Effectiveness of Active Release Therapy Versus Muscle Energy Technique on Pain, Disability, and Depression in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Comparative Study

Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) is labelled as pain, muscle stiffness or muscle tautness that is regionalized beneath the costal boundary and over the inferior gluteal folds.Chronic Low back pain (CLBP) is usually classified as when it exceeds over more than 12 weeks or 3 months. Non-Specific LBP refers to symptoms of unknown origin, without a clear specific cause. Not much is known about comparing the effects of Active Release Technique (ART) and Muscle Energy Technique (MET) with conventional treatment that have shown positive outcomes in CLBP.

Need for the study: There is no clear evidence comparing the effectiveness of ART and MET for non-specific CLBP. This study aims to address this issue by comparing the effects of ART versus MET, both combined with Conventional treatment, to assess which approach more effectively reduces Pain, Disability and reduces Depression in non-specific CLBP.

Aim of the study: To compare the Effectiveness of ART versus MET on Pain, Disability and Depression in Non-Specific CLBP.

Materials and Methods: This research protocol is planned to conduct a comparative study in Pune, India. The duration of the study will be 6 months. A total of 30 young and middle aged adults with non-specific CLBP, aged between 18-50 will be allotted into 2 groups ART (N=15) and MET (N=15). For a period of 2 weeks (3 sessions per week). The Algometer will assess pain. The Oswestry disability index will assess disability. The Beck Depression inventory will assess the level of depression. These measures will be assessed prior to the intervention, after 3 sessions and post intervention.

Results: This study will provide a definitive comparison of the effectiveness of ART versus MET along with conventional treatment in non-specific CLBP. Both groups showed significant improvements in pain, disability and depression. However the ART group experienced a faster reduction in pain and greater improvements in function and depression, while the MET group provided comparatively less sustained improvements.

Conclusion: Both ART and MET are effective for managing CLBP, while ART offering faster pain relief, functional recovery and benefits for depression. The choice of therapy should be tailored to patient specific needs and treatment goals.