Ruth Chang, Anne Smith, Peter Kent, Peter O'Sullivan, Mark Hancock, Amity Campbell
{"title":"如何评估运动很重要认知功能疗法治疗慢性腰痛患者期间前屈的变化。","authors":"Ruth Chang, Anne Smith, Peter Kent, Peter O'Sullivan, Mark Hancock, Amity Campbell","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2023.12023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> To investigate forward bending range of motion (ROM) and velocity in patients with low back pain who were receiving Cognitive Functional Therapy and determine (1) the amount and timing of change occurring at the trunk and pelvis (global angles), and lumbar spine (intersensor angle), and (2a) differences in changes between participants with and without sensor biofeedback, and (2b) participants with and without baseline movement limitation. <b>DESIGN:</b> Observational study. <b>METHODS:</b> Two hundred sixty-one participants attended Cognitive Functional Therapy treatment and wore sensors at the T12 and S2 spine levels while performing forward bending. Measures included ROM and velocity from both sensors, and the intersensor angle. Regression models estimated changes over time. Time-group interactions tested participants who were subgrouped by treatment and baseline movement. <b>RESULTS:</b> During the 90-day evaluation period, most change occurred in the first 21 days. Changes in ROM observed at T12 (3.3°, 95% CI: 1.0°, 5.5°; <i>P</i> = .001) and S2 (3.3°, 95% CI: 1.2°, 5.4°; <i>P</i> = .002) were similar. Intersensor angle remained similar (0.2°, 95% CI: -2.0°, -1.6°; <i>P</i> = .81). Velocity measured at T12 and S2, and the intersensor angle increased 8.5°/s (95% CI: 6.7°/s, 10.3°/s; <i>P</i><.0001), 5.3°/s (95% CI: 4.0°/s, 6.5°/s; <i>P</i><.0001), and 3.4°/s (95% CI: 2.4°/s, 4.5°/s; <i>P</i><.0001), respectively, for 0 to 21 days. There were minimal differences in participants who received biofeedback. Larger increases occurred in participants with restricted ROM and slower velocity at baseline. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> During 0 to 21 days, we observed changes at the trunk and pelvis (especially in people with reduced ROM), and velocity changes across all measures (especially in people with baseline movement limitations). Biofeedback did not augment the changes. When targeting forward bending in people with low back pain, clinicians should monitor changes in velocity and global ROM. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(3):1-13. Epub 19 December 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12023</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"209-221"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Movement Is Assessed Matters. Changes in Forward Bending During Cognitive Functional Therapy Treatment for People With Chronic Low Back Pain.\",\"authors\":\"Ruth Chang, Anne Smith, Peter Kent, Peter O'Sullivan, Mark Hancock, Amity Campbell\",\"doi\":\"10.2519/jospt.2023.12023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> To investigate forward bending range of motion (ROM) and velocity in patients with low back pain who were receiving Cognitive Functional Therapy and determine (1) the amount and timing of change occurring at the trunk and pelvis (global angles), and lumbar spine (intersensor angle), and (2a) differences in changes between participants with and without sensor biofeedback, and (2b) participants with and without baseline movement limitation. <b>DESIGN:</b> Observational study. <b>METHODS:</b> Two hundred sixty-one participants attended Cognitive Functional Therapy treatment and wore sensors at the T12 and S2 spine levels while performing forward bending. Measures included ROM and velocity from both sensors, and the intersensor angle. Regression models estimated changes over time. Time-group interactions tested participants who were subgrouped by treatment and baseline movement. <b>RESULTS:</b> During the 90-day evaluation period, most change occurred in the first 21 days. Changes in ROM observed at T12 (3.3°, 95% CI: 1.0°, 5.5°; <i>P</i> = .001) and S2 (3.3°, 95% CI: 1.2°, 5.4°; <i>P</i> = .002) were similar. Intersensor angle remained similar (0.2°, 95% CI: -2.0°, -1.6°; <i>P</i> = .81). Velocity measured at T12 and S2, and the intersensor angle increased 8.5°/s (95% CI: 6.7°/s, 10.3°/s; <i>P</i><.0001), 5.3°/s (95% CI: 4.0°/s, 6.5°/s; <i>P</i><.0001), and 3.4°/s (95% CI: 2.4°/s, 4.5°/s; <i>P</i><.0001), respectively, for 0 to 21 days. There were minimal differences in participants who received biofeedback. Larger increases occurred in participants with restricted ROM and slower velocity at baseline. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> During 0 to 21 days, we observed changes at the trunk and pelvis (especially in people with reduced ROM), and velocity changes across all measures (especially in people with baseline movement limitations). Biofeedback did not augment the changes. When targeting forward bending in people with low back pain, clinicians should monitor changes in velocity and global ROM. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(3):1-13. Epub 19 December 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12023</i>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50099,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"209-221\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2023.12023\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2023.12023","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:调查正在接受认知功能疗法(CFT)的腰背痛(LBP)患者的前屈运动范围(ROM)和速度,并确定:(1)躯干和骨盆(全局角度)以及腰椎(传感器间角度)发生变化的程度和时间;(2a)有传感器生物反馈和无传感器生物反馈的参与者之间的变化差异;(2b)有基线运动限制和无基线运动限制的参与者之间的变化差异。设计:观察性研究。方法:261 名参与者参加了 CFT 治疗,并在进行前屈运动时在 T12 和 S2 脊柱佩戴了传感器。测量指标包括两个传感器的 ROM 和速度,以及传感器间的角度。回归模型估计了随时间的变化。时间组交互作用测试了按治疗和基线运动进行分组的参与者。结果:在 90 天的评估期间,大部分变化发生在前 21 天。在 T12(3.3°,95%CI:1.0°-5.5°,p=.001)和 S2(3.3°,95%CI:1.2°-5.4°,p=.002)处观察到的 ROM 变化相似。传感器间角度仍然相似(0.2°,95%CI:-2.0°-1.6°,p=.81)。在 T12、S2 处测量的速度和传感器间角度增加了 8.5°/秒(95%CI:6.7-10.3°/秒,p=00)。生物反馈没有增强这些变化。在针对腰背痛患者进行前屈训练时,临床医生应监测速度和整体 ROM 的变化。
How Movement Is Assessed Matters. Changes in Forward Bending During Cognitive Functional Therapy Treatment for People With Chronic Low Back Pain.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate forward bending range of motion (ROM) and velocity in patients with low back pain who were receiving Cognitive Functional Therapy and determine (1) the amount and timing of change occurring at the trunk and pelvis (global angles), and lumbar spine (intersensor angle), and (2a) differences in changes between participants with and without sensor biofeedback, and (2b) participants with and without baseline movement limitation. DESIGN: Observational study. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-one participants attended Cognitive Functional Therapy treatment and wore sensors at the T12 and S2 spine levels while performing forward bending. Measures included ROM and velocity from both sensors, and the intersensor angle. Regression models estimated changes over time. Time-group interactions tested participants who were subgrouped by treatment and baseline movement. RESULTS: During the 90-day evaluation period, most change occurred in the first 21 days. Changes in ROM observed at T12 (3.3°, 95% CI: 1.0°, 5.5°; P = .001) and S2 (3.3°, 95% CI: 1.2°, 5.4°; P = .002) were similar. Intersensor angle remained similar (0.2°, 95% CI: -2.0°, -1.6°; P = .81). Velocity measured at T12 and S2, and the intersensor angle increased 8.5°/s (95% CI: 6.7°/s, 10.3°/s; P<.0001), 5.3°/s (95% CI: 4.0°/s, 6.5°/s; P<.0001), and 3.4°/s (95% CI: 2.4°/s, 4.5°/s; P<.0001), respectively, for 0 to 21 days. There were minimal differences in participants who received biofeedback. Larger increases occurred in participants with restricted ROM and slower velocity at baseline. CONCLUSION: During 0 to 21 days, we observed changes at the trunk and pelvis (especially in people with reduced ROM), and velocity changes across all measures (especially in people with baseline movement limitations). Biofeedback did not augment the changes. When targeting forward bending in people with low back pain, clinicians should monitor changes in velocity and global ROM. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(3):1-13. Epub 19 December 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12023.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy® (JOSPT®) publishes scientifically rigorous, clinically relevant content for physical therapists and others in the health care community to advance musculoskeletal and sports-related practice globally. To this end, JOSPT features the latest evidence-based research and clinical cases in musculoskeletal health, injury, and rehabilitation, including physical therapy, orthopaedics, sports medicine, and biomechanics.
With an impact factor of 3.090, JOSPT is among the highest ranked physical therapy journals in Clarivate Analytics''s Journal Citation Reports, Science Edition (2017). JOSPT stands eighth of 65 journals in the category of rehabilitation, twelfth of 77 journals in orthopedics, and fourteenth of 81 journals in sport sciences. JOSPT''s 5-year impact factor is 4.061.