الفهرس Only 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 264 |  |  |
| | | from | 264 | | |
Abstract
Purpose: The study{u2019}s primary purpose was comparing the effect of conventional program, 3instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) and kinesiotape (KT) in patients with 4chronic mechanical low back pain (CMLBP). 5Methods: 51 participants were randomly enrolled into three equal groups. group A (n = 17) 6received conventional program, group B (n = 17) received conventional program plus 7IASTM, and group C (n = 17) received conventional program plus KT. The participants 8were evaluated before and after eight sessions using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), 9pressure algometer, dual inclinometer, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). 10Results: Between pretreatment and posttreatment, the three groups demonstrated a 11significant pain reduction (57.2%, 61.2%, and 57.77%, respectively; p {u02C2} 0.0001), a 12significant increase of pain pressure threshold (PPT) (right [Rt]: 56%, 53.2%, and 35.6%, 13respectively; left [Lt]: 49%, 50.55%, and 41.36%, respectively; p {u02C2} 0.0001), a significant 14improvement in range of motion (ROM) (flexion: 38.59%, 43.55%, and 35.7%, respectively; 15extension: 72.4%, 88.73%, and 65.56%, respectively; Rt lateral flexion: 79.05%, 78.03%, and 1655.42%, respectively; Lt lateral flexion: 85.33%, 96.37%, and 64.66%, respectively; Rt 17rotation 135%, 116.5%, and 188.48%, respectively; Lt rotation: 203%, 140.48%, and 18224.24%, respectively; p {u02C2} 0.0001), and a significant improvement in the functional disability 19index (56.8%, 49.55%, and 46.99%, respectively; p {u02C2} 0.0001). No significant difference in pain, PPT, ROM and function was found among the three groups. 21Conclusion: Conventional program, IASTM and KT are effective methods for improving 22pain, ROM and function on CMLBP