Chronic non-specific low back pain is maintained by a combination of peripheral mechanical hyperalgesia and changes in central pain modulation; therefore, comparing standardised mechanical interventions is of practical value. The study aimed to compare the clinical and sensory effects of three mechanical intervention models over the same treatment duration. A prospective, randomised, controlled, assessor-blinded study was conducted in 96 patients who received 10 sessions of 30 minutes each over 4 weeks using the percussive-vibration (PV), classical manual (CM) or myofascial (MF) model. Baseline pain intensity on a numerical rating scale was 5.9±1.3 points. Two weeks after completion of the course, pain intensity decreased in all groups, with the greatest reduction observed in the SV group, an intermediate reduction in the MF group, and the smallest in the CM group. The proportion of participants who achieved a clinically significant reduction in pain of at least 2 points was 81.3% in the PV group, 75.0% in the MF group and 62.5% in the CM group, reflecting differences not only in mean values but also in the probability of achieving noticeable relief at the individual patient level. The pressure pain threshold increased by 0.95, 0.72 and 0.61 kg/cm², respectively. Functional limitations, as measured by the disability index, decreased by 8.4, 11.6 and 7.5 percentage points, with the greatest functional improvement recorded in the MF group, indicating differences in the response profile between the mechanical intervention models. CM The practical significance of the study is determined by the fact that, given the same treatment duration and standardised treatment areas, mechanical models demonstrate different advantages; therefore, the choice of intervention can be guided by the dominant clinical need: increasing the probability of a rapid, clinically significant reduction in pain, or prioritising the improvement of daily function, incorporating tolerability profile
Dmytro Chopovskyi (Wed,) studied this question.