The effectiveness of McKenzie Method in diagnosis and treatment of low back pain – a literature review

Back pain caused by degenerative changes is experienced by as much as 70% of the population. In approximately 20-60% of these individuals, this pain is chronic [1,2]. It results in long-term disability which generates considerable costs of treatment in the national budget [3]. The occurrence of specific, neuropathic pain is a significant aspect of chronic syndromes of the sacro-lumbar region. It results from damage and compression of neuron or pathological changes in neurons itself. The pain may continue even when the causes disappear [4]. The treatment of neuropathic pain still remains a serious challenge. In Poland, chronic back pain syndromes are the reason for 30% of all the short and long term disabilities [5]. This problem is more and more common among young individuals who are professionally active [1,6]. Pharmacological treatment addresses only symptoms and carries a risk of overdose by a patient leading to adverse effects. Surgical treatment usually brings good results but approximately 18% of the patients required second surgery [1]. Recurrence of complaints following the surgery is, to a large extent, caused by lack or limited activity of a patient after the operation [6,7]. Conservative treatment based on physiotherapy is the safest alternative for patients. Its effectiveness depends on an accurate and reliable diagnosis, on the basis of which a proper therapy can be implemented [8].

There are numerous physiotherapeutic methods which treat low back pain, e.g. classical physiotherapy based on therapeutic exercises, massage, physical therapy modalities, McKenzie Method, manual therapy, chiropractic manipulation, back school, etc. Finding an effective form of therapy is very difficult and, therefore, it is significant to conduct clinical research on the effectiveness of the therapies taking into account numerous aspects of a patient’s health and level of fitness. McKenzie Method, also known as Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy Method, is based on the analysis of pain patterns and mechanical factors bringing about back pain. The patient examination involves a structured interview and detailed evaluation during which single and then repeated movements in different directions and with different starting positions are performed. The therapist is constantly monitoring the symptoms and classifies the patient syndrome. McKenzie Method highlights the value of teaching the patient to deal with everyday back pain [10, 11].

The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of McKenzie Method in diagnosis and therapy of low back pain and to compare it with other widely applied physiotherapeutic methods on the basis of the literature review.

The analysis included articles from the last 20 years dealing with the issue of diagnosis and therapy of low back pain with the use of McKenzie Method. The following databases were used: Google Scholar, PubMed, the Library of the Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education and the Main Medical Library. The review included 50 articles, out of which 22 publications were taken into account in the detailed analysis. The following key words were applied: centralization, derangement syndrome, disc herniation, low back pain, McKenzie classification, McKenzie diagnosis, McKenzie method, peripheralization.

The study revealed high effectiveness of McKenzie Method in diagnosing pain syndromes (according to McKenzie classification), lumbar lateral shifts, clinical relevance of lateral shifts (influence of lateral shift on particular symptoms), centralization (the migration of symptoms from a distal location towards the spine) and directional preference (towards centralization) as well as finding differences in the level of qualifications of therapists using McKenzie Method [12–16]. The results of the analysed studies on the reliability and validity of diagnosis according to McKenzie Method are presented in table 1.

The studies comparing McKenzie Method with selected therapeutic methods according to the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) revealed that when an average level of disability was diagnosed in patients prior to the therapy, a low level of disability was noted after the implementation of McKenzie Method, back school, chiropractic manipulation and educational booklet [17–19]. Moreover, in case the level of disability was low before the implementation of McKenzie Method and manual therapy, it disappeared after both therapies were applied [20]. The results achieved after the implementation of McKenzie Method were similar to the results obtained by means of other methods. The comparison of McKenzie Method and selected therapeutic methods according to the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) is presented in table 2.

The study that compared the effectiveness of McKenzie Method and selected physiotherapeutic methods according to Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) revealed a similar decrease in pain after finishing the therapy with the use of McKenzie Method, back school, manual therapy, Mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAGS), first-line care and an educational booklet [17,18,20,21]. Worse values of pain index were noted after the implementation of physical therapy modalities including massage, Transcutaneas Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), laser therapy and stability exercises [22–24]. The comparison of McKenzie Method with selected therapeutic methods according to VAS is presented in table 3.

The comparison of the effectiveness of McKenzie Method with selected physiotherapeutic methods according to Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) revealed a significant decrease in the results after the implementation of McKenzie Method alone, the combination of McKenzie Method and Muscle Energy Techniques (MET) and Mulligan SNAGS, while no significant differences were noted after modalities [21,22,24,25]. The results of the comparison according to ODI are presented in table 4.

In the study, articles regarding the application of McKenzie Method in diagnosis and therapy of low back pain were analysed. The study by Razmjou et al. and Kilpikoski et al. focused on the reliability and validity of the method. Both groups of researchers achieved very promising results in classifying patients to particular syndromes, i.e. in the study by Razmjou et al. the reliability was at the level of 97%, while in the research by Kilpikoski et al. it was 74% [12,13]. In the above-mentioned studies, slightly lower reliability was noted as far as lateral shift diagnosis is concerned (78% and 74%, respectively). In turn, Donahue et al. noted a very low level (47%) of intertester reliability regarding the diagnosis of lateral shift. However, it should be pointed out that therapists participating in this research were not qualified in McKenzie Method but underwent only a short training related to lateral shift. The result may have been caused by the lack of qualifications and experience in working with the use of this method [16], which proves considerable significance of training therapists in reaching a proper diagnosis [14,15].

Another issue analysed in our study was the effectiveness of McKenzie Method in treating low back pain compared to other therapeutic methods as well as supported with them. Machado and Probachta compared McKenzie Method to standard physiotherapeutic methods (massage, exercises, physical therapy modalities). Both studies produced contrasting results, i.e. in the research by Machado, therapy with the use of McKenzie Method did not bring about better results than standard rehabilitation (apart from the fact that patients sought medical help less frequently), while in the study by Probachta et al., a larger improvement in the disability level, pain level and the speed of recovery to professional life were noted in the case of McKenzie Method [18,22]. Among Polish researchers, Kochański et al. assessed the effectiveness of this method in dealing with back pain and noted higher effectiveness of McKenzie Method in reducing the disability level than physical modality modalities [25]. While comparing McKenzie Method with classical rehabilitation in terms of an improvement in the spinal range of mobility and pain level, Plaskiewicz noted a considerable advantage of the first method [23].

The research carried out by Hosseinifar et al., which compared McKenzie Method with stability exercises, revealed higher effectiveness of stability exercises in reducing disability, while a decrease in pain remained at a similar level [26]. In their study, Petersen et al. compared McKenzie Method with dynamic strengthening exercises. The results were similar for both methods, while the application of McKenzie Method generated better results in reducing pain [27].

Petersen et al., Paatelma et al. and Cherkin et al. compared McKenzie Method with manual therapy and an educational booklet; however, in Petersen’s study, McKenzie Method supported the other two therapeutic methods. Another crucial difference was constituted by the fact that only patients with symptoms of peripheralization or centralization (peripheralization – the migration of symptoms in the distal direction and their intensification, centralization – the return of pain symptoms from the distal part towards the spine as a result of repositioning of intervertebral disc within the fibrous ring) participated in the study conducted by Petersen. Neither in the study by Cherkin et al. nor in the research by Paatelma et al. was there any statistically significant difference between manual therapy and McKenzie Method. However, in both studies the results were better than in the case of patients who used an educational booklet only. In his study, Petersen revealed slightly higher effectiveness of McKenzie Method. However, it could have been affected by the selection of patients, as the phenomenon of centralization is a good prognostic in patients undergoing therapy with the use of McKenzie Method [19,20,27].

Garcia et al. compared McKenzie Method with back school. Both groups achieved a significant improvement in the level of disability compared to the control group and, what is significant, this improved level was retained for the next 6 months. However, no differences regarding the level of pain were noted after the application of these methods [17]. In turn, Waqqar et al. compared McKenzie Method with one of Mulligan’s therapeutic methods. They revealed higher effectiveness of McKenzie Method in reducing pain and disability level. However, patients undergoing the therapy with Mulligan SNAGS achieved a higher increase in all the spinal ranges of motion [21].

Szulc et al. as well as Mbada et al. adopted a different approach than the previously cited researchers. They examined the effectiveness of McKenzie Method supported with other therapeutic methods. Szulc et al. applied MET described by Chaitow, while Mbada et al. implemented static and dynamic strengthening exercises. Supporting McKenzie Method with MET mainly led to an increase in the mobility of the segments of the spine. The application of both static and dynamic strengthening exercises led to an improvement in the level of disability, while adding dynamic exercises only significantly improved the quality of life. However, the patients’ level of pain was similar to the one noted in the case of the implementation of McKenzie Method only [24,28].

Compared to physical therapy modalities, McKenzie Method produced better results in the majority of cases. The desired therapeutic effect was not achieved only in the research by Machado et al. [18]. Compared to other therapeutic methods, such as manual therapy, back school or Mulligan SNAGS, McKenzie Method gave similar results. Only in the group of individuals performing stability exercises, did the level of disability improve more than in the group undergoing therapy with McKenzie Method. However, compared to strengthening exercises, McKenzie Method led to a higher decrease in the level of pain. Compared to manual therapy, back school and Mulligan SNAGS, a decrease in the level of pain was very similar, while slightly bigger reduction in the level of disability brought about by the implementation of McKenzie Method was noted by Waqqar and Garcia [16,20]. In Petersen’s study, McKenzie Method gave better results than manual therapy; however, it may be related to the profile of patients [28].

• The study revealed high effectiveness of McKenzie Method in diagnosing patients with low back pain.

• McKenzie Method proved to be an effective tool for treating low back pain that gave better results than standard rehabilitation.

• Compared to other therapeutic methods, McKenzie Method gave similar results in reducing pain and disability level and in increasing spine mobility.

• The best therapeutic results were achieved by combining McKenzie Method with other physiotherapeutic procedures.