The effect of insoles on the incidence and severity of low back pain among workers whose job involves long-distance walking. Shoe insoles in the workplace. Effect of viscoelastic insoles on pain. The secondary prevention of low back pain: a controlled study with follow-up. Back pain and sciatica: controlled trials of manipulation, traction, sclerosant and epidural injections. Effectiveness of four conservative treatments for subacute low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.
The prevalence and incidence of low back pain in general society is high. Workers whose job involves walking long distances have an even higher tendency to suffer from low back pain. A positive effect of insoles in reducing low back pain was found in professional sports players. This was not examined on people whose job involves walking long distances. In this double blind prospective study we examined the effectiveness of insoles constructed in a computerized method to placebo insoles in 58 employees whose work entailed extensive walking and who suffered from low back pain. The evaluation was performed by the MILLION questionnaire, which is considered as a valid questionnaire for evaluation of low back pain. We calculated the differences of the pain intensity before and after the intervention, in the employees using the insoles manufactured by computer in comparison to the users of the placebo insoles. In each group, the analysis was performed in comparison to the baseline. A total of 81% of the employees preferred the real insoles as effective and comfortable in comparison to 19% of the users of the placebo insoles (P<0.05). The results of this study indicate a substantial improvement in the low back pain after the use of the true insoles. The average pain intensity according to the MILLION questionnaire before the use of the insoles was 5.46. However, after the use of the real insoles and the placebo insoles, the average pain intensity decreased to 3.96 and 5.11, respectively. The difference of the average pain intensity at the start of the study and after the use of the real insoles was significant: -1.49 (P=0.0001), whereas this difference after the use of the placebo insoles was not significant: -0.31 (P=0.1189). The reported severity of pain also decreased significantly: a level 5 pain and above was reported by 77% of the subjects at the start of the study. After the use of the real insoles only 37.9% of the subjects reported a similar degree of pain severity, and 50% of the subjects did so after the use of the placebo insoles (P< 0.05). We did not find a link between low back pain and other variables such as gender, age, number of offspring, work seniority, smoking, previous use of insoles and previous medication. This study demonstrates that the low back pain decreased significantly after the use of real insoles compared to placebo ones. Ninety-six women participated in a crossover study to evaluate the effectiveness of viscoelastic polyurethane insoles in reducing back, leg, and foot pain among adults who spend the majority of each work day standing. Twenty-five of the subjects reported that the insoles made their shoes too tight to be comfortable. The remainder, however, found the insoles very comfortable (P less than .002, Wilcoxon, signed-rank test) and reported significant reductions in back pain (P less than .02), foot pain (P less than .03), and leg pain (P less than .007). When these subjects were asked whether they would prefer to wear their shoes alone or with insoles, the preference for insoles was overwhelming (P less than .007, back; P less than .03, leg; and P less than .009, foot pain). It is concluded that viscoelastic insoles can effectively improve comfort and reduce back, leg, and foot pain in individuals who must stand throughout the day. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of viscoelastic shoe inserts on pain in nursing students. Students (N = 100) were randomly assigned to control and viscoelastic groups. The viscoelastic group used viscoelastic insoles in their work shoes for five weeks. A pain questionnaire was used to measure location and intensity of post-work pain. The questionnaire was administered as a pre-test and after five weeks. Post-test comparisons between groups indicated significant differences which were not present at pre-test. The viscoelastic group reported a significant peripheral shift in pain location from back to lower extremity; the viscoelastic group also showed significant changes in duration of post-work pain and frequency of pain during the workday. The clinical efficacy of viscoelastic shoe inserts for modifying weight bearing-induced back pain is supported. Further clinical research into the therapeutic and prophylactic value of shock-attenuating shoe inserts for healthy as well as patient populations is advocated. The current investigation studied the effectiveness of a secondary prevention program for nurses with back pain who were deemed at risk for developing a chronic problem. A 2 X 3 repeated measures design was employed with 2 groups and 3 assessment periods. The treatment group received an intervention designed to reduce current problems, but above all to prevent reinjury and minor pains from becoming chronic medical problems, and it included a physical and behavioral therapy package. The control group was placed on a waiting-list. Results indicated that the treatment group had significantly greater improvements than the control group for pain intensity, anxiety, sleep quality and fatigue ratings, observed pain behavior, activities, mood, and helplessness. These differences were generally maintained at the 6 month follow-up. In addition, the treatment group broke a trend for increasing amounts of pain-related absenteeism, while the control group did not. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that a secondary prevention program aimed at altering life style factors may represent an effective method for dealing with musculoskeletal pain problems. Four treatment regimens for patients with specified combinations of low back pain and sciatica were evaluated. The largest group studied had low back pain with limited straight-leg raising (SLR) and in them the beneficial effect of manipulation in hastening pain relief was highly significant. In similar patients without limitation of SLR, the effect was of borderline significance. In all the other groups, treated patients also recovered more quickly than their controls. Traction, for patients with low back pain and sciatica, and epidural injections when a root palsy was present also produced some significant pain relief. The effect of sclerosants for back pain was less clear. A randomized, assessor-blinded clinical trial was conducted.
                To investigate the relative effectiveness of three manual treatments and back school for patients with subacute low back pain.
                Literature comparing the relative effectiveness of specific therapies for low back pain is limited.
                Among the 5925 inquiries, 206 patients met the specific admission criteria, and 200 patients randomly received one of four treatments for 3 weeks: back school, joint manipulation, myofascial therapy, and combined joint manipulation and myofascial therapy. These patients received assessments at baseline, after 3 weeks of therapy, and 6 months after the completion of therapy. The primary outcomes were evaluated using visual analog pain scales and Roland-Morris activity scales.
                All four groups showed significant improvement in pain and activity scores after 3 weeks of care, but did not show further significant improvement at the 6-month follow-up assessment. No statistically significant between-group differences were found either at the 3-week or 6-month reassessments.
                For subacute low back pain, combined joint manipulation and myofascial therapy was as effective as joint manipulation or myofascial therapy alone. Additionally, back school was as effective as three manual treatments.
There is strong evidence that insoles are not effective for the prevention of back pain. The current evidence on insoles as treatment for low-back pain does not allow any conclusions.
High quality trials are required for stronger conclusions.