Comparison of the reliance of the postural control system on the visual, vestibular and proprioceptive inputs in chronic low back pain patients and asymptomatic participants

Mohammadi, Maryam; Ghamkhar, Leila; Alizadeh, Alireza; Shaabani, Moslem; Salavati, Mahyar; Kahlaee, Amir Hossein

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.02.010

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the mechanical vibration on calf mainly perturbs balance in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction ( van den Hoorn et al, 2018 ), so further analysis were focused on COP motion in the AP direction. Owing to the mean velocity was found as the most sensitive parameter for discriminating people with and without CLBP ( Mohammadi et al, 2021 ), and the analysis using a sliding window with 1 s after removal of vibration has been found to reduce the variance than the analysis using one epoch during or after vibration ( van den Hoorn et al, 2018 ). Thus, AP velocity was used for assessment of postural control and applied in a windowed (15-s epoch) manner at three postural phases (baseline, vibration and aftereffect) in this study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The associations between lumbar proprioception and postural control during and after calf vibration in people with and without chronic low back pain

Hao,

Cheng,

Jiang

et al. 2024

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationships of lumbar proprioception with postural control have not been clarified in people with chronic low back pain. This study aimed to compare the associations between lumbar proprioception and postural control in response to calf vibration in individuals with and without chronic low back pain. In this study, we recruited twenty patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP group) and twenty healthy control subjects (HC group) aged between 18 and 50 years. This study was a cross-sectional study and completed from May 2022 to October 2022. The passive joint repositioning sense (PJRS) test for two positions (15° and 35°) were used to assess lumbar proprioception and expressed as the mean of reposition error (RE). Postural control was tested by adding and removing calf vibration while standing on a stable force plate with eyes closed. The sway velocity in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction of center of pressure (COP) data with a window of 15s epoch at baseline, during and after calf vibration was used to evaluate postural control. Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare the difference of lumbar proprioception between two groups, and the independent t-tests were used to compare the difference of postural control at baseline and during vibration, and a mixed design ANOVA was used to compare the difference of postural control during post-perturbation. In addition, to explore the association between postural control and lumbar proprioception and pain intensity, Spearman’s correlations were used for each group. The major results are: (1) significantly higher PJRS on RE of 15° (CLBP: 95% CI [2.03, 3.70]; HC: 95% CI [1.03, 1.93]) and PJRS on RE of 35° (CLBP: 95% CI [2.59, 4.88]; HC: 95% CI [1.07, 3.00]) were found in the CLBP group; (2) AP velocity was not different between the CLBP group and the HC group at baseline and during calf vibration. However, AP velocity was significantly larger in the CLBP group compared with the HC group at epoch 2–14 after calf vibration, and AP velocity for the CLBP group took a longer time (23 epochs) to return to the baseline after calf vibration compared with the HC group (9 epochs); (3) lumbar proprioception represented by PJRS on RE of 15°correlated negatively with AP velocity during and after vibration for the HC group. Within the CLBP group, no significant relationships between PJRS on RE for two positions (15° and 35°) and AP velocity in any postural phases were found. In conclusion, the CLBP group has poorer lumbar proprioception, slower proprioceptive reweighting and impaired postural control after calf vibration compared to the HC group. Lumbar proprioception offers different information on the control strategy of standing control for individuals with and without CLBP in the situations with proprioceptive disturbance. These results highlight the significance of assessing lumbar proprioception and postural control in CLBP patients.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The associations between lumbar proprioception and postural control during and after calf vibration in people with and without chronic low back pain

Hao,

Cheng,

Jiang

et al. 2024

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When this input information is insufficient, it will inevitably cause adverse effects on postural control. 45 In addition, Mohammadi M et al 46 also suggested that postural compensation in patients with chronic low back pain relies on the proprioceptive system. Through dual-task studies under different sensory information input conditions, Salavati M’s study, 36 Ulrike Van Daele’s study, 27 Hemmati L’s study, 35 et al found that the less the sensory information, the worse the postural control ability of patients with low back pain.…”

Section: Factors Affecting Postural Control In Patients With Low Back...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Postural Control of Patients with Low Back Pain Under Dual-Task Conditions

Xiao¹,

Yang²,

Wang³

et al. 2023

JPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low back pain is a major global public health problem, but the current intervention effect is not ideal. A large body of previous literature suggests that patients with chronic low back pain may have abnormal postural control, which is more evident in the dual task situation. In recent years, research on postural control in patients with low back pain under dual-task conditions has gradually become a hot topic. However, the results obtained from these studies were not entirely consistent. In this review, we summarized relevant studies on the performance of postural control in patients with low back pain under dual-task conditions, analyze it from the perspective of the theoretical model of dual-task interaction, the specific research paradigm of dual task, the performance of postural control, and the related factors affecting postural control performance, etc. It was reasonable to assume that patients with low back pain might have a certain degree of abnormal postural control, and this abnormality was affected by comprehensive factors such as age, cognitive resource capacity, attention needs, complex sensorimotor integration, external environment, etc. Furthermore, postural control performance in low back pain patients under dual-task conditions was further influenced by the nature and complexity of the different tasks. In general, the more attention resources were needed, the external environmental conditions were worse, and the age-related functions were degenerate, etc., the weaker posture control ability was. In short, a deeper understanding of postural control in patients with low back pain under dual-task conditions may shed light on more references for the rehabilitation and management of low back pain, as well as some new ideas for scientific research on cognition and postural control.

show abstract

“…From the perspective of the inverted pendulum model of the human body ( Reeves et al, 2011 ), the control parameters of involuntary postural sway in the sagittal plane and coronal plane reflect the postural control ability of the individual in involuntary activities, where a smaller amplitude of postural sway and a slower speed represent a higher level of postural sway control ability ( King et al, 2019 ). Mohammadi et al (2021) reported that the sagittal plane velocity was a sensitive parameter related to decreased somatosensory perception and postural control ability in patients with LBP ( Mohammadi et al, 2021 ). Further, postural sway control in the coronal plane has been demonstrated to be more challenging and energy-consuming than sway in the sagittal plane ( Slobounov et al, 2008 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voluntary postural sway control and mobility in adults with low back pain

Chen,

Tirosh,

Han

et al. 2024

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) is associated with altered somatosensory perception, which is involved in both involuntary and voluntary control of posture. Currently, there is a lack of methods and tools for assessing somatosensory acuity in patients with LBP. The purpose of this study was (1) to assess the reliability of the sway discrimination apparatus (SwayDA) (2) to evaluate the differences in somatosensory acuity between patients with LBP and pain-free individuals, and (3) to examine relationships between somatosensory acuity, severity of LBP, and mobility in patients with LBP.MethodsTwenty participants (10 patients with LBP and 10 matched asymptomatic controls) were recruited in a test–retest reliability test. Another 56 participants were recruited for this study with 28 individuals presenting with LBP and a further twenty-eight being asymptomatic. The SwayDA was custom-built to measure somatosensory perception during voluntary anterior–posterior (SwayDA-AP), medial-lateral to the dominant side (SwayDA-ML-D), and non-dominant side (SwayDA-ML-ND) postural sway control. Participants also completed mobility tests, including 10 times and 1-min sit-to-stand tests (10-STS, 1 m-STS). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated to quantify somatosensory acuity in discriminating different voluntary postural sway extents.ResultsThe ICC (2.1) for the SwayDA-AP, SwayDA-ML-D, and SwayDA-ML-ND were 0.741, 0.717, and 0.805 with MDC95 0.071, 0.043, and 0.050. Patients with LBP demonstrated significantly lower SwayDA scores (tSwayDA-AP = −2.142, p = 0.037; tSwayDA-ML-D = -2.266, p = 0.027) than asymptomatic controls. The AUC values of the SwayDA-AP test were significantly correlated with ODI (rSwayDA-AP-ODI = −0.391, p = 0.039). Performances on the 1 m-STS and the 10-STS were significantly correlated with the AUC scores from all the SwayDA tests (−0.513 ≤ r ≤ 0.441, all p < 0.05).DiscussionThe SwayDA tests evaluated showed acceptable reliability in assessing somatosensory acuity during voluntary postural sway. Somatosensory acuity was diminished in patients with LBP compared to asymptomatic controls. In patients with LBP, lower somatosensory acuity was associated with increased LBP-related disability. Future research could focus on investigating the factors contributing to the decreased somatosensory perception and mobility in individuals with LBP.

show abstract

Comparison of the reliance of the postural control system on the visual, vestibular and proprioceptive inputs in chronic low back pain patients and asymptomatic participants

Cited by 9 publications

References 38 publications

The associations between lumbar proprioception and postural control during and after calf vibration in people with and without chronic low back pain

The associations between lumbar proprioception and postural control during and after calf vibration in people with and without chronic low back pain

Postural Control of Patients with Low Back Pain Under Dual-Task Conditions

Voluntary postural sway control and mobility in adults with low back pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About