Lumbopelvic motor control function between patients with chronic low back pain and healthy controls: a useful distinguishing tool

Abstract

Although lumbopelvic stability exercise improves lumbopelvic motor control function in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), the difference in lumbopelvic motor control function between the patients with CLBP and the healthy controls is unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare lumbopelvic motor control function between patients with CLBP and healthy controls and to determine the prevalence of CLBP according to core stability function. For this study, 278 participants were recruited, including patients with CLBP (n = 137) and healthy controls (n = 141). The participants performed a core stability function test and were classified to either the low or high core stability function group according to their core stability function for CLBP prevalence analysis. Lumbopelvic motor control was significantly higher in the healthy controls than in patients with CLBP. Of the patients in the low lumbopelvic motor control function group, 65.9% had CLBP, whereas 36.8% of the patients in the high lumbopelvic motor control function group had CLBP. Lumbopelvic motor control function demonstrated a significant difference between the patients with CLBP and the healthy controls. The lumbopelvic motor control function test was demonstrated to be an effective diagnostic tool for distinguishing CLBP. This information can be applied in assessments and interventions for CLBP in clinical settings.

Effect of Pelvic Floor Muscle Electrical Stimulation on Lumbopelvic Control in Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence: Randomized Controlled Trial

“…The core muscles (diaphragm, IO, TrA, multi dus, and PFM) provide the control necessary for lumbopelvic stabilization during limb movement [26,27]. To accurately assess the effects of interventions on core muscle performance, and to develop more effective exercise programs, clinicians require an objective measure of core muscle performance and/or motor function [24]. The leg lowering tests showed moderate to strong associations with rectus abdominis (RA) activity, and moderate associations with both IO/TA and EO [22].…”

“…The one-and double-leg lowering tests were used to measure the subject's lumbopelvic control during movement of the lower limbs [9,14,[22][23][24]. In the supine position, the subject exed the hips and knees to 90°.…”

“…In the supine position, the subject exed the hips and knees to 90°. A Smart KEMA pressure sensor (KOREATECH Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea) was set to 40 mmHg and placed below the lordotic curvature of the spine between L1 and S1, with the hips and knees in 90° of exion (Figure 2) [14,24]. Using its strap, the Smart KEMA motion sensor (KOREATECH Co., Ltd.) was attached to the thigh between the greater trochanter and knee joint.…”

“…One-and double-leg lowering (hip extension) angles were measured with a motion sensor, and lumbopelvic control was de ned as the moment when the pressure sensor reading decreased below 50 mmHg (Figure 2). As the core muscles are necessary for lumbopelvic control and stabilization during leg motion, a larger leglowering angle indicates greater lumbopelvic control [24].…”

Efeitos de exercícios de Pilates em parâmetros antropométricos e hemodinâmicos de portadores de dor lombar crônica inespecífica: ensaio clínico randomizado

“…Em 2010 a prevalência mundial da dor lombar foi aproximadamente 9,4%, com predomínio para o sexo masculino e aumentando em grupos etários mais velhos (Carvalho et al, 2018;Hoy et al, 2014). Os efeitos dos exercícios do método na DLCI têm se dado por meio da ativação e suporte nos músculos estabilizadores do tronco (Baillie et al, 2019;Jung et al, 2020;Wells et al, 2012), além dos benefícios na população geral sobre o equilíbrio corporal, coordenação, percepção cinestésica, flexibilidade, força muscular e amplitude de movimento (Baillie et al, 2019;Gladwell et al, 2006;Jung et al, 2020).…”