Effectiveness of Pilates compared with home-based exercises in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain: Randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of a Pilates exercise program compared with home-based exercises in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain.

DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial with a six-month follow-up.

SETTING

Rehabilitation clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and forty-five individuals (18-50 years of age) with low back pain for ≥ 12 consecutive weeks were enrolled and randomly allocated to either Pilates (n = 72) or home-based exercise groups (n = 73).

INTERVENTIONS: Method Pilates (Mat Pilates exercises using accessories) versus home-based exercise (postural exercises, muscle stretching and strengthening, and spine stabilisation/mobilisation), twice a week, for 6 weeks.

MAIN MEASURES: Assessments were performed at baseline, post-intervention, and six months follow-up. Outcomes were pain intensity, disability, and health-related quality of life.

RESULTS

At post-intervention, the Pilates group had significantly lower pain intensity (mean difference = -1.14; 95% CI -2.05; -0.23), less disability (mean difference = -6.7; 95% CI -11.3; -2.0), and higher health-related quality of life (mean difference = 0.102; 95% CI 0.054; 0151) compared to the home-based exercise group. At follow-up, the Pilates group had a significantly higher health-related quality of life (mean difference = 0.055; 95% CI 0.003; 0.106) compared with the home-based exercise group but there were no significant differences in pain and disability. A significant overall effect of Pilates compared to home-based exercise was found for disability (mean difference = -4.4; 95% CI -7.6; -1.1), and health-related quality of life (mean difference = 0.049; 95% CI 0.022; 0.076), but not for pain.

CONCLUSION

Although Pilates was significantly superior to home exercise for pain and disability, the differences were not considered clinically relevant. However, Pilates did provide significant and clinically relevant differences in utility.