Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorKorporaal, Charmaine Maria
dc.contributor.advisorWhite, Rowan
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, Jennifer
dc.date.accessioned2009-06-01T13:50:31Z
dc.date.available2009-06-01T13:50:31Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.identifier.other310095
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10321/428
dc.descriptionDissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master's Degree in Technology: Chiropractic at Durban Institute of Technology, 2007.en
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
dc.format.extent140 pen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectChiropracticen
dc.subjectBackache--Chiropractic treatmenten
dc.subjectAthletesen
dc.titleThe relative effect of manipulation and core rehabilitation in the treatment of acute mechanical lower back pain in athletesen
dc.typeThesisen
dc.dut-rims.pubnumDUT-000413


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record