[Purpose] This study aimed to clarify whether the distribution range of the forward reach distance and the relationship between the forward reach distance and the movement distance of the center of pressure differed depending on whether the controlled starting standing position during the functional reach test with an ankle joint strategy. [Participants and Methods] Sixteen healthy male volunteers participated in the study. The distribution range of the forward reach distance and the relationship between the forward reach distance and movement distance of the center of pressure in the controlled starting standing position and non-controlled starting standing position conditions were analyzed. [Results] The distribution range of the forward reach distance was significantly smaller in the controlled starting standing position than in the non-controlled starting standing position. In both groups, the forward reach distance was associated with the movement distance of the center of pressure. [Conclusion] The findings suggested that the use of an ankle joint strategy with a controlled starting standing position in the functional reach test may be a more accurate method to evaluate standing balance ability.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether elongation training (ELT) was effective in improving motor function in a single case. [Participant and Methods] A 90-year-old male with Parkinson's syndrome participated in this study. This study used the A-B-A type of single case design. In the 'A' period, normal lower limb exercises (extension and abduction of the hip joint) were performed. The same exercise from the 'A' period was performed using an elongation band in the 'B' period for ELT. The implementation period included 2 weeks of the 'A' period, 2 weeks of the 'B' period, and then 2 weeks of the 'A' period again. Motor function was evaluated using the one-leg standing time on each side, and the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG). [Results] In the 'A' period, there was no change in the one-leg standing time on each side and the TUG. However, in the 'B' period, the one-leg standing time on each side increased, and the TUG values decreased. When returning to the 'A' period, the one-leg standing time on each side decreased, and the TUG increased. [Conclusion] It can be suggested that ELT safely improves motor function at home, even in older people.

[Purpose] The study aimed to determine the relationship between low back pain and lumbar and hip movement in desk workers with chronic non-specific low back pain, in order to obtain basic data regarding measures for preventing low back pain in desk workers. [Participants and Methods] The study included 10 desk workers (all female, age: 47.1 ± 6.0 years). The following measurements were recorded: numerical rating scale score for pain assessment at the time of maximum forward and backward bending of the trunk while standing, and the amount of movement of the trunk and the lumbar and hip joint. The ratio of the lumbar and hip joint movements during maximum forward and backward bending of the trunk was calculated. [Results] For maximum forward and backward bending of the trunk, a positive correlation between the numerical rating scale score and the ratio of movement for the lumbar and a negative correlation with that of the hip joint were noted. [Conclusion] Moving the hip joint while suppressing excessive lumbar movement is one of the measures for preventing low back pain in desk workers.

To clarify the effect of intervention with dynamic motor control exercise (DMCE) for the lumbar region on low back pain in sedentary office workers (SOWs). Methods: The participants comprised 32 SOWs with low back pain who were randomly categorized into two groups: the DMCE group and the normal trunk exercise (NTE) group. Both groups performed each exercise for three days per week for 8 weeks. The primary endpoints were evaluated for the lumbar and hip flexion angles during trunk forward bending, effect of low back pain on activities of daily living (using the Oswestry Disability Index), and intensity of low back pain (using the Visual Analog Scale) pre-and post-intervention. The extent of changes was calculated by subtracting the pre-intervention value from the post-intervention value and was compared between the two groups using an unpaired t-test. Results: The extent of changes in the lumbar flexion and hip flexion angles at 10°of trunk forward bending were significantly greater in the DMCE group than in the NTE group, and no significant differences were noted between the two groups at other angles of trunk forward bending. The extent of changes in the Oswestry Disability Index and the Visual Analog Scale scores were significantly greater in the DMCE group than in the NTE group. Conclusion: DMCE is effective in improving motor control in the lumbar region and hip joints, thereby ameliorating low back pain in SOWs.

No abstract