Total amount: € 0,00
Official Journal of the , , , ,
In association with
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,063
Online ISSN 1973-9095
Bonaiuti D. 1, Gatti R. 2, 3, Raschi A. 2, Cantarelli L. 2, Sirtori V. 2
1 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department San Gerardo Hospital, Milan, Italy
2 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
3 School of Physiotherapy Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
Aim. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of a new, simple and cheap device of manual autotraction (MAT), in comparison with Natchev’s autotraction system.
Methods. Fifty-four patients, with lumbalgia or sciatalgia for more than 4 months and disc herniation or protrusion at computed tomography (CT) or nuclear magnetic resonance (NRM), have been selected, at random, in a randomized control trial. Patients have been treated by MAT or by Natchev’s autotraction. Treatments’ efficacy has been assessed through the differences in visual analogic scale (VAS) for pain, and Backill scale for disability, before and after therapy (diffVAS and diffBi). The results of the 2 autotraction’s devices have been compared in order to distinguish their differences. The results have been considered significant if p<0.05.
Results. Both treatments proved to be effective (MAT: diffVAS p<0.0001, diffBackill p<0.001; Natchev’s group: diffVAS p<0.0001, diffBackill p<0.001). No significant difference of efficacy emerges between the treatments in diffVAS (p=0.199) and diffBi (p=0.906), and a greater efficacy of both in case of pain with nocturnal aggravation (MAT group: diffVAS: p=0.001; Natchev’s group: p=0.001).
Conclusion. The results of this study show an equal efficacy of MAT compared to the known Natchev’s system, so it could be equally proposed like a simple conservative treatment in disc protrusion or herniation without surgery indication.