Brian Swanson, John McCarthy, Elizabeth Clark, Olivia Norman, Olivia Wilson
{"title":"The influence of spine position on measures of lower extremity neural sensitivity.","authors":"Brian Swanson, John McCarthy, Elizabeth Clark, Olivia Norman, Olivia Wilson","doi":"10.1177/10538127251370575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundThe Slump Test evaluates neural tissue mechanosensitivity in individuals with lower extremity symptoms. However, there has been little research assessing the role of altering lumbar spine positioning on sensory response. Therefore, this study compared differences in subjective and objective findings observed in different lumbar spine positions during neurodynamic testing.MethodsHealthy participants were assessed using the 90/90 knee extension (KEA) to determine available ROM, followed by lumbar spine flexed slump (FS), and lumbar spine extended slump (ES). Outcomes included knee extension angle, hamstring EMG activity (%MVIC), distal extent of sensory response, and qualitative mechanosensory response.ResultsForty participants (23.95 ± 2.64 years; 14 male/26 female) completed the study. Significantly less knee extension ROM was found for ES vs. FS (p < .001) and ES vs. KEA (p = .037). A greater proportion of distal symptoms were observed during ES vs. FS (p < .05). FS and ES showed higher EMG values than KEA (p < .001), with no difference between the two slump conditions.ConclusionIn this healthy population, ES produced the greatest distal sensory responses, highest EMG activity, and lowest knee extension ROM. Incorporating lumbar extension during slump testing may be useful to determine mechanosensitive behavior, but further research is needed in clinical populations.The trial was prospectively registered at clinical trials.gov. NCT05313217.</p>","PeriodicalId":15129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"10538127251370575"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10538127251370575","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BackgroundThe Slump Test evaluates neural tissue mechanosensitivity in individuals with lower extremity symptoms. However, there has been little research assessing the role of altering lumbar spine positioning on sensory response. Therefore, this study compared differences in subjective and objective findings observed in different lumbar spine positions during neurodynamic testing.MethodsHealthy participants were assessed using the 90/90 knee extension (KEA) to determine available ROM, followed by lumbar spine flexed slump (FS), and lumbar spine extended slump (ES). Outcomes included knee extension angle, hamstring EMG activity (%MVIC), distal extent of sensory response, and qualitative mechanosensory response.ResultsForty participants (23.95 ± 2.64 years; 14 male/26 female) completed the study. Significantly less knee extension ROM was found for ES vs. FS (p < .001) and ES vs. KEA (p = .037). A greater proportion of distal symptoms were observed during ES vs. FS (p < .05). FS and ES showed higher EMG values than KEA (p < .001), with no difference between the two slump conditions.ConclusionIn this healthy population, ES produced the greatest distal sensory responses, highest EMG activity, and lowest knee extension ROM. Incorporating lumbar extension during slump testing may be useful to determine mechanosensitive behavior, but further research is needed in clinical populations.The trial was prospectively registered at clinical trials.gov. NCT05313217.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation is a journal whose main focus is to present relevant information about the interdisciplinary approach to musculoskeletal rehabilitation for clinicians who treat patients with back and musculoskeletal pain complaints. It will provide readers with both 1) a general fund of knowledge on the assessment and management of specific problems and 2) new information considered to be state-of-the-art in the field. The intended audience is multidisciplinary as well as multi-specialty.
In each issue clinicians can find information which they can use in their patient setting the very next day.