Surgeons frequently experience chronic spinal pain due to prolonged static postures and repetitive movements during surgical procedures. Exercise therapy is recommended, but it is unclear which type of exercise is most effective for this population. This randomized clinical trial will compare Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT), also known as the McKenzie Method, with a structured program of generalized exercise in surgeons with chronic spinal pain who demonstrate a directional preference (i.e., movement in a specific direction that reduces symptoms). Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two interventions and followed for 26 weeks. The primary outcome is spinal pain intensity at 12 weeks measured on a 0-10 scale. Secondary outcomes include function, quality of life, and psychological factors. This pragmatic trial is conducted in outpatient physiotherapy settings and aims to determine whether an individualized exercise approach (MDT) is more effective than generalized exercise in this occupational group.
Chronic spinal pain is common among surgeons due to prolonged static postures and physical demands during surgical procedures. Exercise therapy is recommended as first-line treatment, but the relative effectiveness of different exercise approaches remains unclear. This study is a pragmatic, randomized, parallel-group trial comparing Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) with generalized exercise in surgeons with chronic spinal pain who demonstrate a directional preference. MDT is a classification-based approach that prescribes exercises based on symptom response to repeated movements, whereas generalized exercise includes strengthening, stretching, and endurance training without targeting directional preference. Participants will be recruited from surgical specialties in Denmark and randomized 1:1 to MDT or generalized exercise. Interventions will be delivered by physiotherapists in outpatient clinical settings. The primary objective is to compare the effect of MDT versus generalized exercise on spinal pain intensity at 12 weeks. Secondary objectives include effects on function, quality of life, and psychological factors. The trial is designed to reflect routine clinical practice and to evaluate whether an individualized, classification-based exercise approach provides additional benefit compared with a guideline-based generalized exercise program.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
62
A classification-based physiotherapy intervention in which exercises are prescribed based on the individual's directional preference identified during assessment. Treatment includes repeated movements and/or sustained positions, supported by education and advice to promote self-management. Delivered by physiotherapists trained in MDT.
A structured exercise program including strengthening, stretching, and endurance training, adapted to the individual's symptoms and capacity. The intervention does not target directional preference and reflects usual physiotherapy care for chronic spinal pain. Delivered by physiotherapists experienced in musculoskeletal rehabilitation.
Aalborg University Hospital
Aalborg, Aalborg, Denmark
Average spinal pain intensity
Average spinal pain intensity over the preceding seven days measured using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (0-10), where higher scores indicate greater pain. The primary analysis will compare the between-group difference at 12 weeks, adjusted for baseline pain intensity.
Time frame: 12 weeks
Patient-Specific Functional Scale
Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Self-reported functional limitations assessed on a scale from 0 to 10 for each activity, where 0 indicates inability to perform the activity and 10 indicates ability to perform at the pre-injury level. Higher scores indicate better function. Total score will be analyzed as change from baseline by group mean.
Time frame: Baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks
Short Form-12
Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12). Health-related quality of life assessed using Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores, each ranging from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate better health status. Scores will be analyzed as change from baseline by group mean.
Time frame: Baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks
Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire
Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ). Fear of movement and work-related beliefs assessed on a scale from 0 to 96, where higher scores indicate greater fear-avoidance beliefs. Total score will be analyzed as change from baseline by group mean.
Time frame: Baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks
Pain Catastrophizing Scale
Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Pain catastrophizing assessed on a scale from 0 to 52, where higher scores indicate greater catastrophizing. Total score will be analyzed as change from baseline by group mean.
Time frame: Baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks
Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire
Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ). Pain self-efficacy assessed on a scale from 0 to 60, where higher scores indicate greater confidence in performing activities despite pain. Total score will be analyzed as change from baseline by group mean.
Time frame: Baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks
Working Alliance Inventory
Working Alliance Inventory (WAI). Therapeutic alliance assessed on a scale from 12 to 84, where higher scores indicate stronger therapeutic alliance. Total score will be analyzed as change from prior assessment by group mean.
Time frame: 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks (no baseline)
Exercise Adherence Rating Scale
Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS). Exercise adherence assessed on a scale from 0 to 24, where higher scores indicate greater adherence to prescribed exercise. Total score will be analyzed as change from prior assessment by group mean.
Time frame: 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks (no baseline)
Patient Global Impression of Change
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Patient-rated global improvement assessed on a 7-point scale from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse), where lower scores indicate greater improvement. Scores will be summarized by group at each follow-up.
Time frame: 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks (no baseline)
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.