COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF MUSCLE ENERGY TECHNIQUE AND CORE STABILIZATION EXERCISES ON PAIN INTENSITY, FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY, AND SELF-REPORTED EXERCISE ADHERENCE IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN OF FACET JOINT ORIGIN

Abstract

Background: Lumbar facet joint dysfunction is a recognized contributor to chronic low back pain (CLBP) and may result in persistent pain, functional limitations, and reduced engagement with therapeutic exercise. Muscle Energy Technique (MET) and Core Stabilization Exercises (CSE) are commonly used physiotherapeutic approaches; however, their comparative effects in patients with facet joint-related CLBP remain insufficiently established.

Objective: To compare the effects of MET and CSE on pain intensity, functional disability, and self-reported exercise adherence in patients with CLBP of facet joint origin.

Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted among 62 participants aged 18–60 years with CLBP of facet joint origin at Shafi Memorial Hospital, Sialkot. Participants were randomly allocated to either an MET group or a CSE group and received their respective interventions over 12 weeks, with 3–5 sessions per week. Pain intensity, functional disability, and exercise adherence were assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS), respectively. Within- and between-group differences were analyzed using paired- and independent-samples t-tests in SPSS version 25. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.

Results: Both MET and CSE significantly reduced pain intensity and functional disability following the 12-week intervention (VAS and ODI, p < .001). VAS scores decreased from 7.15 ± 1.13 to 4.33 ± 1.45 in the MET group and from 7.02 ± 0.80 to 3.70 ± 1.43 in the CSE group. The reduction in pain was significantly greater with CSE than MET (3.32 ± 0.98 vs. 2.82 ± 0.96; p = .046). ODI scores decreased by 20.97 ± 10.79% with MET and 24.00 ± 10.13% with CSE; however, the between-group difference was not statistically significant (p = .259). Exercise adherence increased significantly only in the CSE group (12.35 ± 2.61 to 15.00 ± 1.51; p < .001), with a significantly greater improvement than MET (2.65 ± 2.51 vs. 0.81 ± 4.03; p = .035).

Conclusion: Both MET and CSE were effective in improving pain, functional disability, and exercise adherence among patients with CLBP of facet joint origin. Although CSE appeared to provide additional benefits for functional recovery and adherence, the absence of a statistically significant between-group difference in ODI indicates that neither intervention demonstrated clear superiority for reducing functional disability. These findings support the use of both approaches as therapeutic options in the rehabilitation of patients with facet joint-related CLBP.