DOCUMENT
CC-BY 4.0 Background: Since the contribution of the lumbar multifidus(LM) is not well understood in relation to nonspecific low back pain(LBP), this may limit physiotherapists in choosing the most appropriate treatment strategy.Objectives: This study aims to compare clinical characteristics, in terms of LM function and morphology, between subacute and chronic LBP patients from a large clinical practice cohort compared to healthy controls.Design: Multicenter case control study.Method: Subacute and chronic LBP patients and healthy controls between 18 and 65 years of age were included.Several clinical tests were performed: primary outcomes were the LM thickness from ultrasound measurements, trunk range of motion(ROM) from 3D kinematic tests, and median frequency and root mean square values of LM by electromyography measurements. The secondary outcomes Numeric Rating Scale for Pain(NRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index(ODI) were administered. Comparisons between groups were made with ANOVA, pvalues< 0.05, with Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test were considered significant.Results: A total of 161 participants were included, 50 healthy controls, 59 chronic LBP patients, and 52 subacute LBP patients. Trunk ROM and LM thickness were significantly larger in healthy controls compared to all LBP patients(p < 0.01). A lower LM thickness was found between subacute and chronic LBP patients although not significant(p = 0.11–0.97). All between-group comparisons showed no statistically significant differences in electromyography outcomes (p = 0.10–0.32). NRS showed no significant differences between LBP subgroups(p = 0.21). Chronic LBP patients showed a significant higher ODI score compared to subacute LBP patients(p = 0.03).Conclusions: Trunk ROM and LM thickness show differences between LBP patients and healthy controls.
MULTIFILE
PURPOSE: To compare the responses in knee joint muscle activation patterns to different perturbations during gait in healthy subjects.SCOPE: Nine healthy participants were subjected to perturbed walking on a split-belt treadmill. Four perturbation types were applied, each at five intensities. The activations of seven muscles surrounding the knee were measured using surface EMG. The responses in muscle activation were expressed by calculating mean, peak, co-contraction (CCI) and perturbation responses (PR) values. PR captures the responses relative to unperturbed gait. Statistical parametric mapping analysis was used to compare the muscle activation patterns between conditions.RESULTS: Perturbations evoked only small responses in muscle activation, though higher perturbation intensities yielded a higher mean activation in five muscles, as well as higher PR. Different types of perturbation led to different responses in the rectus femoris, medial gastrocnemius and lateral gastrocnemius. The participants had lower CCI just before perturbation compared to the same phase of unperturbed gait.CONCLUSIONS: Healthy participants respond to different perturbations during gait with small adaptations in their knee joint muscle activation patterns. This study provides insights in how the muscles are activated to stabilize the knee when challenged. Furthermore it could guide future studies in determining aberrant muscle activation in patients with knee disorders.
DOCUMENT
