Andrea Radebold

Impaired postural control of the lumbar spine is associated with delayed muscle response times in patients with chronic idiopathic low back pain

Study Design. Balance performance in unstable sitting and trunk muscle response to quick force release were measured in 16 patients with chronic low back pain and 14 matched healthy control subjects. Objectives. To determine whether patients with low back pain will exhibit poorer postural control, which will be associated with longer average muscle response times. Summary of Background Data. Larger postural sway during standing and delayed trunk muscle response times for patients with low back pain have been reported in several independent studies. Methods. Unstable sitting test was accomplished by attaching different sized hemispheres to the bottom of a seat. Subjects performed trials with eyes open and closed while the displacements of the center of pressure were measured with a force plate underneath the seat. Response to a quick force release was recorded from 12 major trunk muscles with surface electromyography. Subjects performed isometric trunk exertions in a semi-seated position when the resisted force was suddenly released with an electromagnet. Average muscle response times and balance performance were correlated using a linear regression analysis. Results. Patients with low back pain demonstrated poorer balance performance than healthy control volunteers, especially at the most difficult levels. Patients also had delayed muscle response times to quick force release. Average muscle onset times together with age and weight correlated significantly with balance performance with closed eyes (R2 = 0.46), but not with eyes opened (R2 = 0.18). Conclusions. Patients with chronic low back pain demonstrated poorer postural control of the lumbar spine and longer trunk muscle response times than healthy control volunteers. Correlation between these two phenomena suggests a common underlying pathology in the lumbar spine.

Muscle response pattern to sudden trunk loading in healthy individuals and in patients with chronic low back pain.

Study Design. A quick-release method in four directions of isometric trunk exertions was used to study the muscle response patterns in 17 patients with chronic low back pain and 17 matched control subjects. Objectives. It was hypothesized that patients with low back pain would react to sudden load release with a delayed muscle response and would exhibit altered muscle recruitment patterns. Summary of Background Data. A delay in erector spinae reaction time after sudden loading has been observed in patients with low back pain. Muscle recruitment and timing pattern play an important role in maintaining lumbar spine stability. Methods. Subjects were placed in a semiseated position in an apparatus that provided stable fixation of the pelvis. They exerted isometric contractions in trunk flexion, extension, and lateral bending. Each subject performed three trials at two constant force levels. The resisted force was suddenly released with an electromagnet and electromyogram signals from 12 trunk muscles were recorded. The time delay between the magnet release and the shut-off or switch-on of muscle activity (reaction time) was compared between two groups of subjects using two-factor analysis of variance. Results. The number of reacting muscles and reaction times averaged over all trials and directions showed the following results: For healthy control subjects a shut-off of agonistic muscles (with a reaction time of 53 msec) occurred before the switch-on of antagonistic muscles (with a reaction time of 70 msec). Patients exhibited a pattern of co-contraction, with agonists remaining active (3.4 out of 6 muscles switched off) while antagonists switched on (5.3 out of 6 muscles). Patients also had longer muscle reaction times for muscles shutting off (70 msec) and switching on (83 msec) and furthermore, their individual muscle reaction times showed greater variability. Conclusions. Patients with low back pain, in contrast to healthy control subjects, demonstrated a significantly different muscle response pattern in response to sudden load release. These differences may either constitute a predisposing factor to low back injuries or a compensation mechanism to stabilize the lumbar spine.

Trunk Muscle Recruitment Patterns in Patients With Low Back Pain Enhance the Stability of the Lumbar Spine

Study Design. A comparative study of trunk muscle recruitment patterns in healthy control subjects and patients with chronic low back pain was conducted. Objective. To assess trunk muscle recruitment in patients with low back pain. Summary of Background Data. Conflicting evidence has been reported on the level and pattern of trunk muscle recruitment in patients with low back pain. The disparities can be explained partly by methodologic differences. It was hypothesized that trunk muscle recruitment patterns may be altered in patients with low back pain to compensate for reduced spinal stability. Methods. For this study, 16 patients with low back pain and 16 matched control subjects performed slow trunk motions about the neutral posture and isometric ramp contractions while seated upright. Ratios of electromyographic amplitudes and estimated moment contributions of antagonist over agonist muscles and of segmentally inserting muscles over muscles inserting on the thorax and pelvis only were calculated. In addition, model simulations were performed to assess the effect of changes in muscle recruitment on spinal stability. Results. The ratios of antagonist over agonist, and of lumbar over thoracic erector spinae electromyographic amplitude and estimated moment contributions were greater in the patients than in the control subjects. The simulation model predicted that these changes would effectively increase spinal stability. Conclusions. Trunk muscle recruitment patterns in patients with low back pain are different from those in healthy control subjects. The differences are likely to be functional with respect to enhancement of spinal stability in the patients.

Effects of external trunk loads on lumbar spine stability

Stability of the lumbar spine is an important factor in determining spinal response to sudden loading. Using two different methods, this study evaluated how various trunk load magnitudes and directions affect lumbar spine stability. The first method was a quick release procedure in which effective trunk stiffness and stability were calculated from trunk kinematic response to a resisted-force release. The second method combined trunk muscle EMG data with a biomechanical model to calculate lumbar spine stability. Twelve subjects were tested in trunk flexion, extension, and lateral bending under nine permutations of vertical and horizontal trunk loading. The vertical load values were set at 0, 20, and 40% of the subjects body weight (BW). The horizontal loads were 0, 10, and 20% of BW. Effective spine stability as obtained from quick release experimentation increased significantly (p<0.01) with increased vertical and horizontal loading. It ranged from 785 (S.D.=580) Nm/rad under no-load conditions to 2200 (S.D.=1015) Nm/rad when the maximum horizontal and vertical loads were applied to the trunk simultaneously. Stability of the lumbar spine achieved prior to force release and estimated from the biomechanical model explained approximately 50% of variance in the effective spine stability obtained from quick release trials in extension and lateral bending (0.53<R(2)<0.63). There was no such correlation in flexion trials. It was concluded that lumbar spine stability increased with increased trunk load magnitude to the extent that this load brought about an increase in trunk muscle activation. Indirectly, our data suggest that muscle reflex response to sudden loading can augment the lumbar spine stability level achieved immediately prior to the sudden loading event.

Postural control of trunk during unstable sitting

A method for quantifying postural control of the lumbar spine during unstable sitting was developed. The unstable seat apparatus was equipped with leg and foot supports to isolate the control of the lumbar spine and trunk from the adjustments in the lower body joints. Polyester resin hemispheres with decreasing diameters were attached to the bottom of the seat to achieve increasing levels of task difficulty. The seat was placed on a force plate at the edge of a table and the participating subjects were instructed to maintain their balance while sitting on the seat. Coordinates of center of pressure (CoP) were recorded and quantified with summary statistics and random walk analysis. The CoP movement increased significantly with increased seat instability (task difficulty) (p<0.01). Stabilogram plots of the CoP movement revealed short and long-term regions consistent with the hypothesis that the two regions reflect open and closed-loop postural control mechanisms. Repeatability of the CoP parameters was excellent for the summary statistics and the short-term random walk coefficients (0.77<R<0.96). It was fair for the long-term diffusion coefficients (0.56<R<0.57) and poor for the long-term scaling exponents (0.14<R<0.40). Summary statistics of the CoP movement were positively correlated with body weight (0.69<R<0. 73) and the T9 to L4/L5 distance (0.43<R<0.54) of the subjects. This method can be applied to study the deficits in postural control of the lumbar spine in low-back pain population.

Lumbar spine stability can be augmented with an abdominal belt and/or increased intra-abdominal pressure.

Abstract The increased intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) commonly observed when the spine is loaded during physical activities is hypothsized to increase lumbar spine stability.The mechanical stability of the lumbar spine is an important consideration in low back injury prevention and rehabilitation strategies. This study examined the effects of raised IAP and an abdominal belt on lumbar spine stability. Two hypotheses were tested: (1) An increase in IAP leads to increased lumbar spine stability, (2) Wearing an abdominal belt increases spine stability. Ten volunteers were placed in a semi-seated position in a jig that restricted hip motion leaving the upper torso free to move in any direction. The determination of lumbar spine stability was accomplished by measuring the instantaneous trunk stiffness in response to a sudden load release. The quick release method was applied in isometric trunk flexion, extension, and lateral bending. Activity of 12 major trunk muscles was monitored with electromyography and the IAP was measured with an intra-gastric pressure transducer. A two-factor repeated measures design was used (P < 0.05), in which the spine stability was evaluated under combinations of the following two factors: belt or no belt and three levels of IAP (0, 40, and 80% of maximum). The belt and raised IAP increased trunk stiffness in all directions, but the results in extension lacked statistical significance. In flexion, trunk stiffness increased by 21% and 42% due to 40% and 80% IAP levels respectively; in lateral bending, trunk stiffness increased by 16% and 30%. The belt added between 9% and 57% to the trunk stiffness depending on the IAP level and the direction of exertion. In all three directions, the EMG activity of all 12 trunk muscles increased significantly due to the elevated IAP. The belt had no effect on the activity of any of the muscles with the exception of the thoracic erector spinae in extension and the lumbar erector spinae in flexion, whose activities decreased. The results indicate that both wearing an abdominal belt and raised IAP can each independently, or in combination, increase lumbar spine stability. However, the benefits of the belt must be interpreted with caution in the context of the decreased activation of a few trunk extensor muscles.

A History of Low Back Injury is a Risk Factor for Recurrent Back Injuries in Varsity Athletes

In this prospective study, we investigated whether a history of previous low back injury and dissatisfaction with a coach and teammates could predict future low back injury in varsity athletes during a 1-year follow-up period. Of 679 Yale varsity athletes surveyed in 1999, 18.3% (124) reported that they had sustained a low back injury within the past 5 years, and 6.8% (46) sustained a low back injury in the follow-up season. There were no differences in incidence rates between men and women or between athletes involved in contact or noncontact sports. A history of low back injury was the significant predictor for sustaining low back injury in the following year, and athletes who reported previous low back injury were at three times greater risk. Athletes who still had pain at the time of the survey were six times more likely to sustain a low back injury than were athletes without a history of low back injury. These results suggest that some risk factors associated with a history of low back injury predispose athletes to sustain recurrent injury. They may be congenital or a result of insufficient recovery time after the first low back injury episode.

The effects of visual input on postural control of the lumbar spine in unstable sitting

Postural control of the lumbar spine in unstable sitting was quantified through the analysis of the center of pressure (CoP) movement recorded by a force plate situated underneath a seat that incorporated a hemisphere. Thirteen healthy subjects were tested under conditions of increasing seat instability and elimination of visual input. The purpose of this study was to determine the relative effects of visual input and support surface instability on open and closed loop postural control mechanisms in sitting and to determine the association between traditional summary statistics and random walk analysis of CoP movement. The effects of the seat instability level and visual input on the CoP movement parameters were tested with a two-factor, repeated measures ANOVA (p<0.01). In all summary statistics CoP movement parameters increased significantly due to the seat instability level and lack of visual input. The random walk analysis identified two regions, short- and long-term, which has been postulated to represent open and closed loop control mechanism, respectively. While short-term scaling exponents were independent from visual input, CoP displacement in the short-term region was significantly increased in the eyes closed condition. Summary statistic of CoP total path length per second correlated highly with critical point coordinates and short-term diffusion coefficients. The CoP movement in the long-term region was consistent with a closed loop control mechanisms. The findings of visual influence on what is assumed as an open-loop control mechanism does not, at face value, support the hypothesis that two separate mechanisms are working to achieve postural control.

Trunk muscle recruitment patterns in patients with low back pain enhance the stability

Study Design. A comparative study of trunk muscle recruitment patterns in healthy control subjects and patients with chronic low back pain was conducted. Objective. To assess trunk muscle recruitment in patients with low back pain. Summary of Background Data. Conflicting evidence has been reported on the level and pattern of trunk muscle recruitment in patients with low back pain. The disparities can be explained partly by methodologic differences. It was hypothesized that trunk muscle recruitment patterns may be altered in patients with low back pain to compensate for reduced spinal stability. Methods. For this study, 16 patients with low back pain and 16 matched control subjects performed slow trunk motions about the neutral posture and isometric ramp contractions while seated upright. Ratios of electromyographic amplitudes and estimated moment contributions of antagonist over agonist muscles and of segmentally inserting muscles over muscles inserting on the thorax and pelvis only were calculated. In addition, model simulations were performed to assess the effect of changes in muscle recruitment on spinal stability. Results. The ratios of antagonist over agonist, and of lumbar over thoracic erector spinae electromyographic amplitude and estimated moment contributions were greater in the patients than in the control subjects. The simulation model predicted that these changes would effectively increase spinal stability. Conclusions. Trunk muscle recruitment patterns in patients with low back pain are different from those in healthy control subjects. The differences are likely to be functional with respect to enhancement of spinal stability in the patients.

EFFECTS OF THE ABDOMINAL BELT ON MUSCLE-GENERATED SPINAL STABILITY AND L4/L5 JOINT COMPRESSION FORCE

The goals of this study were (1) to determine the effects of abdominal belts on muscle-generated active lumbar spine stability, (2) to determine their effect on the subsequent joint compression force at L4/L5 and (3) to determine whether the effective stability of the spine could be predicted by the active spine stability and belt condition. Electromyographic (EMG) and trunk stiffness data from a previously reported experiment in which 10 subjects performed quick-release tasks (pertubation) with and without an abdominal belt were used as inputs to biomechanical models to estimate the active spine stability and effective stability of the spine, respectively. The subjects exerted isometric trunk flexion, extension and lateral bending trials at 0 and 80% of maximum intra-abdominal pressure when the resisted force was suddenly released. Wearing an abdominal belt had no significant effect on either the muscle-generated lumbar spine stability or the L4/L5 joint compression force in any direction. The effective stability of the spine was adequately predicted by the active spine stability and the effect of the belt, which accounted for approximately 34% of the effective spine stability. The study demonstrated that the abdominal belt contributed to the passive stability of the lumbar spine and did not change the active stability for tests performed within the same experimental session.