Esta página se tradujo automáticamente y no se garantiza la precisión de la traducción. por favor refiérase a versión inglesa para un texto fuente.

McKenzie Extension Protocol Versus Core Stability Exercises Combined With Spinal Decompression in Discogenic Lumbar Radiculopathy (D-MECS)

23 de julio de 2026 actualizado por: Ibadat International University, Islamabad

McKenzie Versus Core Stability Exercises Along With Spinal Decompression in Discogenic Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

The pathophysiology arises from structural and biochemical degeneration within the intervertebral disc rather than direct nerve root compression alone. When radicular symptoms are present, patients frequently experience a combination of localized lumbar pain, radiating leg pain, reduced spinal mobility, and impaired daily function. Non-surgical spinal decompression therapy is frequently employed as a conservative treatment for lumbar disc pathology due to its capacity to reduce intradiscal pressure, increase disc height, and unload compressed neural structures. Nevertheless, decompression alone does not fully restore neuromuscular control or spinal stability; it is consequently commonly paired with an active exercise approach. Two of the most widely utilized adjunct approaches are the McKenzie Extension Protocol, which employs directional-preference movements and repeated end-range loading to promote symptom centralization, and Core Stability Exercises, which target the deep trunk stabilizers to improve segmental control of the lumbar spine. Although each approach is independently supported by evidence, no recent trial has directly compared their effectiveness when each is combined with spinal decompression therapy in patients with MRI-confirmed discogenic low back pain accompanied by radiculopathy. This evidence gap consequently leaves clinicians without clear guidance on which combined strategy to select.

The present study is a single-blind randomized controlled trial designed to determine and compare the effects of the McKenzie Extension Protocol versus Core Stability Exercises, each combined with spinal decompression therapy, on pain intensity, functional disability, and lumbar range of motion in adults with MRI-confirmed discogenic low back pain and radiculopathy. Forty-two participants aged 25-45 years, with a posterolateral disc bulge confirmed on MRI, a Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score greater than 3, and a positive Straight Leg Raise test, will be recruited using purposive sampling and randomly allocated by lottery method into two equal groups of 21. Group A will receive spinal decompression therapy followed by McKenzie extension-based exercises, while Group B will receive the same decompression protocol followed by core stabilization exercises such as abdominal drawing-in, bridging, bird-dog, and side-plank variations. Both groups will also receive standardized adjunct modalities, including moist heat and interferential current therapy, and will attend three sessions per week for four consecutive weeks, totaling 12 sessions.

Outcomes will be assessed at baseline and immediately after the four-week intervention period by a blinded assessor to minimize bias. The primary outcome measures include pain intensity (NPRS), functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index), lumbar range of motion (inclinometer), and lower-limb neural mobility (Straight Leg Raise angle). Data will be analyzed using SPSS to compare within-group and between-group changes across the two interventions.

This trial is anticipated to generate direct comparative evidence on which combined rehabilitation strategy, either decompression with McKenzie exercises or decompression with core stability exercises, produces superior clinical outcomes for this patient population. Given that current clinical guidelines do not specify a preferred adjunct approach for discogenic radiculopathy managed with decompression, the findings are intended to assist physiotherapists in selecting more targeted, evidence-based rehabilitation protocols. Such evidence may potentially improve pain relief, functional recovery, and cost-effectiveness of care, while simultaneously reducing the long-term burden associated with chronic low back pain.

Descripción general del estudio

Descripción detallada

Background and Rationale

Low back pain (LBP) ranks among the most prevalent musculoskeletal conditions globally. Point prevalence estimates are roughly 9-12% worldwide, with up to 23% of adults reporting an episode within a one-month period. Lifetime prevalence estimates range as high as 40-80%. Global burden data from 2021 indicate that approximately 453 million working-age adults were affected by LBP. Within this broad population, discogenic low back pain (DLBP) constitutes a distinct subgroup in which pain originates from structural and biochemical changes within the intervertebral disc itself, most often disc degeneration, rather than from nerve root compression or other spinal pathology. Depending on the diagnostic method employed, discogenic pain accounts for approximately 22-50% of chronic low back pain cases. A further subset of these patients develops lumbar radiculopathy, wherein nerve root irritation produces radiating leg pain. Population data suggest that roughly 12% of adults with back pain exhibit clinical radiculopathy, though substantial variation in reported incidence exists depending on the population studied.

Non-surgical spinal decompression is a motorized, computer-controlled traction therapy that applies gentle, feedback-regulated distraction forces to the lumbar spine. It is theorized to reduce intradiscal pressure, transiently increase disc height and foraminal space, and enhance fluid and nutrient exchange within the disc, thereby supporting disc hydration and reducing mechanical loading on degenerated segments. Several recent studies report improvements in pain and disability following non-surgical decompression, particularly when it is combined with conventional physical therapy rather than used in isolation.

Two of the most established adjunct exercise approaches utilized alongside decompression are the McKenzie Method, also known as Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT), and Core Stability Exercises. The McKenzie approach is a structured system of repeated movements and sustained positions used to classify patients into mechanical subgroups and guide treatment based on their directional preference. A central therapeutic phenomenon in this approach is centralization, in which distally referred pain progressively retreats toward the spinal midline in response to specific repeated movements, a pattern associated with favorable prognosis. Core stability exercises, by contrast, focus on activating and coordinating the deep trunk musculature, including the transversus abdominis and lumbar multifidus, to improve co-contraction, segmental control, and postural stability, thereby reducing nociceptive input from unstable or overloaded spinal structures.

Existing comparative literature remains mixed. Some studies report that core stabilization produces greater reductions in pain and disability than McKenzie exercises in patients with lumbar radiculopathy, while other trials, including a one-year follow-up RCT among patients with a McKenzie directional preference, found no clear superiority of either approach when compared to motor control or core stability exercises. Evidence specific to discogenic radiculopathy managed with decompression is even more limited. One RCT found that adding spinal decompression to core stabilization produced larger within-group improvements than core stabilization alone, yet no identified trial has directly compared McKenzie-based and core-stability-based exercise protocols when both are paired with decompression therapy in this specific population.

Problem Statement

Given that spinal decompression is widely used as a conservative treatment for lumbar disc pathology, and current guidelines do not specify which adjunct exercise approach, McKenzie or core stability, produces superior outcomes when combined with decompression, clinicians lack clear direction when selecting rehabilitation strategies for discogenic low back pain with radiculopathy. This trial is designed to address that evidence gap directly.

Study Design and Methods

This is a single-blind, two-arm randomized controlled trial to be conducted at the Max Spine Rehab Center, Max Health Hospital. Eligible participants are adults aged 25-45 years with an MRI-confirmed posterolateral disc bulge, an NPRS pain intensity greater than 3 with radicular symptoms, and a positive Straight Leg Raise test. Individuals with a history of spinal surgery or significant trauma, increased kyphosis, active infection, pregnancy, scoliosis, systemic inflammatory disease, or cognitive impairment affecting participation will be excluded. A total of 42 participants, calculated using OpenEpi, will be recruited via purposive sampling and randomized by lottery method into two groups of 21.

Both groups will receive identical spinal decompression therapy, consisting of supine mechanical traction at 25-50% bodyweight force for 10-15 minutes in an intermittent 60-second hold and 30-second release cycle, immediately followed by their assigned exercise protocol. Group A will perform McKenzie-based extension exercises, including prone lying in extension, prone press-ups, standing lumbar extension, and repeated end-range extension guided by directional preference and centralization. Group B will perform core stability exercises, including the abdominal drawing-in maneuver, bridging, bird-dog, and side-plank or modified side support. Both groups will also receive standardized moist heat and interferential current therapy before exercise. Sessions will occur three times weekly for four weeks, totaling 12 sessions, with exercise dosage progressed according to individual tolerance and symptom response.

Outcome Measures

Four outcome domains will be assessed at baseline and post-intervention by a blinded assessor. These include pain intensity via the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS, 0-10), functional disability via the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, 0-100%), lumbar range of motion in flexion, extension, and lateral bending via inclinometer, and lower-limb neural mobility via the Straight Leg Raise test angle. All instruments possess established reliability and validity for use in lumbar spine populations.

Data Analysis and Ethics

Data will be analyzed using SPSS to compare within-group and between-group changes across the two treatment arms. The trial will be conducted under Institutional Review Board approval. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants, and provisions for voluntary participation, the right to withdraw at any time, and the receipt of active therapeutic intervention in both study groups will be ensured throughout.

Tipo de estudio

Intervencionista

Inscripción (Actual)

42

Fase

  • No aplica

Contactos y Ubicaciones

Esta sección proporciona los datos de contacto de quienes realizan el estudio e información sobre dónde se lleva a cabo este estudio.

Ubicaciones de estudio

      • Islamabad, Pakistán
        • Max Spine Rehab Center, Max Health Hospital

Criterios de participación

Los investigadores buscan personas que se ajusten a una determinada descripción, denominada criterio de elegibilidad. Algunos ejemplos de estos criterios son el estado de salud general de una persona o tratamientos previos.

Criterio de elegibilidad

Edades elegibles para estudiar

  • Adulto

Acepta Voluntarios Saludables

No

Descripción

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Adults aged 25-45 years (both males and females)
  • MRI-confirmed posterolateral disc bulge
  • Pain intensity greater than 3 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) with radiculopathy
  • Positive Straight Leg Raise (SLR) test

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of spinal surgery or significant spinal trauma
  • Increased kyphosis or active infectious disease
  • Pregnancy, scoliosis, or systemic inflammatory conditions
  • Cognitive impairments that may interfere with participation or assessment

Plan de estudios

Esta sección proporciona detalles del plan de estudio, incluido cómo está diseñado el estudio y qué mide el estudio.

¿Cómo está diseñado el estudio?

Detalles de diseño

  • Propósito principal: Tratamiento
  • Asignación: Aleatorizado
  • Modelo Intervencionista: Asignación paralela
  • Enmascaramiento: Único

Armas e Intervenciones

Grupo de participantes/brazo
Intervención / Tratamiento
Experimental: Group A (McKenzie Extension Protocol with Spinal Decompression)
Participants will receive mechanical spinal decompression followed by a McKenzie Extension Protocol, including prone lying with lumbar extension, prone press-ups, standing lumbar extension, and repeated end-range extension exercises based on directional preference. Adjunct therapy includes moist heat and interferential current. Treatment will be administered three sessions per week for four weeks (12 sessions total).

McKenzie Extension Protocol: prone lying extension, prone press-ups, standing lumbar extension, and repeated end-range extension based on directional preference.

3 sessions/week for 4 weeks (12 sessions total).

Spinal decompression: mechanical traction, supine, 25-50% bodyweight, 10-15 min, intermittent 60s hold/30s release.

Moist heat (10-15 min) Interferential current (IFC, 10-15 min, 80-100 Hz). 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks (12 sessions total).

Comparador activo: Group B (Core Stability Exercises with Spinal Decompression)
Participants will receive the same spinal decompression protocol followed by a Core Stability Exercise program consisting of abdominal drawing-in maneuvers, bridging, bird-dog, and side plank exercises. Adjunct therapy includes moist heat and interferential current. Treatment will be administered three sessions per week for four weeks (12 sessions total).

Spinal decompression: mechanical traction, supine, 25-50% bodyweight, 10-15 min, intermittent 60s hold/30s release.

Moist heat (10-15 min) Interferential current (IFC, 10-15 min, 80-100 Hz). 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks (12 sessions total).

Core Stability Exercises: abdominal drawing-in maneuver, bridging, quadruped bird-dog, and side plank/modified side support 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks (12 sessions total).

¿Qué mide el estudio?

Medidas de resultado primarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Pain Intensity
Periodo de tiempo: Baseline and after 4 weeks of intervention
Pain intensity will be assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), an 11-point self-reported scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain). A reduction in NPRS score indicates improvement in pain intensity.
Baseline and after 4 weeks of intervention
Functional Disability - Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)
Periodo de tiempo: 10-item self-reported questionnaire scored as a percentage of disability; assessed at baseline and post-intervention (4 weeks).
10-item self-reported questionnaire scored as a percentage of disability; assessed at baseline and post-intervention (4 weeks).
Lumbar Range of Motion - Inclinometer Measurement
Periodo de tiempo: Flexion, extension, and left/right side bending measured in degrees using a dual inclinometer; assessed at baseline and post-intervention (4 weeks).
Flexion, extension, and left/right side bending measured in degrees using a dual inclinometer; assessed at baseline and post-intervention (4 weeks).

Colaboradores e Investigadores

Aquí es donde encontrará personas y organizaciones involucradas en este estudio.

Fechas de registro del estudio

Estas fechas rastrean el progreso del registro del estudio y los envíos de resultados resumidos a ClinicalTrials.gov. Los registros del estudio y los resultados informados son revisados ​​por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (NLM) para asegurarse de que cumplan con los estándares de control de calidad específicos antes de publicarlos en el sitio web público.

Fechas importantes del estudio

Inicio del estudio (Actual)

17 de enero de 2026

Finalización primaria (Actual)

8 de junio de 2026

Finalización del estudio (Actual)

7 de julio de 2026

Fechas de registro del estudio

Enviado por primera vez

23 de julio de 2026

Primero enviado que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

23 de julio de 2026

Publicado por primera vez (Actual)

28 de julio de 2026

Actualizaciones de registros de estudio

Última actualización publicada (Actual)

28 de julio de 2026

Última actualización enviada que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

23 de julio de 2026

Última verificación

1 de julio de 2026

Más información

Términos relacionados con este estudio

Plan de datos de participantes individuales (IPD)

¿Planea compartir datos de participantes individuales (IPD)?

NO

Información sobre medicamentos y dispositivos, documentos del estudio

Estudia un producto farmacéutico regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Estudia un producto de dispositivo regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Esta información se obtuvo directamente del sitio web clinicaltrials.gov sin cambios. Si tiene alguna solicitud para cambiar, eliminar o actualizar los detalles de su estudio, comuníquese con register@clinicaltrials.gov. Tan pronto como se implemente un cambio en clinicaltrials.gov, también se actualizará automáticamente en nuestro sitio web. .

Suscribir