Lumbar muscle size and locations from CT scans of 96 women of age 40 to 63 years

Chaffin, Don B.; Redfern, Mark S.; Erig, Muzaffer; Goldstein, Steven A.

doi:10.1016/0268-0033(90)90026-3

Cited by 69 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is similar to observations in other populations, such as elite cricketers 16 and other athletes, 42 who have larger multifidus CSA, erector spinae CSA, and/ or combined multifidus and erector spinae CSA on the side of the dominant arm, and contrasts observations in nondancers 7,22,33 and rowers, 36 who have symmetrical CSAs of these muscles. It is notable that, despite the aspiration in ballet of equal proficiency on either leg, there is evidence for limb preference in dance tasks and lateral bias in teaching, which is typically toward the right side.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…28 There is evidence that healthy, nonathletic individuals have no significant right-to-left-side difference in the CSA of the erector spinae, multifidus, psoas, or quadratus lumborum muscles. 7,33 Hides et al 22 reported a mean difference in multifidus CSA of less than 5% between sides across all lumbar levels. Similarly, in a group of elite oarsmen there was no asymmetry in the CSA of the multifidus, erector spinae, or psoas between sides.…”

Section: T T Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Size and Symmetry of Trunk Muscles in Ballet Dancers With and Without Low Back Pain

Gildea¹,

Hides²,

Hodges³

2013

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[ research report ] C lassical ballet dancers are a unique combination of athlete and artist who perform complex movement patterns requiring both muscle strength and control. Ballet places particularly high demands on the trunk due to the requirement for extreme range of motion and tolerance of high compressive forces.1 A possible sequela of these spinal loads may be low back pain (LBP), which is consistently reported to be one of the most prevalent chronic injuries in professional ballet dancers. 2,9,14,25 In nondancers, LBP is associated with musculoskeletal changes, including alteration in muscle size, symmetry, 3,4,11,22 and fat content. 37 These changes include reduced cross-sectional area (CSA) of the multifidus in patients with acute, subacute, 22 and chronic LBP. 3,11 Two investigations found that people with unilateral LBP had a smaller multifidus on the side 3,22 and at the spinal level of pain.22 These changes were associated with longer symptom duration.3 Another study found that people with unilateral LBP had decreased CSA of the multifidus bilaterally and symmetrically.4 By contrast, when the CSA of the erector spinae has been differentiated from the multifidus, changes in CSA have not been demonstrated in active people with chronic LBP. 4,11 Changes in other muscles have been identified. The CSA of the psoas muscle has been shown to be reduced bilaterally in people with chronic LBP, 40 and this decrease in CSA has been associated with increased symptom duration on the painful side in individuals with unilateral LBP.3,10 In cricketers with LBP, when compared with pain-free cricketers, the T T STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational study. T T OBJECTIVES:To investigate the cross-sectional area (CSA) of trunk muscles in professional ballet dancers with and without low back pain (LBP). T T BACKGROUND:LBP is the most prevalent chronic injury in classical ballet dancers. Research on nondancers has found changes in trunk muscle size and symmetry to be associated with LBP. There are no studies that examine these changes in ballet dancers. T T METHODS:Magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 14 male and 17 female dancers. The CSAs of 4 muscles (multifidus, lumbar erector spinae, psoas, and quadratus lumborum) were measured and compared among 3 groups of dancers: those without LBP or hip pain (n = 8), those with LBP only (n = 13), and those with both hip-region pain and LBP (n = 10). T T RESULTS:Dancers with no pain had larger multifidus muscles compared to those with LBP at L3-5 (P<.024) and those with both hip-region pain and LBP at L3 and L4 on the right side (P<.027). Multifidus CSA was larger on the left side at L4 and L5 in dancers with hip-region pain and LBP compared to those with LBP only (P<.033). Changes in CSA were not related to the side of pain (all, P>.05). The CSAs of the other muscles did not differ between groups. The psoas (P<.0001) and quadratus lumborum (P<.01) muscles were larger in male dancers compared to female dancers. There was a positive correlation between the size of th...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: T T Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Size and Symmetry of Trunk Muscles in Ballet Dancers With and Without Low Back Pain

Gildea¹,

Hides²,

Hodges³

2013

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The trajectories of the thoracic erector spinae -ICt, LTt, and ST -are modeled as straight lines [38]. Coordinates of insertions points for all global muscles (Table 1) are based on parametric anatomical studies [4,8,12,13,26,29]. The straight lines of action, shown in Fig.…”

Section: Muscle Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Synergy of the human spine in neutral postures

Kiefer

Shirazi‐Adl

Parnianpour

1998

European Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionAn understanding of mechanisms for the load-resisting capacity of the human spine and load sharing between the passive ligamentous spine and the active muscle tissues in neutral posture is essential for investigation of spinal functioning in normal and pathologic conditions. Several approaches have been taken in previous numerical models for static analysis of the lumbar spine: maximum moment-generating capacity models [7,38], transverse section equilibrium models [36], and stability criterion models [5,10,16]. Experimental measurements of, for instance, electromyographic activities in spinal muscles and Abstract The neutral position of the spine is the posture most commonly sustained throughout daily activities. Previous investigations of the spine focused mainly on maximal exertions in various symmetric and asymmetric postures. This report proposes a new synergetic approach for analysis of the spine in neutral postures and evaluates its performance. The model consists of passive components, the osteoligamentous spine, and active components, the spinal muscles. The muscle architecture includes 60 muscles inserting onto both the rib cage and lumbar vertebral bodies. The passive spine is simulated by a finite element model, while kinematic constraints and optimization are used for resolution of a redundant muscle recruitment problem. Although the passive spine alone exhibits little resistance to a vertical load, its load-bearing capacity in neutral posture is significantly enhanced by the muscles, i.e., the passive spine and its muscles must be considered as a synergetic system. The proposed method is used to investigate the response of the spine when the T1 vertebra displaces 40 mm anteriorly and 20 mm posteriorly from its initial position. The sacrum is fixed at all times and the T1 displacements are achieved by the action of muscles. The results suggest that relatively small muscle activations are sufficient to stabilize the spine in neutral posture under the body weight. The results also indicate that muscles attaching onto the rib cage are important for control of the overall spinal posture and maintenance of equilibrium. The muscles inserting onto the lumbar vertebrae are found mainly to enhance the stability of the spine. The proposed method also predicts forces and moments carried by the passive system. Flexion moments ranging from 8000 Nmm to 15,000 Nmm, corresponding to decreases in lordosis of 6°and 7.5°respectively, are found to be carried by the passive spine at the thoracolumbar junction when the T1 vertebra is 40 mm anterior to its initial position.

show abstract

“…Models are usually formulated using from 10 to 22 different muscles about the torso. Relevant anthropometric values for these parameters can be found a variety of sources (Chaffin et al, 1990;Dumas et al, 1988;Han et al, 1992;Macintosh and Bogduk, 1986;McGill et al, 1988;Schultz et al, 1983;Tracy et al, 1989). A review of different torso anthropometries and their potential effects on optimization models can be found in McMulkin (1996).…”

Section: Estimating Internal Muscle Forcesmentioning

confidence: 99%