Measuring Lumbar Reposition Accuracy in Patients With Unspecific Low Back Pain

Osthoff, Anne-Kathrin Rausch; Ernst, Markus; Rast, Fabian Marcel; Mauz, Danica; Graf, Eveline; Kool, Jan; Bauer, Christoph

doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000677

Cited by 30 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In such situations U gives a better indication of reliability. The magnitude of the measured RE is well within the range of previously published data on pain-free participants (Rausch Osthoff et al, 2015). Data on reliability of RE measures is discouraging.…”

Section: Reposition Errorsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Variability was examined by calculating percentage of recurrence (%REC) and determinism (%DET) using recurrence quantification analysis (RQA) (Webber and Zbilut, 1994). Test (4) evaluates the participant's proprioceptive deficits within the spine, analysed using constant error (CE) (Rausch Osthoff et al, 2015).…”

Section: Study Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reposition error, CE (Rausch Osthoff et al, 2015), reached high reliability after averaging six trials on one day (4pk) or eight trials across two days (sitting). The CE can have positive and negative values and a score of zero implies a good performance.…”

Section: Reposition Errormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data on reliability of RE measures is discouraging. Several studies report poor reliability of RE tests, use an inadequate numbers of trials, or do not report reliability of their measures (Rausch Osthoff et al, 2015).…”

Section: Reposition Errormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, these assessments are comprised of (1) ROM (Laird et al, 2014), (2) movement control impairment (MCI) (Sahrmann, 2002;Luomajoki et al, 2007), (3) repetitive movement (RM) tests (Dideriksen et al, 2014), and (4) tests for proprioception deficits such as reposition error tests (RE) (Rausch Osthoff et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Concurrent validity and reliability of a novel wireless inertial measurement system to assess trunk movement

Bauer

Rast

Ernst

et al. 2015

Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Reposition Errorsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Study Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reposition Errormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reposition Errormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Concurrent validity and reliability of a novel wireless inertial measurement system to assess trunk movement

Bauer

Rast

Ernst

et al. 2015

Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Low back skin sensitivity has minimal impact on active lumbar spine proprioception and stability in healthy adults

Beaudette

Larson

et al. 2016

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the current work was to (1) determine whether low back cutaneous sensitivity could be reduced through the use of a topical lidocaine-prilocaine anesthetic (EMLA(®)) to mirror reductions reported in chronic lower back pain (CLBP) patients, as well as to (2) identify whether reductions in cutaneous sensitivity resulted in decreased lumbar spine proprioception, neuromuscular control and dynamic stability. Twenty-eight healthy participants were divided equally into matched EMLA and PLACEBO treatment groups. Groups completed cutaneous minimum monofilament and two-point discrimination (TPD) threshold tests, as well as tests of sagittal and axial lumbar spine active repositioning error, seated balance and repeated lifting dynamic stability. These tests were administered both before and after the application of an EMLA or PLACEBO treatment. Results show that low back minimum monofilament and TPD thresholds were significantly increased within the EMLA group. Skin sensitivity remained unchanged in the PLACEBO group. In the EMLA group, decreases in low back cutaneous sensitivity had minimal effect on low back proprioception (active sagittal and axial repositioning) and dynamic stability (seated balance and repeated lifting). These findings demonstrate that treating the skin of the low back with an EMLA anesthetic can effectively decrease the cutaneous sensitivity of low back region. Further, these decreases in peripheral cutaneous sensitivity are similar in magnitude to those reported in CLBP patients. Within this healthy population, decreased cutaneous sensitivity of the low back region has minimal influence on active lumbar spine proprioception, neuromuscular control and dynamic stability.

show abstract

Short-term effect of delayed-onset muscle soreness on trunk proprioception during force reproduction tasks in a healthy adult population: a crossover study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of lumbar muscle delayed-onset muscle 2 soreness (DOMS) on the ability of the trunk muscles to reproduce different levels of force. 3 Methods: Twenty healthy adults (10 males and 10 females) were recruited for this study. Force reproduction in trunk extension and flexion was assessed at 50 and 75% of participants' maximal 5 isometric voluntary contraction in flexion and extension before and after a lumbar muscle DOMS 6 protocol. Trunk proprioception was evaluated and compared between these conditions using different 7 variables such as constant errors (CE), absolute errors (AE), variable errors (VE) and time to peak force 8 (TPF). For each variable, repeated measure ANOVAs were conducted. 9 Results: AE were higher when participants had to reach the target post-DOMS protocol in extension 10 compared to flexion and in presence of higher demand of force (p=0.02). For VE, results showed that 11 participants were more variable in extension than in flexion when the required force was higher (p=0.04). 12 CE variable was higher when participants had to reach the force target in extension compared to flexion 13 under the effect of DOMS (p=0.02). Results also showed that participants took less time to reach the force 14 target post-DOMS protocol in extension (0.62 ± 0.20 sec) and in flexion (0.53 ± 0.19 sec) than pre-DOMS 15 protocol in extension (0.55 ± 0.15) and in flexion (0.50 ± 0.20) (p<0.001). 16 Conclusion: Lumbar muscle DOMS affect trunk proprioception during force reproduction tasks 17 especially in trunk extension and at higher force.

show abstract

Measuring Lumbar Reposition Accuracy in Patients With Unspecific Low Back Pain

Cited by 30 publications

References 39 publications

Concurrent validity and reliability of a novel wireless inertial measurement system to assess trunk movement

Concurrent validity and reliability of a novel wireless inertial measurement system to assess trunk movement

Low back skin sensitivity has minimal impact on active lumbar spine proprioception and stability in healthy adults

Short-term effect of delayed-onset muscle soreness on trunk proprioception during force reproduction tasks in a healthy adult population: a crossover study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About