison between Kinesiotaping and traditional physical therapy programme in treatment of non-specific treatment low back pain, Journal of Physiotherapy Science, 26: pp. 1185-88.

Assistant Professor (Physical Education), Govt. Girls Degree College, Kota, Saharanpur (UP)