Lumbar extensor muscle force control is associated with disability in people with chronic low back pain

Pranata, Adrian; Perraton, Luke; El-Ansary, Doa; Clark, Ross; Fortin, Karine; Dettmann, Tim; Brandham, Robert; Bryant, Adam

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.05.004

Cited by 33 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, while the reliability of the measurement of translation, laxity and MSI in this configuration has been found to be acceptable, MSV changes over time in the individual were not, making it potentially less useful as a measure [23,25,29]. However, MSV may be helpful in investigating the therapeutic actions of motor control and strengthening exercises at an intervertebral level [30][31][32][33][34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aberrant intervertebral motion in patients with treatment-resistant nonspecific low back pain: a retrospective cohort study and control comparison

Breen

Mellor

2018

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients with treatment-resistant nonspecific back pain have greater MSI values than controls, especially if the former have received spinal surgery. However, excessive laxity, translation and MSV are not more prevalent in these patients. Thus, MSI should be investigated as a pain mechanism and for its possible value as a prognostic factor and/or target for treatment in larger patient populations. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aberrant intervertebral motion in patients with treatment-resistant nonspecific low back pain: a retrospective cohort study and control comparison

Breen

Mellor

2018

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The movement qualities of people with LBP have been observed to differ from those without LBP in a number of ways, including smaller range and lower speed of lumbar motion [3], differences in muscle size, recruitment and relaxation patterns [4–8], different breathing patterns [9–12], poorer proprioception [13–15], less motor control variability [16–20], poorer strength, endurance and muscle force control [21, 22] and different patterns of flexion-related lumbo-pelvic movement [23]. Although there is evidence of different movement qualities in people with back pain, there is little consensus about which movement attributes are important, how frequently they are seen, or whether movement difference might cause, or be caused by, LBP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does movement matter in people with back pain? Investigating ‘atypical’ lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain using wireless movement sensors

Laird

Keating

Ussing

et al. 2019

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInterventions for low back pain (LBP) commonly target ‘dysfunctional’ or atypical lumbo-pelvic kinematics in the belief that correcting aberrant movement improves patients’ pain and activity outcomes. If atypical kinematic parameters and postures have a relationship to LBP, they could be expected to more prevalent in people with LBP compared to people without LBP (NoLBP). This exploratory study measured, defined and compared atypical kinematic parameters in people with and without LBP.MethodsWireless inertial motion and EMG sensors were used to measure lumbo-pelvic kinematics during standing trunk flexion (range of motion (ROM), timing, sequence coordination, and extensor muscle activation) and in sitting (relative sitting position, pelvic tilt range) in a sample of 126 of adults without LBP and 140 chronic LBP subjects. Atypical movement was defined using the 10th/90th centiles of the NoLBP group. Mean differences and prevalence rates for atypical movement were calculated. Dichotomised pain scores for ‘high-pain-on-bending’ and ‘high-pain-on-sitting’ were tested for their association with atypical kinematic variables.ResultsFor standing flexion, significant mean differences, after adjusting for age and gender factors, were seen for the LBP group with (i) reduced ROM (trunk flexion (NoLBP 111o, LBP 93o, p < .0001), lumbar flexion (NoLBP 52o, LBP 46o, p < .0001), pelvic flexion (NoLBP 59o, LBP 48o, p < .0001), (ii) greater extensor muscle activation for the LBP group (NoLBP 0.012, LBP 0.25 p < .0001), (iii) a greater delay in pelvic motion at the onset of flexion (NoLBP − 0.21 s; LBP − 0.36 s, p = 0.023), (iv) and longer movement duration for the LBP group (NoLBP 2.28 s; LBP 3.18 s, p < .0001). Atypical movement was significantly more prevalent in the LBP group for small trunk (× 5.4), lumbar (× 3.0) and pelvic ROM (× 3.9), low FRR (× 4.9), delayed pelvic motion at 20o flexion (× 2.9), and longer movement duration (× 4.7). No differences between groups were seen for any sitting parameters. High pain intensity was significantly associated with small lumbar ROM and pelvic ROM.ConclusionSignificant movement differences during flexion were seen in people with LBP, with a higher prevalence of small ROM, slower movement, delayed pelvic movement and greater lumbar extensor muscle activation but without differences for any sitting parameter.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-018-2387-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…For example, people with neurological conditions such as cerebrovascular accident and Parkinson's disease, as well as older adults, may experience difficulty moderating the amount of force they use to grasp objects (Kang & Cauraugh, ; Ko, Laine, Fisher & Valero‐Cuevas, ; Liu et al ., ). This technology could be integrated into biofeedback training systems that could be used to perform other promising dynamic functional assessments such as accurately matching target force patterns (Perraton et al ., ; Pranata et al ., ) and used to remediate an individual's force moderation. Static pinch grip positions may be recruited by a person to stabilise objects, whereas dynamic movements may be adopted as the hand grasps and releases objects while performing many everyday occupations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open‐source 3D printed sensors for hand strength assessment: Validation of low‐cost load cell and fabric sensor‐based systems

Cutler

Hamilton

Hough

et al. 2018

Aus Occup Therapy J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study lays the foundation for these sensor systems to be modified for use as assessment tools during the performance of functional tasks using everyday objects. Additionally, because both systems generate real-time force data they could be used for biofeedback as part of rehabilitation and strengthening programs. To aid uptake and future research using these systems, the 3D print models, step-by-step hardware design and software programs used are provided in an open-source format at www.rehabtools.org/otsensors.html.

show abstract

Lumbar extensor muscle force control is associated with disability in people with chronic low back pain

Cited by 33 publications

References 32 publications

Aberrant intervertebral motion in patients with treatment-resistant nonspecific low back pain: a retrospective cohort study and control comparison

Aberrant intervertebral motion in patients with treatment-resistant nonspecific low back pain: a retrospective cohort study and control comparison

Does movement matter in people with back pain? Investigating ‘atypical’ lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain using wireless movement sensors

Open‐source 3D printed sensors for hand strength assessment: Validation of low‐cost load cell and fabric sensor‐based systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About