MobiliserMobiliser MOD Report Precis
Effectiveness of the Mobiliser in the
Treatment of Low Back Pain:
A Quantitative Pilot Study
Capt Nell Mead BSc (lions) MCSP SRP RAMC
Medical Centre
Northwood Military HQ
(MOD /NATO)
Jan 2005
No reproduction without permission
Presented in précis form with small changes for clarity only
Background
In June 2004 some physiotherapy patients approached the author to inform her of a new piece of equipment which they felt could help their spinal conditions. This equipment was the Mobiliser, a mattress with two motorised knobbled rollers which move up and down the body; mobilising the vertebrae, massaging the muscles and concurrently providing heat to the back as the patient lies supine.
As the Mobiliser was new to the world of military physiotherapy….it was decided to undertake a pilot study to see whether it could be a useful adjunct to the physiotherapy practice at Northwood HQ.
Conclusions
The results (below and full report) appear to bear out, on the whole, the manufacturers’ claims of increased lumbar and thoracic flexibility, and of decreased pain in low back pain patients.
(Claims for thoracic and cervical pain were not tested in this study…BIA)
For the majority of patients with low back pain, it is felt that the Mobiliser has been shown to be a most useful adjunct to physiotherapy, ... It is extremely simple to use, and judging by its first four months at Northwood HQ Medical Centre it appears to be virtually squaddy proof.
It also appears to be quite easy for the therapist to predict which patients are likely to benefit from its use.
It remains to be seen how much impact it could have on the requirement of manual physiotherapy in the treatment of low back pain, but it is felt that the data below (including the discharge of 75% of participants from physiotherapy for their back problems following the trial) would justify the purchase of Mobilisers for units other than Northwood HQ. (cost: £3,500 including (5 yr) full warranty and VAT)
Highlights:
Flexibility
There was a mean increase in the flexibility of the participants taken as a whole. The mean increase in flexion, as measured by Schober’s test, was 0.46cm or 11%.
The mean increase in extension was 0.5cm, or 32%, and
The mean increase in thoracic expansion was 1.21cm, or 19%.
More impressive was the improvement in those patients whose pre-trial scores were below the “normal” ranges. Although it is acknowledged that the numbers were very small, in these patients,
flexion improved by a mean 1.25cm (56%),
extension by 0.5cm (100%) and
thoracic expansion by 1.33cm (36%).
All of these results were significant to =0.05 or better.
Pain
Prior to the trial, the mean pain score was 4.25/10 (range 1-7, SD 1.68). After the trial, the mean pain score was 2-34/10 (range 0-7, SD 2.04).
This was a mean reduction in pain of 44%
Although it was not statistically significant to p=O.O5, it was felt that it was likely to have made a considerable difference to the lives of many of the participants.
Discussion
The results (see detailed report) demonstrate clearly that the effect of the Mobiliser is not significantly affected by either age or gender with regard to its impact on lumbar or thoracic flexibility, sacroiliac function or perceived pain levels. The only factor that did significantly affect the impact of the Mobiliser was the patient’s diagnosed condition.
The effectiveness of the Mobiliser on all conditions was significant to p=0.05 for those participants whose objective measures of lumbar flexion, lumbar extension, thoracic expansion and sacroiliac function were lower than the perceived norms prior to the trial.
Of those participants who presented with objective markers below the norms 61% of those markers had returned to “normal” scores or above following the trial — a ”normal” rate of 90% after the trial, compared to 68% before.
(The report strongly recommends further trials in areas of injury prevention)