Yves Henchoz1, Nicola Soldini2, Nicolas Peyrot3, Davide Malatesta4,5. 1. Service of Rheumatology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. Institute of Sport Sciences of the University of Lausanne (UNIL-ISSUL), Bâtiment Géopolis, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. University of La Réunion, UFR SHE, CURAPS-DIMPS, Le Tampon, La Réunion, France. 4. Institute of Sport Sciences of the University of Lausanne (UNIL-ISSUL), Bâtiment Géopolis, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland. davide.malatesta@unil.ch. 5. Department of Physiology, Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. davide.malatesta@unil.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Walking in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) is characterized by motor control adaptations as a protective strategy against further injury or pain. The purpose of this study was to compare the preferred walking speed, the biomechanical and the energetic parameters of walking at different speeds between patients with cLBP and healthy men individually matched for age, body mass and height. METHODS: Energy cost of walking was assessed with a breath-by-breath gas analyser; mechanical and spatiotemporal parameters of walking were computed using two inertial sensors equipped with a triaxial accelerometer and gyroscope and compared in 13 men with cLBP and 13 control men (CTR) during treadmill walking at standard (0.83, 1.11, 1.38, 1.67 m s(-1)) and preferred (PWS) speeds. Low back pain intensity (visual analogue scale, cLBP only) and perceived exertion (Borg scale) were assessed at each walking speed. RESULTS: PWS was slower in cLBP [1.17 (SD = 0.13) m s(-1)] than in CTR group [1.33 (SD = 0.11) m s(-1); P = 0.002]. No significant difference was observed between groups in mechanical work (P ≥ 0.44), spatiotemporal parameters (P ≥ 0.16) and energy cost of walking (P ≥ 0.36). At the end of the treadmill protocol, perceived exertion was significantly higher in cLBP [11.7 (SD = 2.4)] than in CTR group [9.9 (SD = 1.1); P = 0.01]. Pain intensity did not significantly increase over time (P = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support the hypothesis of a less efficient walking pattern in patients with cLBP and imply that high walking speeds are well tolerated by patients with moderately disabling cLBP.
PURPOSE: Walking in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) is characterized by motor control adaptations as a protective strategy against further injury or pain. The purpose of this study was to compare the preferred walking speed, the biomechanical and the energetic parameters of walking at different speeds between patients with cLBP and healthy men individually matched for age, body mass and height. METHODS: Energy cost of walking was assessed with a breath-by-breath gas analyser; mechanical and spatiotemporal parameters of walking were computed using two inertial sensors equipped with a triaxial accelerometer and gyroscope and compared in 13 men with cLBP and 13 control men (CTR) during treadmill walking at standard (0.83, 1.11, 1.38, 1.67 m s(-1)) and preferred (PWS) speeds. Low back pain intensity (visual analogue scale, cLBP only) and perceived exertion (Borg scale) were assessed at each walking speed. RESULTS:PWS was slower in cLBP [1.17 (SD = 0.13) m s(-1)] than in CTR group [1.33 (SD = 0.11) m s(-1); P = 0.002]. No significant difference was observed between groups in mechanical work (P ≥ 0.44), spatiotemporal parameters (P ≥ 0.16) and energy cost of walking (P ≥ 0.36). At the end of the treadmill protocol, perceived exertion was significantly higher in cLBP [11.7 (SD = 2.4)] than in CTR group [9.9 (SD = 1.1); P = 0.01]. Pain intensity did not significantly increase over time (P = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support the hypothesis of a less efficient walking pattern in patients with cLBP and imply that high walking speeds are well tolerated by patients with moderately disabling cLBP.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomechanics; Gait; Human locomotion; Inverted pendulum; Pain
Authors: Marije van der Hulst; Miriam M Vollenbroek-Hutten; Johan S Rietman; Leendert Schaake; Karin G Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Hermanus J Hermens Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Jack Crosbie; Ruben de Faria Negrão Filho; Dafne Port Nascimento; Paulo Ferreira Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Christian Larivière; Rubens A DA Silva; A Bertrand Arsenault; Sylvie Nadeau; André Plamondon; Roger Vadeboncoeur Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Eleanor M Simonsick; Benjamin Aronson; Jennifer A Schrack; Gregory E Hicks; Gerald J Jerome; Kushang V Patel; Stephanie A Studenski; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jo Armour Smith; Heidi Stabbert; Jennifer J Bagwell; Hsiang-Ling Teng; Vernie Wade; Szu-Ping Lee Journal: J Sport Health Sci Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 13.077