TY  - BOOK
AU  - Mohamed Elsayed Abdelkarem Ali
AU  - Hasan Huseen Ahmed , 
AU  - Rabab Ali Mohamed , 
AU  - Wadida Hassan Abdelkader Elsayed , 
TI  - Positional release versus myofascial release technique in chronic low back dysfunction / 
PY  - 2017///
CY  - Cairo : 
PB  - Mohamed Elsayed Abdelkarem Ali , 
KW  - Chronic low back dysfunction
KW  - Myofascial release technique
KW  - Positional release technique
N1  - Thesis (Ph.D.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Physical Therapy - Department of Basic Science; Issued also as CD
N2  - Background: Chronic low back dysfunction (CLBD) has direct and great influence on psychological, physical and socioeconomic aspects of the person{u2019}s life. Myofascial release technique (MFR) is a therapeutic treatment that uses gentle pressure and stretching to facilitate the release of fascial restrictions caused by accidents, injury, stress, repetitive use, and traumatic or surgical scarring (PRT) Positional release therapy is a method of total body evaluation and treatment using tender points (TPs) and a position of comfort (POC) to resolve the associated dysfunction. PRT is an indirect (the body part moves away from the resistance barrier for example the direction of greatest ease) and passive method of treatment (the therapist performs all the movements without help from the patient). Purpose: this study was conducted to compare the effect of PRT, MFR and conventional physical therapy treatment on pain intensity level, spinal mobility and functional disabilities level in patients with CLBD. Also, to compare the effect among PRT, MFR and conventional physical therapy treatment on pain intensity level, spinal mobility and functional disabilities level in patients with CLBD. Methods: Forty two patients from both genders were diagnosed as CLBD, aged from 40 to 60 years. Assigned randomly into three groups, each group consisted of 14 patients with mean age, weight, height and BMI of control group A 51.21±6.98, 72.85±6.19, 171.57±5.95 and 24.86±3.030 respectively received conventional physical therapy program. Group B 49.35±7.36, 72.64±6.42, 171.57±5.95 and 24.78±3.064 received conventional physical therapy program and PRT. Group C 49.35±6.23, 72.28±6.99, 171.57±5.95, and 24.65±3.176 respectively received conventional physical therapy program and MFR technique. Sessions were conducted three days week every other day for 12 sessions
ER  -