Analysis of Lumbar Spine and Hip Motion During Forward Bending in Subjects With and Without a History of Low Back Pain

Esola, M A; McClure, Philip; Fitzgerald, G. Kelley; Siegler, Sorin

doi:10.1097/00007632-199601010-00017

Cited by 405 publications

(309 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

269

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The relative lumbar/pelvic rotations during lowering/ lifting phases showed greater contributions in all cases from the pelvis than the lumbar spine (by as much as twofold) and remained within the range of data reported in the literature [31,41,64,81]. Thorax and pelvis rotations were both larger in stoop lifts compared to those in squat lifts (Fig.…”

Section: Effect Of Lifting Techniquessupporting

confidence: 81%

Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the well-recognized role of lifting in back injuries, the relative biomechanical merits of squat versus stoop lifting remain controversial. In vivo kinematics measurements and model studies are combined to estimate trunk muscle forces and internal spinal loads under dynamic squat and stoop lifts with and without load in hands. Measurements were performed on healthy subjects to collect segmental rotations during lifts needed as input data in subsequent model studies. The model accounted for nonlinear properties of the ligamentous spine, wrapping of thoracic extensor muscles to take curved paths in flexion and trunk dynamic characteristics (inertia and damping) while subject to measured kinematics and gravity/ external loads. A dynamic kinematics-driven approach was employed accounting for the spinal synergy by simultaneous consideration of passive structures and muscle forces under given posture and loads. Results satisfied kinematics and dynamic equilibrium conditions at all levels and directions. Net moments, muscle forces at different levels, passive (muscle or ligamentous) forces and internal compression/shear forces were larger in stoop lifts than in squat ones. These were due to significantly larger thorax, lumbar and pelvis rotations in stoop lifts. For the relatively slow lifting tasks performed in this study with the lowering and lifting phases each lasting~2 s, the effect of inertia and damping was not, in general, important. Moreover, posterior shift in the position of the external load in stoop lift reaching the same lever arm with respect to the S1 as that in squat lift did not influence the conclusion of this study on the merits of squat lifts over stoop ones. Results, for the tasks considered, advocate squat lifting over stoop lifting as the technique of choice in reducing net moments, muscle forces and internal spinal loads (i.e., moment, compression and shear force).

show abstract

Section: Effect Of Lifting Techniquessupporting

confidence: 81%

Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore between hip and spine range of motion in healthy individuals. contrast to some previous reports, our results indicate the absence of correlation between the Findings are in agreement with those of Esola, McClure, Fitzgerald, and Siegler (1996) analysed lumbar and hip motion during forward bending in subject with and without LBP.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…In order to get representative information of spine mobility separate assessment of lumbar spine would be recommended as these deliver different/complementary (and flexibility parameters related to trunk movements in different direction is revealed (0.4 < R 2 < different range of motions or everyday activity require forward Therefore, the goal of in healthy individuals. In the absence of correlation between the ald, and Siegler (1996) n subject with and without LBP. lumbar and hip motion in full forward motion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Is there a link between spine and hip mobility?

Savić¹,

Šarabon²

2012

Exercise and Quality of Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurement of spinal range of motion is frequently used objective approach in assessment of patients with low back pain, also because of the ease of use. Although emphasized, stretching of hip flexors and extensors is often performed inappropriately. We hypothesized that subjects with reduced hip mobility will probably compensate with pronounced spine mobility and that a significant negative correlation exist between these two entities. Fifty one healthy adults (age 43.7 ± 15.1 years) that are regularly involved in moderate physical activity (agility and endurance) participated in this study. Range of motion was measured by means of goniometry and adjusted Schober method that were previously shown to be reliable methods for spine and hip mobility assessment. The correlation between spine movements in different anatomical planes and correlation between spine and hip mobility was calculated. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between pairs of flexibility variables. Contrary to our expectations, analysis revealed absence of the correlation between the flexion of the trunk and flexion of the hip. However, moderate correlations were found between flexibility parameters related to trunk movements in different direction. Ranges of motion of the hip and of the trunk give complementary information and cannot be predicted from one another. Therefore, mobility of both joints/regions should be evaluated in order to get insightful information about movement function of the lumbo-pelvic region either in the context of low back pain or sports performance.

show abstract

“…Marras et al 16 and Thomas et al 31 reported that, compared to women, men move more in the trunk and less in the hips during lifting and forward reaching. These studies focused on gender differences in total motion of the trunk and hips and 4 but to our knowledge, only 1 study has focused specifically on gender differences in movement of the lumbopelvic region. Gombatto et al 9 reported that, compared to women, men with LBP completed a larger percentage of their total lumbopelvic motion in the first 60% of hip lateral rotation range of motion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender-Related Differences in Prevalence of Lumbopelvic Region Movement Impairments in People With Low Back Pain

Scholtes¹,

Dillen²

2007

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analysis of Lumbar Spine and Hip Motion During Forward Bending in Subjects With and Without a History of Low Back Pain

Cited by 405 publications

References 17 publications

Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads

Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads

Is there a link between spine and hip mobility?

Gender-Related Differences in Prevalence of Lumbopelvic Region Movement Impairments in People With Low Back Pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About