Abstract Low back pain (LBP) is a common and recurrent condition that significantly impacts quality of life. This study compared the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of home massage chairs with conventional physiotherapy for LBP treatment. Both methods effectively reduced pain, improved patient satisfaction, and enhanced quality of life. However, physiotherapy demonstrated superior outcomes for pain relief and disability improvement, while massage chairs proved more cost-effective. While massage chairs offer a promising alternative for pain management, they cannot fully replace physiotherapy.
Introduction LBP affects 70-75% of individuals at some point, often leading to disability and significant healthcare costs. Traditional physiotherapy, including techniques like thermal muscle relaxation and ultrasound-based treatments, has proven effective for pain control. With advancements in automated massage systems, massage chairs now offer a potential alternative. However, their clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness have not been thoroughly evaluated.
This study aimed to compare the outcomes of massage chairs with physiotherapy regarding pain control, satisfaction, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness.
Methods A randomized controlled trial enrolled 56 participants with LBP, who were allocated to physiotherapy (n=25) or massage chair therapy (n=31). Pain severity was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), satisfaction with the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and quality of life with the Functional Rating Index (FRI). Cost analysis compared physiotherapy fees with monthly massage chair rental costs.
-
Inclusion Criteria: Adults aged 20-65, BMI between 17-30 kg/m², and no prior spine surgery.
-
Interventions:
-
Physiotherapy: Ultrasound massage, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), interferential current therapy, and hot packs.
-
Massage Chair: 20-minute sessions with stretching, vibration, and heating functions.
-
Results Both treatments effectively reduced pain and improved quality of life (P<.001). Key findings include:
-
Pain Control: Physiotherapy achieved greater VAS score reductions than massage chairs (P=.03).
-
Satisfaction: MPQ scores showed no significant differences between the two groups.
-
Quality of Life: Physiotherapy demonstrated superior FRI score improvements (P=.03).
-
Cost-Effectiveness: Massage chair therapy cost only 60.17% of physiotherapy (P<.001).
Discussion Physiotherapy showed greater efficacy in reducing pain and disability, likely due to its direct medical intervention and personalized care. However, massage chairs provided cost-effective, accessible pain management, making them a viable alternative for non-severe cases.
The mechanistic differences between the two treatments may explain the results. Physiotherapy relies on techniques like thermal and electrical stimulation to enhance blood flow and reduce inflammation, while massage chairs utilize sensory stimulation based on gate control theory to block pain signals.
Conclusions Massage chairs are a cost-effective option for managing LBP and improving quality of life. However, they are not a substitute for physiotherapy, which remains more effective for comprehensive pain and disability management. Future research should explore integrating massage chairs into broader LBP treatment plans to enhance accessibility and affordability.
Author Contributions
- Conceptualization: Seung-kook Kim
- Data Curation: Seung-kook Kim, Aran Min
- Formal Analysis: Aran Min, Chuljin Jeon
- Methodology: Taeyun Kim
- Supervision: Choon-Key Lee, MD
- Visualization: Su-Chan Lee, MD
- Writing – Review & Editing: Soohyun Cho