Christopher J Sorensen1, Barbara J Norton2, Jack P Callaghan3, Ching-Ting Hwang4, Linda R Van Dillen5. 1. Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, 4444 Forest Park Blvd., Campus Box 8502, Saint Louis, MO 63108, USA. Electronic address: sorensenc@wusm.wustl.edu. 2. Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, 4444 Forest Park Blvd., Campus Box 8502, Saint Louis, MO 63108, USA. Electronic address: nortonb@wustl.edu. 3. Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L3G1. Electronic address: jack.callaghan@uwaterloo.ca. 4. Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, 4444 Forest Park Blvd., Campus Box 8502, Saint Louis, MO 63108, USA. Electronic address: hwangch@wusm.wustl.edu. 5. Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, 4444 Forest Park Blvd., Campus Box 8502, Saint Louis, MO 63108, USA. Electronic address: vandillenl@wustl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An induced-pain paradigm has been used in back-healthy people to understand risk factors for developing low back pain during prolonged standing. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to (1) compare baseline lumbar lordosis in back-healthy participants who do (Pain Developers) and do not (Non-Pain Developers) develop low back pain during 2 h of standing, and (2) examine the relationship between lumbar lordosis and low back pain intensity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHOD: First, participants stood while positions of markers placed superficial to the lumbar vertebrae were recorded using a motion capture system. Following collection of marker positions, participants stood for 2 h while performing light work tasks. At baseline and every 15 min during standing, participants rated their low back pain intensity on a visual analog scale. Lumbar lordosis was calculated using marker positions collected prior to the 2 h standing period. Lumbar lordosis was compared between pain developers and non-pain developers. In pain developers, the relationship between lumbar lordosis and maximum pain was examined. RESULTS/ FINDINGS: There were 24 (42%) pain developers and 33 (58%) non-pain developers. Lumbar lordosis was significantly larger in pain developers compared to non-pain developers (Mean difference = 4.4°; 95% Confidence Interval = 0.9° to 7.8°, Cohen's d = 0.7). The correlation coefficient between lumbar lordosis and maximum pain was 0.46 (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that standing in more lumbar lordosis may be a risk factor for low back pain development during prolonged periods of standing. Identifying risk factors for low back pain development can inform preventative and early intervention strategies.
BACKGROUND: An induced-pain paradigm has been used in back-healthy people to understand risk factors for developing low back pain during prolonged standing. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to (1) compare baseline lumbar lordosis in back-healthy participants who do (Pain Developers) and do not (Non-Pain Developers) develop low back pain during 2 h of standing, and (2) examine the relationship between lumbar lordosis and low back pain intensity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHOD: First, participants stood while positions of markers placed superficial to the lumbar vertebrae were recorded using a motion capture system. Following collection of marker positions, participants stood for 2 h while performing light work tasks. At baseline and every 15 min during standing, participants rated their low back pain intensity on a visual analog scale. Lumbar lordosis was calculated using marker positions collected prior to the 2 h standing period. Lumbar lordosis was compared between pain developers and non-pain developers. In pain developers, the relationship between lumbar lordosis and maximum pain was examined. RESULTS/ FINDINGS: There were 24 (42%) pain developers and 33 (58%) non-pain developers. Lumbar lordosis was significantly larger in pain developers compared to non-pain developers (Mean difference = 4.4°; 95% Confidence Interval = 0.9° to 7.8°, Cohen's d = 0.7). The correlation coefficient between lumbar lordosis and maximum pain was 0.46 (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that standing in more lumbar lordosis may be a risk factor for low back pain development during prolonged periods of standing. Identifying risk factors for low back pain development can inform preventative and early intervention strategies.
Authors: Erika Nelson-Wong; Diane E Gregory; David A Winter; Jack P Callaghan Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Steven J Atlas; Radoslaw Wasiak; Melissa van den Ancker; Barbara Webster; Glenn Pransky Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Christopher J Sorensen; Molly B Johnson; Barbara J Norton; Jack P Callaghan; Linda R Van Dillen Journal: Hum Mov Sci Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 2.161
Authors: Andrej V Marich; Ching-Ting Hwang; Gretchen B Salsich; Catherine E Lang; Linda R Van Dillen Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Christian I Weber; Ching-Ting Hwang; Linda R van Dillen; Simon Y Tang Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Suzanne J Snodgrass; Kathleen E Ryan; Andrew Miller; Daphne James; Robin Callister Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: George A Koumantakis; Maria Nikoloudaki; Sara Thacheth; Kalliroi Zagli; Konstantina Bitrou; Andreas Nigritinos; Leon Botton Journal: Adv Orthop Date: 2016-10-23