Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2015 Dec 8;10(12):e0144325.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144325. eCollection 2015.

A Randomized, Single-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study on the Efficacy of the Arthrokinematic Approach-Hakata Method in Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain

Akira Kogure  1 , Kazuhiko Kotani  2   3 , Shigehiko Katada  4 , Hiroshi Takagi  5 , Masahiro Kamikozuru  6 , Takashi Isaji  7 , Setsuo Hakata  8
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A Randomized, Single-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study on the Efficacy of the Arthrokinematic Approach-Hakata Method in Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain

Akira Kogure et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Study design: Cized, single-blind, controlled trial.

Objective: To investigate the efficacy of the Arthrokinematic approach (AKA)-Hakata (H) method for chronic low back pain.

Summary of background data: The AKA-H method is used to manually treat abnormalities of intra-articular movement.

Methods: One hundred eighty-six patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain randomly received either the AKA-H method (AKA-H group) or the sham technique (S group) monthly for 6 months. Data were collected at baseline and once a month. Outcome measures were pain intensity (visual analogue scale [VAS]) and quality of life (the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RDQ] and Short Form SF-36 questionnaire [SF-36]).

Results: At baseline, the VAS, RDQ, and SF-36 scores showed similar levels between the groups. After 6 months, the AKA-H group had more improvement in the VAS (42.8% improvement) and RDQ score (31.1% improvement) than the sham group (VAS: 10.4% improvement; RDQ: 9.8% improvement; both, P < 0.001). The respective scores for the SF-36 subscales (physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, social functioning, general health perception, role emotional, and mental health) were also significantly more improved in the AKA-H group than in the sham group (all, P < 0.001). The scores for the physical, psychological, and social aspects of the SF-36 subscales showed similar improvement in the AKA-H group.

Conclusion: The AKA-H method can be effective in managing chronic low back pain.

Trial registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) UMIN000006250.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Study flow diagram.
Fig 2
Fig 2. The four techniques of the Arthrokinematic approach-Hakata method.
(A) Upward gliding (B) downward gliding (C) superior distraction (D) inferior distraction.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Comparison of the average level of low back pain between the AKA-H and sham groups.
* Statistical significance between the AKA-H and sham groups after treatment (P < 0.05: two-way [group and month] analysis of variance). Data are expressed as means and standard error of the mean. AKA-H, Arthrokinematic Approach-Hakata.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Friedly J, Standaert C, Chan L. Epidemiology of spine care: the back pain dilemma. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2010;21: 659–677. 10.1016/j.pmr.2010.08.002 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet. 1999;354: 581–585. - PubMed
    1. Waddell G. The back pain revolution. 2nd ed New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2004.
    1. Garg A, Moore JS. Epidemiology of low-back pain in industry. Occup Med. 1992;7: 593–608. - PubMed
    1. Von Korff M, Ormel J, Keefe FJ, Dworkin SF. Grading the severity of chronic pain. Pain. 1992;50: 133–149. - PubMed

Publication types