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

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2026.02.005

Abstract

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.

Key words: Low back pain, Traction, Range of motion, Articular, Kinesiophobia, Quality of life

Shengtao Du, Xiaodong Cheng, Zhongzheng Wang, Yuchuan Wang, Yonglong Li, Qi Zhang. Comparison of the clinical efficacy of a lumbar traction robot versus traditional traction in the treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain[J]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2026, 12(02): 93-98.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhlngkykfdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2026.02.005

https://zhlngkykfdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2026/V12/I02/93

Figures/Tables 4

References 20

1	Neason C, Samanna CL, Tagliaferri SD, et al. Running is acceptable and efficacious in adults with non-specific chronic low back pain: the ASTEROID randomised controlled trial [J]. Br J Sports Med, 2025, 59(2): 99-108.
2	Wong CK, Mak RY, Kwok TS, et al. Prevalence, Incidence, and Factors Associated With Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Aged 60 Years and Older: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J]. J Pain, 2022, 23(4): 509-534.
3	Zafar T, Zaki S, Alam MF, et al. Effect of Whole-Body Vibration Exercise on Pain, Disability, Balance, Proprioception, Functional Performance and Quality of Life in People with Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J]. J Clin Med, 2024, 13(6):
4	Shirado O, Arai Y, Iguchi T, et al. Formulation of Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain- the revised 2019 edition [J]. J Orthop Sci, 2022, 27(1): 3-30.
5	Fleckenstein J, Floessel P, Engel T, et al. Individualized Exercise in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Exercise Alone or in Combination with Psychological Interventions on Pain and Disability [J]. J Pain, 2022, 23(11): 1856-1873.
6	冯江涛，王奇，胡永成，等.中国中老年人群腰背痛患病率及相关危险因素的队列研究[J].中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(02): 70-79.
7	Zheng DKY, Liu JQJ, Chang JR, et al. Are changes in pain intensity related to changes in balance control in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. J Sport Health Sci, 2025, 14: 100989.
8	Ho EK, Chen L, Simic M, et al. Psychological interventions for chronic, non-specific low back pain: systematic review with network meta-analysis [J]. Bmj, 2022, 376: e067718.
9	杨浦鑫，陈伟，邢欣，等.新式牵引治疗床在腰椎间盘突出症患者中的疗效分析[J]. 2025, 11(06): 359-364.
10	Kreiner DS, Matz P, Bono CM, et al. Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain [J]. Spine J, 2020, 20(7): 998-1024.
11	吴天宇，刘子璇，杨浦鑫，等.腰椎间盘突出症保守治疗进展[J].中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(06): 379-384.
12	Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change [J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2008, 33(1): 90-94.
13	de Zoete A, Innocenti T, Petrozzi MJ, et al. Spinal manipulative therapy for adults with chronic low back pain [J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2026, 1(1): Cd008112.
14	Clarke J, van Tulder M, Blomberg S, et al. Traction for low back pain with or without sciatica: an updated systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration [J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2006, 31(14): 1591-1599.
15	Gáti T, Czímer É, Cserháti G, et al. A multicentre randomized controlled follow-up study of the effects of the underwater traction therapy in chronic low back pain[J]. Int J Biometeorol, 2020, 64(8): 1393-1400.
16	Tanabe H, Akai M, Doi T, et al. Immediate effect of mechanical lumbar traction in patients with chronic low back pain: A crossover, repeated measures, randomized controlled trial [J]. J Orthop Sci, 2021, 26(6): 953-961.
17	Diab AA and Moustafa IM. Lumbar lordosis rehabilitation for pain and lumbar segmental motion in chronic mechanical low back pain: a randomized trial [J]. J Manipulative Physiol Ther, 2012, 35(4): 246-253.
18	Diab AA and Moustafa IM. The efficacy of lumbar extension traction for sagittal alignment in mechanical low back pain: a randomized trial [J]. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil, 2013, 26(2): 213-220.
19	Lee CH, Heo SJ, Park SH, et al. Functional Changes in Patients and Morphological Changes in the Lumbar Intervertebral Disc after Applying Lordotic Curve-Controlled Traction: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Study [J]. Medicina (Kaunas), 2019, 56(1): 4.
20	Amaral S, Pássaro AC and Casarotto RA. Effect of the association of continuous shortwave diathermy and Pilates-based exercises on pain, depression, and anxiety in chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized clinical trial [J]. Braz J Med Biol Res, 2023, 56: e12338.

项目	腰椎牵引机器人组	传统牵引组	统计量	P值
男[例（%）]	16（53.3）	15（50.0）	χ²=0.067	0.796
女[例（%）]	14（46.7）	15（50.0）
年龄（岁，±s）	45.03±7.16	45.60±7.13	t=-0.307	0.760
病程（月，±s）	5.02±2.12	5.30±2.27	t=-0.500	0.619
BMI（kg/m²，±s）	24.56±1.85	24.62±1.63	t=-0.126	0.900
腰椎前屈ROM（°，±s）	38.84±3.47	37.69±4.33	t=1.134	0.262
腰椎后伸ROM（°，±s）	15.95±2.32	16.58±2.16	t=-1.076	0.286
腰椎左侧屈ROM（°，±s）	16.75±1.98	17.28±1.94	t=-1.049	0.299
腰椎右侧屈ROM（°，±s）	17.09±2.16	17.03±1.65	t=0.121	0.904
EQ-5D指数（±s）	0.56±0.08	0.57±0.09	t=-0.358	0.722
FABQ总分（±s）	33.50±6.10	34.30±6.01	t=-0.512	0.611
ODI[%，M（P25，P75）]	38（34，40）	36（33，40）	U=462.000	0.863
VAS[分，M（P25，P75）]	7.5（7.0，7.5）	7.0（7.0，7.5）	U=473.000	0.730

项目	腰椎牵引机器人组	传统牵引组	统计量	P值
男[例（%）]	16（53.3）	15（50.0）	χ²=0.067	0.796
女[例（%）]	14（46.7）	15（50.0）
年龄（岁，±s）	45.03±7.16	45.60±7.13	t=-0.307	0.760
病程（月，±s）	5.02±2.12	5.30±2.27	t=-0.500	0.619
BMI（kg/m²，±s）	24.56±1.85	24.62±1.63	t=-0.126	0.900
腰椎前屈ROM（°，±s）	38.84±3.47	37.69±4.33	t=1.134	0.262
腰椎后伸ROM（°，±s）	15.95±2.32	16.58±2.16	t=-1.076	0.286
腰椎左侧屈ROM（°，±s）	16.75±1.98	17.28±1.94	t=-1.049	0.299
腰椎右侧屈ROM（°，±s）	17.09±2.16	17.03±1.65	t=0.121	0.904
EQ-5D指数（±s）	0.56±0.08	0.57±0.09	t=-0.358	0.722
FABQ总分（±s）	33.50±6.10	34.30±6.01	t=-0.512	0.611
ODI[%，M（P25，P75）]	38（34，40）	36（33，40）	U=462.000	0.863
VAS[分，M（P25，P75）]	7.5（7.0，7.5）	7.0（7.0，7.5）	U=473.000	0.730

项目	时间点	腰椎牵引机器人组	传统牵引组	统计量	P值
ODI[%，M（P25，P75）]	治疗前	38（34，40）	36（33，40）
	治疗后	22（20，23.5）	24（24，26）	U=104.000	<0.001
VAS[分，M（P25，P75）]	治疗前	7.5（7.0，7.5）	7.0（7.0，7.5）
	治疗后	4.5（4.0，4.5）	5.25（5.00，5.50）	U=165.000	<0.001
腰椎前屈ROM（°，±s）	治疗前	38.84±3.47	37.69±4.33
	治疗后	51.92±4.55	45.57±4.24	t=5.590	<0.001
腰椎后伸ROM（°，±s）	治疗前	15.95±2.32	16.58±2.16
	治疗后	22.26±2.52	20.41±2.60	t=2.808	0.007
腰椎左侧屈ROM（°，±s）	治疗前	16.75±1.98	17.28±1.94
	治疗后	19.49±1.14	18.32±1.66	t=3.198	0.002
腰椎右侧屈ROM（°，±s）	治疗前	17.09±2.16	17.03±1.65
	治疗后	19.25±1.53	18.10±1.15	t=3.272	0.002
EQ-5D指数（±s）	治疗前	0.56±0.08	0.57±0.09
	治疗后	0.78±0.08	0.71±0.06	t=3.713	<0.001
FABQ总分（±s）	治疗前	33.50±6.10	34.30±6.01
	治疗后	20.83±3.90	26.70±5.98	t=-4.497	<0.001

项目	时间点	腰椎牵引机器人组	传统牵引组	统计量	P值
ODI[%，M（P25，P75）]	治疗前	38（34，40）	36（33，40）
	治疗后	22（20，23.5）	24（24，26）	U=104.000	<0.001
VAS[分，M（P25，P75）]	治疗前	7.5（7.0，7.5）	7.0（7.0，7.5）
	治疗后	4.5（4.0，4.5）	5.25（5.00，5.50）	U=165.000	<0.001
腰椎前屈ROM（°，±s）	治疗前	38.84±3.47	37.69±4.33
	治疗后	51.92±4.55	45.57±4.24	t=5.590	<0.001
腰椎后伸ROM（°，±s）	治疗前	15.95±2.32	16.58±2.16
	治疗后	22.26±2.52	20.41±2.60	t=2.808	0.007
腰椎左侧屈ROM（°，±s）	治疗前	16.75±1.98	17.28±1.94
	治疗后	19.49±1.14	18.32±1.66	t=3.198	0.002
腰椎右侧屈ROM（°，±s）	治疗前	17.09±2.16	17.03±1.65
	治疗后	19.25±1.53	18.10±1.15	t=3.272	0.002
EQ-5D指数（±s）	治疗前	0.56±0.08	0.57±0.09
	治疗后	0.78±0.08	0.71±0.06	t=3.713	<0.001
FABQ总分（±s）	治疗前	33.50±6.10	34.30±6.01
	治疗后	20.83±3.90	26.70±5.98	t=-4.497	<0.001

项目	腰椎牵引机器人组	传统牵引组	统计量	P值
PGIC：显著改善	11（36.7）	4（13.3）	χ²=8.140	0.043
PGIC：改善	12（40.0）	9（30.0）
PGIC：轻度改善	5（16.7）	10（33.3）
PGIC：无变化	2（6.7）	7（23.3）
显效	6（20.0）	4（13.3）	χ²=4.400	0.111
有效	22（73.3）	18（60.0）
无效	2（6.7）	8（26.7）
总有效率	28（93.3）	22（73.3）	χ²=4.320	0.038

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export