| Literature DB >> 15760468 |
Nathaly Gaudreault1, A Bertrand Arsenault, Christian Larivière, Sophie J DeSerres, Charles-Hilaire Rivard.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is known that the back muscles of scoliotic subjects present abnormalities in their fiber type composition. Some researchers have hypothesized that abnormal fiber composition can lead to paraspinal muscle dysfunction such as poor neuromuscular efficiency and muscle fatigue. EMG parameters were used to evaluate these impairments. The purpose of the present study was to examine the clinical potential of different EMG parameters such as amplitude (RMS) and median frequency (MF) of the power spectrum in order to assess the back muscles of patients presenting idiopathic scoliosis in terms of their neuromuscular efficiency and their muscular fatigue.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2005 PMID: 15760468 PMCID: PMC1079862 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-6-14
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Figure 1Subject positioned in the triaxial dynamometer with the sign convention of the AMTI force platform. Positive My = extension moment, positive Mx = right lateral bending moment and positive Mz = left axial rotation moment.
Summary of the two way ANOVAs with one repeated measure on the side factor for each muscle investigated for the RMS/force, MF/force, RMS/time and MF/time relationships
| RMS/Force | MF/Force | RMS/Time | MF/Time | ||||||
| F | p | F | p | F | p | F | p | ||
| L5 | Group | 1.00 | 0.39 | 0.66 | 0.53 | 0.04 | 0.96 | 0.50 | 0.62 |
| Side | 1.78 | 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.65 | 0.04 | 0.84 | 0.21 | 0.65 | |
| Group × side | 0.63 | 0.44 | 0.82 | 0.38 | 0.02 | 0.89 | 0.56 | 0.47 | |
| L3 | Group | 1.72 | 0.22 | 1.61 | 0.23 | 0.46 | 0.62 | 4.59 | 0.17 |
| Side | 2.52 | 0.14 | 3.13 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.97 | 8.28 | 0.01* | |
| Group × side | 1.75 | 0.21 | 0.02 | 0.89 | 0.87 | 0.37 | 2.69 | 0.12 | |
| L1 | Group | 0.14 | 0.87 | 0.20 | 0.82 | 0.34 | 0.72 | 0.56 | 0.59 |
| Side | 0.10 | 0.76 | 0.41 | 0.53 | 0.02 | 0.88 | 0.18 | 0.68 | |
| Group × side | 0.10 | 0.75 | 0.01 | 0.91 | 0.56 | 0.47 | 1.08 | 0.32 | |
| T10 | Group | 0.71 | 0.51 | 0.16 | 0.85 | 0.97 | 0.40 | 0.09 | 0.92 |
| Side | 1.15 | 0.30 | 0.11 | 0.75 | 0.11 | 0.75 | 0.13 | 0.73 | |
| 0.61 | 0.45 | 0.12 | 0.73 | 1.95 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.77 | ||
* : Statistically significant
Descriptive statistics for each measure used (slope of a regression line) for a given muscle for both the control (CG, n = 10) and the scoliotic group (SG, n = 6)
| Mucles | Groups | Slope value measures (mean (SD)) | |||
| RMS/Force | MF/Force | RMS/Time | MF/Time | ||
| L5 (L) | SC | 0.80 (0.50) | -0.18 (0.38) | 0.60 (0.46) | -1.04 (0.53) |
| CG | 0.98 (0.53) | -0.24 (0.41) | 0.54 (0.67) | -0.75 (0.82) | |
| L5 (R) | SC | 0.81 (0.48) | -0.21 (0.26) | 0.83 (0.86) | -0.92 (0.92) |
| CG | 0.99 (0,55) | -0.08 (0.59) | 0.59 (0.68) | -1.12 (0.73) | |
| L3 (L) | SC | 0.83 (0.56) | -0.03 (0.33) | 0.54 (0.41) | -0.31 (0.64) |
| CG | 1.29 (0.82) | 0.00 (0.17) | 0.84 (1.28) | -0.28 (0.51) | |
| L3 (R) | SC | 0.67 (0.43) | -0.41 (0.24) | 1.22 (1.17) | -0.70 (0.64) |
| CG | 1.44 (1.42) | -0.10 (0.27) | 0.90 (1.08) | -0.60 (0.57) | |
| L1 (L) | SC | 1.32 (0.81) | 0.07 (0.31) | 0.63 (0.72) | -0.52 (0.37) |
| CG | 1.08 (0.46) | 0.08 (0.19) | 0.72 (1.01) | -0.57 (0.60) | |
| L1 (R) | SC | 1.26 (1.14) | -0.02 (0.22) | 0.63 (0.46) | -0.38 (0.37) |
| CG | 1.18 (0.66) | 0.11 (0.18) | 0.63 (0.74) | -0.48 (0.45) | |
| T10 (L) | SC | 0.68 (0.47) | 0.10 (0.24) | 0.86 (0.56) | -0.49 (0.19) |
| CG | 0.87 (0.37) | 0.16 (0.33) | 0.58 (0.97) | -0.33 (0.38) | |
| T10 (R) | SC | 0.79 (0.64) | 0.04 (0.30) | 0.44 (0.39) | -0.49 (0.48) |
| CG | 0.80 (0.41) | 0.15 (0.22) | 0.51 (0.92) | -0.23 (0.63) | |
R/L: Right/Left; L5: Multifidus muscle; L3: Iliocostalis muscle; L1: Longissimus muscle; T10: Longissimus muscle
Figure 2MF/time relationship for both groups for the left Iliocostalis muscle at the level of L3.
Figure 3MF/time relationship for both groups for the right Iliocostalis muscle at the level of L3.