# Sensorimotor Stabilization Exercises With and Without Behavioral Treatment in Low Back Pain: Feasibility and Effects of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

## TL;DR

This study tested sensorimotor exercises with and without behavioral therapy for low back pain, finding that both approaches were feasible and led to some improvements in pain and strength.

## Contribution

The study introduces a novel combination of sensorimotor training with behavioral therapy for low back pain and evaluates its feasibility and effects in a multicenter trial.

## Key findings

- Both sensorimotor training and sensorimotor training with behavioral therapy showed small improvements in pain intensity and disability compared to usual care.
- Participants adhered well to the exercises but had high dropout rates during home-based training.
- Both interventions increased trunk strength, suggesting neuromuscular adaptation.

## Abstract

To investigate the feasibility and effects of a sensorimotor stabilization exercise intervention with and without behavioral treatment in nonspecific low back pain.

A three-armed multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Five study sites across Germany (3 orthopedic university outpatient clinics, 1 university sports medicine department, and 1 clinical institution).

Six hundred and sixty-two volunteers (N=662) (59% females, age 39±13y) with low back pain.

Sensorimotor training (SMT), sensorimotor training with behavioral therapy (SMT+BT), and usual care group (UCG; continuation of the already ongoing individual treatment regime). Intervention groups performed a 12-week (3wk center-based, 9wk home-based) program.

Adherence, dropout rates, adverse events, and intervention effects on pain intensity, disability, and trunk torque (gain scores, repeated measures analysis of variance, α-level<0.05).

In total, 220 participants received SMT, 222 received SMT+BT, and 170 were analyzed as UCG. Dropout rates were 10% for SMT and SMT+BT at week 3, 31% and 30% at week 4, and 49% and 50% at week 12. Adherence rates above 80% were reached in both interventions; 134 adverse events occurred. Intervention effects compared to UCG were found for pain intensity (SMT, P=.011, effect size d=0.41), disability (SMT+BT, P=.020, d=0.41), and peak torque (SMT, P=.045, d=0.38; SMT+BT, P=.019, d=0.44), with overall small effect sizes.

Participants were highly adherent to the sensorimotor exercise, but showed increased dropout rates, particularly during home-based training. Both interventions proved to be feasible, and although only SMT showed an increased effect on pain intensity compared to UCG, the SMT+BT showed positive effects on disability. Both interventions led to increases in strength, indicative of a neuromuscular adaptation.