A pilot study to compare passive lumbar spine re-positioning error in those with chronic low back pain with healthy volunteers

C. Clark, S. Docherty, N. Osborne, A. Khattab
{"title":"A pilot study to compare passive lumbar spine re-positioning error in those with chronic low back pain with healthy volunteers","authors":"C. Clark, S. Docherty, N. Osborne, A. Khattab","doi":"10.1179/1753614614Z.00000000075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Study design Cross-sectional laboratory study. Objective To compare the difference in passive re-positioning accuracy in the frontal plane, as a measure of lumbar kinaesthesis, between participants with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) and healthy volunteers. Background Evidence suggests that spinal kinaesthesis impacting on spinal stability might be compromised in those with CNSLBP. It is suggested that in those with CNSLBP, there may be changes in ligamentous patho-physiology which lead to altered kinaesthetic perception. Methods Fourteen female participants, representing two groups, took part in the study. Participants in group one (n = 7) were those with CNSLBP (mean age 47.1 ± 15.41) and participants in group two (n = 7) were healthy volunteers (mean age 45.6 ± 10.63). There were no significant differences between the groups with regards to age, education, height, weight, hip, and waist circumference and all were right handed. Passive lumbar re-positioning accuracy was measured in the frontal plane using a motorized plinth with the Zebris® ultrasound-based motion analyser and the target positions were 10° left and right lumbar side flexion and neutral. Results The mean reporting error for the neutral position for participants with CNSLBP vs. healthy volunteers was <2.4° and <2.2° on both occasions (P > 0.05), respectively. The mean reporting error in left-side flexion for participants with CNSLBP vs. healthy volunteers was <1.5° and <2.0° on both occasions (P < 0.01; P < 0.05). The mean reporting error in right-side flexion for participants with CNSLBP vs. healthy volunteers was <2.1° and <1.1° on both occasions (P > 0.05). Conclusion There was a statistically significant difference in passive re-positioning accuracy to the left side only between participants with CNSLBP and healthy volunteers. This may represent an important finding in relation to structures that provide sensory information and the integration of that information in those with CNSLBP.","PeriodicalId":88907,"journal":{"name":"International musculoskeletal medicine","volume":"36 1","pages":"104 - 110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1179/1753614614Z.00000000075","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International musculoskeletal medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1179/1753614614Z.00000000075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Study design Cross-sectional laboratory study. Objective To compare the difference in passive re-positioning accuracy in the frontal plane, as a measure of lumbar kinaesthesis, between participants with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) and healthy volunteers. Background Evidence suggests that spinal kinaesthesis impacting on spinal stability might be compromised in those with CNSLBP. It is suggested that in those with CNSLBP, there may be changes in ligamentous patho-physiology which lead to altered kinaesthetic perception. Methods Fourteen female participants, representing two groups, took part in the study. Participants in group one (n = 7) were those with CNSLBP (mean age 47.1 ± 15.41) and participants in group two (n = 7) were healthy volunteers (mean age 45.6 ± 10.63). There were no significant differences between the groups with regards to age, education, height, weight, hip, and waist circumference and all were right handed. Passive lumbar re-positioning accuracy was measured in the frontal plane using a motorized plinth with the Zebris® ultrasound-based motion analyser and the target positions were 10° left and right lumbar side flexion and neutral. Results The mean reporting error for the neutral position for participants with CNSLBP vs. healthy volunteers was <2.4° and <2.2° on both occasions (P > 0.05), respectively. The mean reporting error in left-side flexion for participants with CNSLBP vs. healthy volunteers was <1.5° and <2.0° on both occasions (P < 0.01; P < 0.05). The mean reporting error in right-side flexion for participants with CNSLBP vs. healthy volunteers was <2.1° and <1.1° on both occasions (P > 0.05). Conclusion There was a statistically significant difference in passive re-positioning accuracy to the left side only between participants with CNSLBP and healthy volunteers. This may represent an important finding in relation to structures that provide sensory information and the integration of that information in those with CNSLBP.
一项比较慢性腰痛患者与健康志愿者被动腰椎重新定位错误的初步研究
研究设计横断面实验室研究。目的比较慢性非特异性腰痛(CNSLBP)患者与健康志愿者在额平面被动重新定位准确度(作为腰椎动觉的测量指标)方面的差异。背景证据表明,在CNSLBP患者中,脊柱动觉对脊柱稳定性的影响可能受到损害。这表明,在CNSLBP患者中,可能存在韧带病理生理学的改变,从而导致运动觉的改变。方法选取两组共14名女性受试者。第一组(n = 7)为CNSLBP患者(平均年龄47.1±15.41岁),第二组(n = 7)为健康志愿者(平均年龄45.6±10.63岁)。两组在年龄、教育程度、身高、体重、臀围和腰围方面没有显著差异,而且都是右撇子。使用带有Zebris®超声运动分析仪的电动底座在前平面测量被动腰椎重新定位精度,目标位置为左、右腰椎侧屈10°和中立。结果CNSLBP受试者与健康受试者对中性体位的平均报告误差分别为0.05。与健康志愿者相比,CNSLBP参与者左侧屈曲的平均报告误差为0.05)。结论CNSLBP患者与健康志愿者的被动左侧再定位精度有统计学差异。这可能是一个重要的发现,与提供感觉信息的结构和CNSLBP患者信息的整合有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信