Sharon M H Tsang1, Billy C L So1, Rufina W L Lau1, Jie Dai1, Grace P Y Szeto2. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, SAR, China. 2. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, SAR, China. grace.szeto@polyu.edu.hk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study compared the effects of "Ergomotor" intervention and conventional physiotherapy, on influencing the motor control in the neck-shoulder region in people with work-related neck-shoulder pain (WRNSP). METHODS:101 patients (age range 20-54 years) diagnosed with chronic WRNSP were randomized into control (CO) group (n = 50) and Ergomotor (EM) group (n = 51). Each group received a 12-week intervention. Participants in CO group received treatment for pain relief and general exercises. EM group received individualized motor control training and advice of ergonomic modifications at their workplaces. RESULTS: At post-intervention, EM group showed significant reduction of bilateral upper trapezius muscle activity during active neck movements (left: 40-35%, right: 35-27%) and functional tasks such as lifting a weight forward-backward (left: 31-21%, right: 22-14%) and upward-downward (left: 26-23%, right: 20-13%). Cervical erector spinae also showed significant decrease in muscle activity during some phases of the functional tasks (left: 13-6%, right: 10-2%). In contrast, CO group did not show such changes in muscle activity at post-intervention. EM group also showed significant increase in movement velocity and acceleration during active neck movements in all directions (from 18 to 31%), while CO group only showed significant increase in movement velocity in some directions. Both groups reported significant but similar reduction in pain scores, at post-intervention and 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The present results provided some evidence to support the positive and sustainable benefits of integrating motor control training into the workplace postures and motions.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This study compared the effects of "Ergomotor" intervention and conventional physiotherapy, on influencing the motor control in the neck-shoulder region in people with work-related neck-shoulder pain (WRNSP). METHODS: 101 patients (age range 20-54 years) diagnosed with chronic WRNSP were randomized into control (CO) group (n = 50) and Ergomotor (EM) group (n = 51). Each group received a 12-week intervention. Participants in CO group received treatment for pain relief and general exercises. EM group received individualized motor control training and advice of ergonomic modifications at their workplaces. RESULTS: At post-intervention, EM group showed significant reduction of bilateral upper trapezius muscle activity during active neck movements (left: 40-35%, right: 35-27%) and functional tasks such as lifting a weight forward-backward (left: 31-21%, right: 22-14%) and upward-downward (left: 26-23%, right: 20-13%). Cervical erector spinae also showed significant decrease in muscle activity during some phases of the functional tasks (left: 13-6%, right: 10-2%). In contrast, CO group did not show such changes in muscle activity at post-intervention. EM group also showed significant increase in movement velocity and acceleration during active neck movements in all directions (from 18 to 31%), while CO group only showed significant increase in movement velocity in some directions. Both groups reported significant but similar reduction in pain scores, at post-intervention and 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The present results provided some evidence to support the positive and sustainable benefits of integrating motor control training into the workplace postures and motions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Electromyography; Ergonomics; Kinematics; Motor control; Neck pain
Authors: Anne Katrine Blangsted; Karen Søgaard; Ernst A Hansen; Harald Hannerz; Gisela Sjøgaard Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Eric L Hurwitz; Eugene J Carragee; Gabrielle van der Velde; Linda J Carroll; Margareta Nordin; Jaime Guzman; Paul M Peloso; Lena W Holm; Pierre Côté; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; J David Cassidy; Scott Haldeman Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Lars L Andersen; Karl Bang Christensen; Andreas Holtermann; Otto M Poulsen; Gisela Sjøgaard; Mogens T Pedersen; Ernst A Hansen Journal: Man Ther Date: 2009-08-29
Authors: D Van Eerd; C Munhall; E Irvin; D Rempel; S Brewer; A J van der Beek; J T Dennerlein; J Tullar; K Skivington; C Pinion; B Amick Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2015-11-08 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Sol Patricia Beltran Picón; Gabriel de Amorim Batista; Ana Carolina Rodarti Pitangui; Rodrigo Cappato de Araújo Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2020-10-02
Authors: Billy C L So; Grace P Y Szeto; Rufina W L Lau; Jie Dai; Sharon M H Tsang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Samuel Fernández-Carnero; Alejandro Garrido-Marín; Alexander Achalandabaso-Ochoa; Alejandro Ferragut-Garcías; Rubén Fernández-Matías; Daniel Pecos-Martín; Tomás Gallego-Izquierdo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 3.390