Matthew Hoyan Tong1, Seyed Javad Mousavi2, Henri Kiers3, Paulo Ferreira2, Kathryn Refshauge2, Jaap van Dieën4. 1. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Research Group, University of Sydney, Faculty of Health Sciences, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: mton7741@uni.sydney.edu.au. 2. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Research Group, University of Sydney, Faculty of Health Sciences, Sydney, Australia. 3. Research Group Lifestyle and Health, Faculty of Health Care, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Faculty of Health Care, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, Department of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the relationship between lumbar proprioception and low back pain (LBP). DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus) and reference lists of relevant articles were searched from inception to March-April 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Studies compared lumbar proprioception in patients with LBP with controls or prospectively evaluated the relationship between proprioception and LBP. Two reviewers independently screened articles and determined inclusion through consensus. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction and methodologic quality assessment were independently performed using standardized checklists. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-two studies (1203 participants) were included. Studies measured lumbar proprioception via active or passive joint repositioning sense (JRS) or threshold to detection of passive motion (TTDPM). Data from 17 studies were pooled for meta-analyses to compare patients with controls. Otherwise, descriptive syntheses were performed. Data were analyzed according to measurement method and LBP subgroup. Active JRS was worse in patients compared with controls when measured in sitting (standard mean difference, .97; 95% confidence interval [CI], .31-1.64). There were no differences between groups measured via active JRS in standing (standard mean difference, .41; 95% CI, -.07 to .89) or passive JRS in sitting (standard mean difference, .38; 95% CI, -.83 to 1.58). Patients in the O'Sullivan flexion impairment subgroup had worse proprioception than the total LBP cohort. The TTDPM was significantly worse in patients than controls. One prospective study found no link between lumbar proprioception and LBP. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LBP have impaired lumbar proprioception compared with controls when measured actively in sitting positions (particularly those in the O'Sullivan flexion impairment subgroup) or via TTDPM. Clinicians should consider the relationship between sitting and proprioception in LBP and subgroup patients to guide management. Further studies focusing on subgroups, longitudinal assessment, and improving proprioception measurement are needed.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the relationship between lumbar proprioception and low back pain (LBP). DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus) and reference lists of relevant articles were searched from inception to March-April 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Studies compared lumbar proprioception in patients with LBP with controls or prospectively evaluated the relationship between proprioception and LBP. Two reviewers independently screened articles and determined inclusion through consensus. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction and methodologic quality assessment were independently performed using standardized checklists. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-two studies (1203 participants) were included. Studies measured lumbar proprioception via active or passive joint repositioning sense (JRS) or threshold to detection of passive motion (TTDPM). Data from 17 studies were pooled for meta-analyses to compare patients with controls. Otherwise, descriptive syntheses were performed. Data were analyzed according to measurement method and LBP subgroup. Active JRS was worse in patients compared with controls when measured in sitting (standard mean difference, .97; 95% confidence interval [CI], .31-1.64). There were no differences between groups measured via active JRS in standing (standard mean difference, .41; 95% CI, -.07 to .89) or passive JRS in sitting (standard mean difference, .38; 95% CI, -.83 to 1.58). Patients in the O'Sullivan flexion impairment subgroup had worse proprioception than the total LBP cohort. The TTDPM was significantly worse in patients than controls. One prospective study found no link between lumbar proprioception and LBP. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with LBP have impaired lumbar proprioception compared with controls when measured actively in sitting positions (particularly those in the O'Sullivan flexion impairment subgroup) or via TTDPM. Clinicians should consider the relationship between sitting and proprioception in LBP and subgroup patients to guide management. Further studies focusing on subgroups, longitudinal assessment, and improving proprioception measurement are needed.
Authors: Alejandro Caña-Pino; Luís Espejo-Antúnez; José Carmelo Adsuar; María Dolores Apolo-Arenas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mónica Grande-Alonso; Daniel Muñoz-García; Ferran Cuenca-Martínez; Laura Delgado-Sanz; María Prieto-Aldana; Roy La Touche; Alfonso Gil-Martínez Journal: PeerJ Date: 2020-03-09 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Simon J Summers; Siobhan M Schabrun; Rogerio P Hirata; Thomas Graven-Nielsen; Rocco Cavaleri; Lucy S Chipchase Journal: Pain Rep Date: 2019-04-02