## 3 Results  
In both groups, the data distribution was consistent for age, body fat (as body mass index) and time overdue between the patient diagnosis and the beginning of treatment, radiculopathies (Table 1). There is not a significant difference for data homogeneity between groups A and B for gender-specific, living place, profession, activity level, comorbidities, pain medication and the presence of radiculopathy (\(p\geq 0.05\)). At the initial assessment there was no significant difference between the two groups for pain intensity, muscle force, range of motion and disability level (Table 2). The data analysis for group A reveals that there are significant differences between the pretest-post-test results for VAS = Visual Analog Scale [F(1,37) = 4.219, \(p=0.000\)], ODI = Oswestry disability index [F(1,37) = 64,751 \(p=0.000\)], FTF = trunk mobility on flexion [F(1,37) = 14.658, \(p=0.000\)], HF = hip flexion [F(1,37) = 34,068 \(p=0.000\)], MSTFF = muscle \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Characteristics**} & **Group A** & **Group B** & **\multirow{2}{*}{_p_} \\  & **(n = 38)** & **(n = 39)** & \\ \hline
**Age (years)** & 50.24 \(\pm\) 12.25 & 50.33 \(\pm\) 14.02 & 0.908 \\ \hline
**BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\))** & 26.53 \(\pm\) 5.07 & 27.90 \(\pm\) 5.18 & 0.685 \\ \hline
**Time elapsed (months)** & 10.00 \(\pm\) 9.79 & 9.90 \(\pm\) 9.02 & 0.920 \\ \hline
**Gender (\%) men** & 34.2 & 38.5 & \\
**women** & 65.1 & 61.5 & 0.440 \\ \hline
**Living place (\%) urban** & 65.8 & 66.7 & \\
**rural** & 34.2 & 33.3 & 0.563 \\ \hline
**Comorbidities (\%) yes** & 81.6 & 84.6 & \\
**no** & 18.4 & 15.4 & 0.479 \\ \hline
**Radiculopathy (\%) right** & 34.2 & 33.3 & \\
**left** & 21.1 & 15.4 & 0.717 \\ \cline{2-4}
**bilateral** & 44.7 & 51.3 & \\ \hline
**Pain medication (\%) yes** & 84.2 & 76.9 & \\
**no** & 15.8 & 23.1 & 0.402 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Demographic characteristics (mean \(\pm\) SD/%), time overdue between diagnosis and treatment (mean \(\pm\) SD), and radiculopathy (%) (n = 77). strength trunk forward flexion [F(1,37) = 6.136 \(p\) = 0.018]; MSTE = muscle strength trunk extension [F(1,37) = 52.811, \(p\) = 0.000]; HRQL = health-related quality of life [F(1,37) = 105.207, \(p\) = 0.000]. There is not a significant difference between the initial and final results for mobility on lateral flexion of the trunk: TRLF [F(1,37) = 0.875, \(p\) = 0.356], muscle strength on lateral flexion of the trunk MSTRLF [F(1,37) = 0.059, \(p\) = 0.628], MSTLLF [F(1,37) = 0.109, \(p\) = 0.774]. The comparison of initial and final values for group B shows that there are significant differences for VAS = Visual Analog Scale [F(1,38) = 2.984, \(p\) = 0.047], ODI = Oswestry disability index [F(1,38) = 85.146, \(p\) = 0.000], FTF = finger-to-floor distance [F(1,38) = 40.658, \(p\) = 0.000], HF = hip flexion [F(1,38) = 0.218, \(p\) = 0.000]; MSTE = muscle strength trunk extension [F(1,38) = 40.338, \(p\) = 0.000]; HRQL= health-related quality of life [F(1,38) = 125.265, \(p\) = 0.000]. There is not a significant difference between pretest and post-test values for mobility on lateral flexion of the trunk TRLF [F(1,38) = 0.443, \(p\) = 0.509] and TLLF [F(1,38) = 0.218, \(p\) = 0.643]; trunk muscle strength MSTFF [F(1,38) = 0.039, \(p\) = 0.844], MSTRLF [F(1,38) = 0.150, \(p\) < 0.700] and MSTLLF [F(1,38) = 0.394, \(p\) < 0.534]. For group A, after two weeks of physiotherapy in association with Vojta therapy (Table 3), significant changes were registered for pain intensity, range of motion, muscle force and disability level, meaning that after intervention, the \(p\) value shows the significant difference for VAS, ODI, FTF, HF, MSTFF, MSTE and HRQL. The data written in bold characters emphasize a statistically significant difference for patients from each group (group A changes and group B changes). The comparison of the final assessment scores between the two groups shows that none of the studied variables presented significant differences.