{"title":"动态与一般运动对姿态控制治疗腰痛的效果","authors":"M. Mendoza, MinHyuk Kwon","doi":"10.47544/jhsk.2021.2.1.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mechanical low back pain is brought on by associated factors, such as muscular imbalances, excess muscular stress, and improper posture. Proper posture is vital for treating low back pain because of its unloading effects on the spine. Thus, the purpose of this critiqued article is to explore which is an effective and functional exercise that can be done at any time for posture. Thirty adults (20-30 years old, 14 males and 16 females) with chronic as opposed to acute or surgery, mechanical low back pain were splitted into Dynamic Sitting Exercise (DSE) and Spinal Extension Exercise (SEE). DSE subject is unloading the spine using the arms while sitting in an upright position. SEE subject is laying prone in elbow position doing a press up with straight arms. Testing was conducted 3 days per week for 6 weeks. Back pain was measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), lumbar mobility by Modified-Modified Schober Test (MMST), and quality of life through subject self-reporting using the (SF-36) health survey before and after the examination. Data were analyzed using paired t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test. A greater improvement has been shown in pain (VAS; z = 3.81, p < .05) with DSE in comparison to SEE. Greater lumbar mobility (MMST; z = 1.99, p < 0.05) increase with DSE in comparison to SEE. A higher quality of life (SF-36; z = 4.16, p < 0.05) with DSE in comparison to SEE was reported. Overall, the DSE proved more effective (see Table 1). DSE works better because of its decompressing action unloading the disc in the spine without straining the lumbar muscles through excess abdominal activation compared to SEE. 6 weeks of DSE training is more efficient for adults with mechanical low back pain compared to SEE. DSE relieves more pressure off the mechanoreceptors leading to greater reduction in pain while also increasing blood flow to the lumbar muscles. The study demonstrates the efficiency advantage of DSE in comparison to SEE with their improvements in pain, lumbar mobility, and quality of life. Defining comparisons were made between the two methods allowing us to understand DSE’s decompression effect on intervertebral disc as opposed to SEE’s strain on lumbar muscles. The results can be interpreted and used by anyone with mechanical low back pain so they may implement the DSE routine into their daily life. The only limitations include self-reporting quality of life with SF-36 survey and sample size. Adding a different means of measuring quality of life and larger sample size (100+) would improve experiment for a follow up study.","PeriodicalId":16025,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health, Sports, and Kinesiology","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Efficiency of Dynamic vs. General Exercise for Posture Control Dealing with Low Back Pain\",\"authors\":\"M. Mendoza, MinHyuk Kwon\",\"doi\":\"10.47544/jhsk.2021.2.1.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Mechanical low back pain is brought on by associated factors, such as muscular imbalances, excess muscular stress, and improper posture. Proper posture is vital for treating low back pain because of its unloading effects on the spine. Thus, the purpose of this critiqued article is to explore which is an effective and functional exercise that can be done at any time for posture. Thirty adults (20-30 years old, 14 males and 16 females) with chronic as opposed to acute or surgery, mechanical low back pain were splitted into Dynamic Sitting Exercise (DSE) and Spinal Extension Exercise (SEE). DSE subject is unloading the spine using the arms while sitting in an upright position. SEE subject is laying prone in elbow position doing a press up with straight arms. Testing was conducted 3 days per week for 6 weeks. Back pain was measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), lumbar mobility by Modified-Modified Schober Test (MMST), and quality of life through subject self-reporting using the (SF-36) health survey before and after the examination. Data were analyzed using paired t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test. A greater improvement has been shown in pain (VAS; z = 3.81, p < .05) with DSE in comparison to SEE. Greater lumbar mobility (MMST; z = 1.99, p < 0.05) increase with DSE in comparison to SEE. A higher quality of life (SF-36; z = 4.16, p < 0.05) with DSE in comparison to SEE was reported. Overall, the DSE proved more effective (see Table 1). DSE works better because of its decompressing action unloading the disc in the spine without straining the lumbar muscles through excess abdominal activation compared to SEE. 6 weeks of DSE training is more efficient for adults with mechanical low back pain compared to SEE. DSE relieves more pressure off the mechanoreceptors leading to greater reduction in pain while also increasing blood flow to the lumbar muscles. The study demonstrates the efficiency advantage of DSE in comparison to SEE with their improvements in pain, lumbar mobility, and quality of life. Defining comparisons were made between the two methods allowing us to understand DSE’s decompression effect on intervertebral disc as opposed to SEE’s strain on lumbar muscles. The results can be interpreted and used by anyone with mechanical low back pain so they may implement the DSE routine into their daily life. The only limitations include self-reporting quality of life with SF-36 survey and sample size. Adding a different means of measuring quality of life and larger sample size (100+) would improve experiment for a follow up study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health, Sports, and Kinesiology\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health, Sports, and Kinesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47544/jhsk.2021.2.1.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health, Sports, and Kinesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47544/jhsk.2021.2.1.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
机械性腰痛是由相关因素引起的,如肌肉不平衡、肌肉过度紧张和姿势不当。正确的姿势对于治疗腰痛是至关重要的,因为它对脊柱有卸载作用。因此,这篇评论文章的目的是探讨哪一种有效的、功能性的锻炼可以在任何时候进行。30名成年人(20-30岁,14名男性,16名女性)患有慢性而不是急性或手术,机械性腰痛,分为动态坐姿运动(DSE)和脊柱伸展运动(SEE)。DSE受试者正以直立坐姿用手臂卸载脊柱。SEE受试者俯卧,肘位,伸直手臂做俯卧撑。试验每周进行3天,持续6周。采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)测量背痛,采用修正-修正肖伯测验(MMST)测量腰椎活动度,并在检查前后采用(SF-36)健康调查自我报告受试者的生活质量。数据分析采用配对t检验和Mann-Whitney u检验。疼痛(VAS;z = 3.81, p < 0.05)。大腰椎活动度(MMST);z = 1.99, p < 0.05)与SEE相比,随着DSE的增加而增加。更高的生活质量(SF-36;z = 4.16, p < 0.05)。总体而言,DSE被证明更有效(见表1)。与see相比,DSE的减压作用更好,因为它可以卸载脊柱中的椎间盘,而不会因腹部过度激活而使腰肌紧张。与SEE相比,6周的DSE训练对机械性腰痛的成年人更有效。DSE减轻了机械感受器的压力,从而更大程度地减轻了疼痛,同时也增加了腰肌肉的血流量。该研究表明,与SEE相比,DSE在疼痛、腰椎活动和生活质量方面具有效率优势。在两种方法之间进行了明确的比较,使我们能够了解DSE对椎间盘的减压作用,而不是SEE对腰肌的压力。结果可以被任何机械性腰痛患者解释和使用,这样他们就可以在日常生活中实施DSE。唯一的限制包括SF-36调查的自我报告生活质量和样本量。增加不同的生活质量测量方法和更大的样本量(100+)将改善后续研究的实验。
The Efficiency of Dynamic vs. General Exercise for Posture Control Dealing with Low Back Pain
Mechanical low back pain is brought on by associated factors, such as muscular imbalances, excess muscular stress, and improper posture. Proper posture is vital for treating low back pain because of its unloading effects on the spine. Thus, the purpose of this critiqued article is to explore which is an effective and functional exercise that can be done at any time for posture. Thirty adults (20-30 years old, 14 males and 16 females) with chronic as opposed to acute or surgery, mechanical low back pain were splitted into Dynamic Sitting Exercise (DSE) and Spinal Extension Exercise (SEE). DSE subject is unloading the spine using the arms while sitting in an upright position. SEE subject is laying prone in elbow position doing a press up with straight arms. Testing was conducted 3 days per week for 6 weeks. Back pain was measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), lumbar mobility by Modified-Modified Schober Test (MMST), and quality of life through subject self-reporting using the (SF-36) health survey before and after the examination. Data were analyzed using paired t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test. A greater improvement has been shown in pain (VAS; z = 3.81, p < .05) with DSE in comparison to SEE. Greater lumbar mobility (MMST; z = 1.99, p < 0.05) increase with DSE in comparison to SEE. A higher quality of life (SF-36; z = 4.16, p < 0.05) with DSE in comparison to SEE was reported. Overall, the DSE proved more effective (see Table 1). DSE works better because of its decompressing action unloading the disc in the spine without straining the lumbar muscles through excess abdominal activation compared to SEE. 6 weeks of DSE training is more efficient for adults with mechanical low back pain compared to SEE. DSE relieves more pressure off the mechanoreceptors leading to greater reduction in pain while also increasing blood flow to the lumbar muscles. The study demonstrates the efficiency advantage of DSE in comparison to SEE with their improvements in pain, lumbar mobility, and quality of life. Defining comparisons were made between the two methods allowing us to understand DSE’s decompression effect on intervertebral disc as opposed to SEE’s strain on lumbar muscles. The results can be interpreted and used by anyone with mechanical low back pain so they may implement the DSE routine into their daily life. The only limitations include self-reporting quality of life with SF-36 survey and sample size. Adding a different means of measuring quality of life and larger sample size (100+) would improve experiment for a follow up study.