Waiter's bow vs. reverse plank

I pulled something in the lower back doing a quick motion during exercise a few weeks ago. It's an area that was injured decades ago, and I've managed the problem by ensuring a comprehensive routine of core muscle exercises combined with physio exercises. This seemed to be insufficient after the last episode above, and I found that one of my core exercises, the reverse plank, actually worsened the condition. So in desparation, I reverted back to a physio exercise from decades ago, the waiter's bow. That seemed slightly helpful.

A miracle then occurred. Even though I am conscientious in my core exercises, I don't actually stand a lot, and I found from that after standing for a few hours, the problem abated significantly. The next day, I stood at my desk at work rather than sitting (I propped up the computer screen and keybaord). This made the problem almost go away and revert back to the very manageable condition prior to the weeks-old injury. I could even sit with very little issue now. So I carefull started to do reverse planks again, in addition waiter's bows. It's OK -- with ice and heat, it just feels a bit tight and twingy.

The thing is, I want to do reverse planks *instead* of waiter's bow. The latter doesn't entail much exertion, and I feel that I'm not getting much bang for my time. I'm just not sure if reverse planks will cover all the muscles (or most of the muscles) as the waiter's bow. I would be terrible if I experimented doing only reverse planks and regressed back to the barely mobile condition of the past few weeks. For example, if some aspect of waiter's bow is neglected by reverse plank, going for a long time without waiter's bow can lead to the same vulnerability that resulted in the injury few weeks ago. Can someone who knows the physiology please weigh in with their knowledge of the muscles exercised and/or stretched by the reverse plank versus the waiter's bow? Thanks.