Esta página foi traduzida automaticamente e a precisão da tradução não é garantida. Por favor, consulte o versão em inglês para um texto fonte.

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

23 de julho de 2026 atualizado 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.

Visão geral do estudo

Status

Concluído

Condições

Intervenção / Tratamento

Descrição detalhada

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 estudo

Intervencional

Inscrição (Real)

42

Estágio

  • Não aplicável

Contactos e Locais

Esta seção fornece os detalhes de contato para aqueles que conduzem o estudo e informações sobre onde este estudo está sendo realizado.

Locais de estudo

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

Critérios de participação

Os pesquisadores procuram pessoas que se encaixem em uma determinada descrição, chamada de critérios de elegibilidade. Alguns exemplos desses critérios são a condição geral de saúde de uma pessoa ou tratamentos anteriores.

Critérios de elegibilidade

Idades elegíveis para estudo

  • Adulto

Aceita Voluntários Saudáveis

Não

Descrição

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

Plano de estudo

Esta seção fornece detalhes do plano de estudo, incluindo como o estudo é projetado e o que o estudo está medindo.

Como o estudo é projetado?

Detalhes do projeto

  • Finalidade Principal: Tratamento
  • Alocação: Randomizado
  • Modelo Intervencional: Atribuição Paralela
  • Mascaramento: Solteiro

Armas e Intervenções

Grupo de Participantes / Braço
Intervenção / Tratamento
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 Ativo: 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).

O que o estudo está medindo?

Medidas de resultados primários

Medida de resultado
Descrição da medida
Prazo
Pain Intensity
Prazo: 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)
Prazo: 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
Prazo: 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

É aqui que você encontrará pessoas e organizações envolvidas com este estudo.

Patrocinador

Datas de registro do estudo

Essas datas acompanham o progresso do registro do estudo e os envios de resumo dos resultados para ClinicalTrials.gov. Os registros do estudo e os resultados relatados são revisados ​​pela National Library of Medicine (NLM) para garantir que atendam aos padrões específicos de controle de qualidade antes de serem publicados no site público.

Datas Principais do Estudo

Início do estudo (Real)

17 de janeiro de 2026

Conclusão Primária (Real)

8 de junho de 2026

Conclusão do estudo (Real)

7 de julho de 2026

Datas de inscrição no estudo

Enviado pela primeira vez

23 de julho de 2026

Enviado pela primeira vez que atendeu aos critérios de CQ

23 de julho de 2026

Primeira postagem (Real)

28 de julho de 2026

Atualizações de registro de estudo

Última Atualização Postada (Real)

28 de julho de 2026

Última atualização enviada que atendeu aos critérios de controle de qualidade

23 de julho de 2026

Última verificação

1 de julho de 2026

Mais Informações

Termos relacionados a este estudo

Outros números de identificação do estudo

  • IIUI/RERC/ADT/2026/01/218

Plano para dados de participantes individuais (IPD)

Planeja compartilhar dados de participantes individuais (IPD)?

NÃO

Informações sobre medicamentos e dispositivos, documentos de estudo

Estuda um medicamento regulamentado pela FDA dos EUA

Não

Estuda um produto de dispositivo regulamentado pela FDA dos EUA

Não

Essas informações foram obtidas diretamente do site clinicaltrials.gov sem nenhuma alteração. Se você tiver alguma solicitação para alterar, remover ou atualizar os detalhes do seu estudo, entre em contato com register@clinicaltrials.gov. Assim que uma alteração for implementada em clinicaltrials.gov, ela também será atualizada automaticamente em nosso site .