05 October 2025 : Clinical Research
Impact of Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation on Multifidus Muscle Function in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Adrian Kużdżał
ABEF 1*, Gracjan Olaniszyn BE 2,3, Filipe Manuel Clemente CDE 4,5,6, Rafał Piwowar BE 7, Małgorzata Smoter BEF 8, Robert Trybulski ABEF 3,9
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.949677
Med Sci Monit 2025; 31:e949677
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the outcomes were collected at the 3 assessment points for each group.
| Baseline | Post-treatment | 4 weeks after the treatment | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muscle stiffness R (N/m) | ||||
| Control (n=14) | 301.5±15.8 | 301.1±15.4 | 300.2±14.3 | Time: p=0.448; |
| Experimental (n=15) | 315.0±21.2 | 312.6±21.2 | 316.3±20.0 | Time×baseline: p=0.482; |
| Control vs experimental (comparison) | p=0.644 | p=0.072 | Time×group: p=0.084; | |
| Muscle stiffness L (N/m) | ||||
| Control (n=14) | 304.6±18.1 | 302.0±15.9 | 303.8±16.8 | Time: p=0.319; |
| Experimental (n=15) | 317.5±19.4 | 318.0±17.7 | 315.7±21.0 | Time×baseline: p=0.323; |
| Control vs experimental (comparison) | p=0.064 | p=0.972 | Time×roup: p=0.163; | |
| Muscle tension R (Hz) | ||||
| Control (n=14) | 15.2±1.2 | 15.0±0.9 | 15.3±1.1 | Time: p=0.002; |
| Experimental (n=15) | 15.8±0.7 | 14.6±0.3 | 14.8±1.0 | Time×baseline: p=0.001; |
| Control vs experimental (comparison) | p=0.002* | p<0.001* | Time×group: p=0.201; | |
| Muscle tension L (Hz) | ||||
| Control (n=14) | 15.1±1.1 | 15.1±1.0 | 15.1±1.0 | Time: p=0.963; |
| Experimental (n=15) | 16.0±1.1 | 14.8±0.7 | 14.7±0.9 | Time×baseline: p=0.972; |
| Control vs experimental (comparison) | p=0.064 | p=0.080 | Time×group: p=0.836; | |
| PPT R (N/cm) | ||||
| Control (n=14) | 87.0±4.4 | 97.8±1.3 | 99.6±0.9 | Time: p=0.429; |
| Experimental (n=15) | 83.2±1.9 | 100.5±1.1 | 101.7±1.5 | Time×baseline: p=0.429; |
| Control vs experimental (comparison) | p<0.001* | p<0.001* | Time×group: p=0.484; | |
| PPT L (N/cm) | ||||
| Control (n=14) | 87.1±3.1 | 98.3±1.6 | 100.0±0.6 | Time: p=0.008; |
| Experimental (n=15) | 83.3±1.6 | 100.9±1.3 | 102.4±1.2 | Time×baseline: p=0.012; |
| Control vs experimental (comparison) | p<0.001* | p<0.001* | Time×group: p=0.075; | |
| Tissue perfusion R (P.U.) | ||||
| Control (n=14) | 8.6±0.5 | 8.7±0.5 | 8.8±0.2 | Time: p=0.007; |
| Experimental (n=15) | 8.6±0.5 | 9.8±0.5 | 8.8±0.4 | Time×baseline: p=0.003; |
| Control vs experimental (comparison) | p<0.001* | p=0.962 | Time×group: p<0.001; | |
| Tissue perfusion L (P.U.) | ||||
| Control (n=14) | 8.5±0.3 | 8.7±0.3 | 8.6±0.2 | Time: p<0.001; |
| Experimental (n=15) | 8.7±0.4 | 9.8±0.5 | 8.6±0.3 | Time×baseline: p=0.002; |
| Control vs experimental (comparison) | p<0.001* | p=0.502 | Time×group: p<0.001; | |
| Numeric Rating Scale (A.U.) | ||||
| Control (n=14) | 5.9±0.6 | 3.4±0.5 | 2.4±0.5 | Time: p=0.148; |
| Experimental (n=15) | 6.5±0.8 | 1.7±0.6 | 0.9±0.8 | Time×baseline: p=0.384; |
| Control vs experimental (comparison) | p<0.001* | p<0.001* | Time×group: p=0.535; | |
| Range of motion (cm) | ||||
| Control (n=14) | 23.4±6.4 | 12.1±3.3 | 11.6±2.8 | Time: p=0.831; |
| Experimental (n=15) | 23.5±5.8 | 9.2±2.1 | 8.8±2.5 | Time×baseline: p=0.520; |
| Control vs experimental (comparison) | p=0.004* | p=0.006* | Time×group: p=0.843; | |
| Postural stability (mm2) | ||||
| Control (n=14) | 36.6±4.9 | 32.3±4.3 | 33.5±4.1 | Time: p=0.185; |
| Experimental (n=15) | 34.1±4.0 | 26.3±2.8 | 29.9±1.0 | Time×baseline: p=0.516; |
| Control vs experimental (comparison) | p<0.001* | p=0.006* | Time×group: p=0.015; | |
| MVC (kg) | ||||
| Control (n=14) | 52.7±5.0 | 57.3±5.1 | 56.5±5.0 | Time: p=0.831; |
| Experimental (n=15) | 52.7±6.4 | 56.5±5.9 | 55.5±5.8 | Time×baseline: p=0.235; |
| Control vs experimental (comparison) | p=0.159 | p=0.077 | Time×group: p=0.090; | |
| MVC – maximal voluntary contraction; PPT – pressure pain threshold; L – left; R – right; PU – perfusion unit; * significantly different between groups. | ||||