Literature DB >> 11725237

Spine loading characteristics of patients with low back pain compared with asymptomatic individuals.

W S Marras1, K G Davis, S A Ferguson, B R Lucas, P Gupta.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Patients with low back pain and asymptomatic individuals were evaluated while performing controlled and free-dynamic lifting tasks in a laboratory setting.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how low back pain influences spine loading during lifting tasks. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An important, yet unresolved, issue associated with low back pain is whether patients with low back pain experience spine loading that differs from that of individuals who are asymptomatic for low back pain. This is important to understand because excessive spine loading is suspected of accelerating disc degeneration in those whose spines are damaged already.
METHODS: In this study, 22 patients with low back pain and 22 asymptomatic individuals performed controlled and free-dynamic exertions. Trunk muscle activity, trunk kinematics, and trunk kinetics were used to evaluate three- dimensional spine loading using an electromyography- assisted model in conjunction with a new electromyographic calibration procedure.
RESULTS: Patients with low back pain experienced 26% greater spine compression and 75% greater lateral shear (normalized to moment) than the asymptomatic group during the controlled exertions. The increased spine loading resulted from muscle coactivation. When permitted to move freely, the patients with low back pain compensated kinematically in an attempt to minimize external moment exposure. Increased muscle coactivation and greater body mass resulted in significantly increased absolute spine loading for the patients with low back pain, especially when lifting from low vertical heights.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest a significant mechanical spine loading cost is associated with low back pain resulting from trunk muscle coactivation. This loading is further exacerbated by the increases in body weight that often accompany low back pain. Patient weight control and proper workplace design can minimize the additional spine loading associated with low back pain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11725237     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200112010-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  38 in total

1.  Timing and magnitude of lumbar spine contribution to trunk forward bending and backward return in patients with acute low back pain.

Authors:  Iman Shojaei; Milad Vazirian; Elizabeth G Salt; Linda R Van Dillen; Babak Bazrgari
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2017-01-04       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Trunk muscular activation patterns and responses to transient force perturbation in persons with self-reported low back pain.

Authors:  Ian A F Stokes; James R Fox; Sharon M Henry
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-05-20       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Mechanical demands on the lower back in patients with non-chronic low back pain during a symmetric lowering and lifting task.

Authors:  Iman Shojaei; Elizabeth G Salt; Quenten Hooker; Babak Bazrgari
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 4.  The vertebral fracture cascade in osteoporosis: a review of aetiopathogenesis.

Authors:  A M Briggs; A M Greig; J D Wark
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-01-06       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  The use of non-amplitude components of the myoelectric signal in identifying differences in function between the low back injured and controls.

Authors:  Gregory J Lehman
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2004-09

6.  Gain of postural responses increases in response to real and anticipated pain.

Authors:  Paul W Hodges; Henry Tsao; Kevin Sims
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Effects of shear force on intervertebral disc: an in vivo rabbit study.

Authors:  Dong-Dong Xia; Sheng-Lei Lin; Xiang-Yang Wang; Yong-Li Wang; Hong-Ming Xu; Feng Zhou; Jun Tan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Direct measurement of intervertebral disc maximum shear strain in six degrees of freedom: motions that place disc tissue at risk of injury.

Authors:  J J Costi; I A Stokes; M Gardner-Morse; J P Laible; H M Scoffone; J C Iatridis
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2007-01-02       Impact factor: 2.712

9.  Changes of lumbar posture and tissue loading during static trunk bending.

Authors:  Faisal Alessa; Xiaopeng Ning
Journal:  Hum Mov Sci       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 2.161

10.  Improvement in automatic postural coordination following alexander technique lessons in a person with low back pain.

Authors:  Timothy W Cacciatore; Fay B Horak; Sharon M Henry
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2005-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.