Hip Function and Predictors of Subjective Outcomes in Individuals With a History of Low Back Pain

Sutherlin, Mark A.; Hart, Joseph M.

doi:10.3928/19425864-20150422-06

Cited by 2 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 24 articles [3–6, 16–18, 23–39] investigating gluteus medius function included 1088 participants with LBP and 998 healthy controls without LBP (Table 1). Studies included one or more of the following gluteus medius measurement outcomes: electromyographic (EMG) activity level [17, 18, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 38], EMG fatigability [24, 31, 34], EMG time to onset [6, 26, 29, 30], EMG time of peak activation [6, 17, 18, 24, 26, 28–31, 34, 38], hip abductor strength [3–5, 16, 25, 29], Trendelenburg sign [5, 16] hip abductor torque [23, 33], trigger points [16, 27, 35, 36], cross sectional area [32, 37], or muscle thickness [39]. Studies conducted these measurements non-weight bearing [3, 4, 6, 25, 27, 30, 32–37, 39], dynamically weight bearing [17, 23, 26, 38] or statically weight bearing [24, 28, 31].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The length of time participants had LBP within each of the studies varied. Some included acute [25], subacute [4, 35], chronic [16, 18, 23, 24, 27–29, 31, 38, 39], or mixed/unclear durations of LBP [3, 5, 6, 17, 26, 30, 32–34, 36, 37].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eight studies [17, 18, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 38] measured the amount of activity in the gluteus medius muscle with EMG (Table 2). Of these studies, five [18, 26, 28, 29, 31] measured gluteus medius muscle activity in a static weight bearing position, with mixed results.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A further two studies measured gluteus medius muscle activity dynamically, with one study finding less gluteus medius muscle activity in those with LBP [17], and the other study finding no difference between those with and without LBP [38]. The remaining study measured gluteus medius muscle activity in a non-weight bearing position and found no difference in gluteus medius muscle activity between those with and without LBP [34].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Differences in the first 5 min on both sides, and the last 5 min on the L side, were not statistically significant.Hungerfor-d et al 2003 [26]Noraxon Telemyo 8 EMGParticipants stood on one leg then flexed the contralateral hip and knee to 90 degrees. Five trials per side were conducted.Peak amplitude Specific values for gluteus medius not reported, p > .05Normalisation: % of maximal activity during the single leg standing task.Not measuredSpecific values (in ms) for gluteus medius not reported, p > .05Not measuredNo statistically significant differences in the amount of activity or time of onset of the gluteus medius muscle in those with and without LBP.Sutherin et al 2015b [34]EMG100C BiopacParticipants performed 5 consecutive isometric hip abduction contractions, in a side-lying position at zero degrees of hip abduction, each lasting 30 s. This was done on both sides, separated by 15 min of rest.RMSNo specific values reported, p > .05Normalisation: % of MVIC during side-lying hip abduction with manual resistance.MDFNo specific values reported, p > .05Not measuredNot measuredNo statistically significant differences in the amount or duration of gluteus medius muscle activity between those with and without LBP.Nelson-Wong et al 2013 [6]Biopac MP150Participants performed the active hip abduction (AHAbd) test in a side-lying position. Note: A positive value indicates the first listed muscle activates first and a negative value indicates the second listed muscle activates first.Not measuredNot measuredREO-RGMdLBP: − 0.18 s (±0.28) nLBP: 0.10s (±0.31), p = .015LEO-RGMdLBP: − 0.03 s (±0.37) nLBP: 0.03 s (±0.37), p = .65RIO-RGMdLBP: − 0.11 s (±0.33)nLBP: 0.14 s (±0.33), p = .033LIO-RGMdLBP: 0.02 s (±0.37)nLBP: 0.08 s (±0.40), p = .62RES-RGMdLBP: 0.05 s (±0.34)nLBP: 0.06 s (±0.33), p = .94LES-RGMdLBP: − 0.11 s (±0.29)nLBP: 0.07 s (±0.36), p = .15REO-LGMdLBP: 0.17 s (±0.38)nLBP: 0.05 s (±0.30), p = .35LEO-LGMdLBP: 0.04 s (±0.39)nLBP: 0.12 s (±0.35), p = .55RIO-LGMdLBP 0.01 s (±0.42)nLBP: 0.19 s (±0.28), p = .15LIO-LGMdLBP: − 0.04 s (±0.32)nLBP: 0.17 s (±0.35), p = .049RES-LGMdLBP: − 0.24 s (±0.33)nLBP: 0.09 s (±0.39), p = .014LES-LGMdLBP: 0.01 s (±0.34)nLBP 0.10 s (±0.38), p = .44Not measuredDuring the R AHAbd test, participants with LBP demonstrated statistically significant earlier activation of the R gluteus medius muscle relative to the ipsilateral trunk flexors (RIO and REO), compared to controls.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Gluteus medius muscle function in people with and without low back pain: a systematic review

Sadler

Cassidy

Peterson

et al. 2019

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionGlobally, low back pain (LBP) is one of the greatest causes of disability. In people with LBP, dysfunction of muscles such as the gluteus medius have been demonstrated to increase spinal loading and reduce spinal stability. Differences in gluteus medius function have been reported in those with LBP compared to those without, although this has only been reported in individual studies. The aim of this systematic review was to determine if adults with a history, or current LBP, demonstrate differences in measures of gluteus medius function when compared to adults without LBP.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, PubMED, Pro Quest Database, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception until December 2018 for published journal articles and conference abstracts. No language restrictions were applied. Only case-control studies with participants 18 years and over were included. Participants could have had any type and duration of LBP. Studies could have assessed gluteus medius function with any quantifiable clinical assessment or measurement tool, with the participant non-weight bearing or weight bearing, and during static or dynamic activity. Quality appraisal and data extraction were independently performed by two authors.ResultsThe 24 included articles involved 1088 participants with LBP and 998 without LBP. The gluteus medius muscle in participants with LBP tended to demonstrate reduced strength and more trigger points compared to the gluteus medius muscle of those without LBP. The level of activity, fatigability, time to activate, time to peak activation, cross sectional area, and muscle thickness showed unclear results. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the heterogeneity of included studies.ConclusionClinically, the findings from this systematic review should be considered when assessing and managing patients with LBP. Future studies that clearly define the type and duration of LBP, and prospectively assess gluteus medius muscle function in those with and without LBP are needed.Trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42017076773).

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Gluteus medius muscle function in people with and without low back pain: a systematic review

Sadler

Cassidy

Peterson

et al. 2019

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Changes in the Activity of the Erector Spinae and Gluteus Medius Muscles with the Presence of Simulated Lower Limb Dysmetria

Benito de Pedro,

Aguilera Rubio

et al. 2024

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: Leg length discrepancy (LLD), regardless of its origin, is a very common pathology that can contribute to low back pain. Various authors have pointed out its relationship with the lack of activation of both the gluteus medius (GM) and the ipsilateral erector spinae (ES). The purpose of this study was to identify the activation of the ES and GM with different simulated LLDs, correlating this activation with LBP. In turn, we evaluated whether ES and GM activity has an effect on jumping ability using a CMJ test. (2) Method: A sample of healthy subjects was selected to whom an artificial LLD was applied using 0.5, 1, and 1.5 cm insoles. These three heights were measured using EMG while the subjects walked and performed a counter movement jump (CMJ). The measurements of the insole heights were carried out in random order using a Latin square. Muscle activation patterns were recorded for 30 s at each of the insole heights while the patients walked at 5.7 km/h and they were compared with the maximum voluntary contraction (MVC), both on the ipsilateral and contralateral sides. These muscles were then measured under the same circumstances during the performance of the CMJ. (3) Results: We found statistically significant differences in the flight heights in both the CMJ and DJ. In the comparison, significant differences were found in the flight heights of the CMJ and the DJ using the 5 mm insoles, and in the case of the DJ, also without insoles, with respect to the MVC. We found statistically significant differences in the activation of the GM with the differences in insoles, but not in the activation of the Es in relation to the different insole heights. (4) Conclusions: Insoles of different heights caused activation differences in the medius on the side where the insoles were placed. We can relate this difference in activation to LBP. In relation to the ES, no significant differences were found in the activation of the ipsilateral side of the insole.

show abstract

Hip Function and Predictors of Subjective Outcomes in Individuals With a History of Low Back Pain

Cited by 2 publications

References 40 publications

Gluteus medius muscle function in people with and without low back pain: a systematic review

Gluteus medius muscle function in people with and without low back pain: a systematic review

Changes in the Activity of the Erector Spinae and Gluteus Medius Muscles with the Presence of Simulated Lower Limb Dysmetria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About