«上一篇/Previous Article|本期目录/Table of Contents|下一篇/Next Article»

中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志[ISSN:1674-3911/CN:11-9292/R]

卷:

期数:

2026年02期

页码:

93-98

栏目:

康复医学

出版日期:

2026-04-05

文章信息/Info

Title:

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of a lumbar traction robot versus traditional traction in the treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain

作者:

杜胜涛1; 2; 3 程晓东1; 2; 3 王忠正1; 2; 3 王宇钏1; 2; 3 李泳龙1; 2; 3 张奇1; 2; 3

050051 石家庄，河北医科大学第三医院创伤急救中心1，河北省骨科研究所2，河北省骨科生物力学重点实验室3

Author(s):

Du Shengtao1;  2;  3;  Cheng Xiaodong1;  2;  3;  Wang Zhongzheng1;  2;  3;  Wang Yuchuan1;  2;  3;  Li Yonglong1;  2;  3;  Zhang Qi1;  2;  3.

1Trauma Emergency Center, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, 2Orthopaedic Research Institute of Hebei Province, 3Key Laboratory of Biomechanics of Hebei Province, Shijiazhuang 050051, China

关键词:

下背痛;  牵引;  关节活动范围;  运动恐惧;  生活质量

Keywords:

Low back pain;  Traction;  Range of motion;  Articular;  Kinesiophobia;  Quality of life

DOI:

10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2026.02.005

文献标志码:

A

摘要:

目的 比较腰椎牵引机器人与传统牵引治疗慢性非特异性腰痛（cNSLBP）的临床疗效。方法 纳入2023年1月至2024年12月河北医科大学第三医院收治的cNSLBP患者60例，按随机数字表法分为腰椎牵引机器人组和传统牵引组，各30例。治疗前后采用视觉模拟评分（VAS）、Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）评估疼痛与功能障碍，测量腰椎活动度（ROM），并采用EQ-5D指数、恐惧回避信念问卷（FABQ）及患者总体改善印象（PGIC）评价生活质量和心理社会状态。结果 治疗前两组基线资料比较差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。治疗4周后，腰椎牵引机器人组VAS、ODI及FABQ总分均低于传统牵引组（均P＜0.001）；腰椎活动度ROM及EQ-5D指数均高于传统组（均P＜0.05）。腰椎牵引机器人组总有效率为93.3%，高于传统牵引组的73.3%（P=0.038），且PGIC分布优于传统牵引组（P=0.043）。结论 腰椎牵引机器人可缓解cNSLBP患者疼痛、恢复腰椎活动度和功能，同时在恐惧回避信念及生活质量评价等方面均有优势，可作为临床康复治疗新的选择。

Abstract:

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of a lumbar traction robot and traditional traction in the treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain (cNSLBP). Methods A total of 60 patients with cNSLBP admitted to the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University between January 2023 and December 2024 were enrolled and randomly assigned, using a random number table, to a lumbar traction robot group and a traditional traction group, with 30 patients in each group. Before and after treatment, pain and functional disability were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and lumbar range of motion (ROM) was measured. In addition, the EQ-5D index, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) were used to evaluate quality of life and psychosocial status. Results Before treatment, there were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups (P>0.05). After 4 weeks of treatment, the lumbar traction robot group showed lower VAS scores, ODI scores, and FABQ total scores than the traditional traction group (all P<0.001). Lumbar flexion, extension, left and right lateral bending ROM, as well as the EQ-5D index, were all higher in the lumbar traction robot group than in the traditional traction group (all P<0.05). The overall response rate was 93.3% in the lumbar traction robot group, higher than 73.3% in the traditional traction group (P=0.038), and the PGIC distribution was also superior in the lumbar traction robot group (P=0.043). Conclusion The lumbar traction robot was more effective in relieving pain, improving lumbar range of motion and function, reducing fear-avoidance beliefs, and enhancing quality of life in patients with cNSLBP, and may represent a new rehabilitation option for cNSLBP.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:

基金项目：河北省重点研发计划项目卫生健康创新专项（21377731D）

常用功能

更新日期/Last Update: 2026-05-19