| Literature DB >> 35250793 |
Hongjiang Wang1, Jiaxuan Zheng1, Qiuhua Yu1, Ziyan Fan1, Wai Leung Ambrose Lo1, Le Li2, Chuhuai Wang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lumbar paraspinal muscle (LPM) is important in spinal stabilization in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, the electrical properties of LPM in patients with CLBP remain unclear. Electrical impedance myography (EIM) is a novel and non-invasive technique that provides a simple quantitative evaluation of electrical properties of the LPM.Entities:
Keywords: Oswestry Disability Index; Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire; chronic low back pain; electrical impedance myography; electrical property; lumbar paraspinal muscle
Year: 2022 PMID: 35250793 PMCID: PMC8891446 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.789589
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1(A) Schematic diagram assessing the electrical properties of the lumbar paraspinal muscles using the EIM technique. A female participant was instructed to lie in a relaxed, prone position on the instrumented bed. One pair of current electrodes (red and black) and one pair of voltage electrodes (yellow and blue) were linearly arranged along the surfaces of the right LPM on the muscle belly. (B) Illustration of the positions of the four electrodes, where 1 and 4 are the current electrodes and 2 and 3 are the voltage electrodes. LPM, lumbar paraspinal muscles.
Demographics of subjects in CLBP and HC groups (mean± SD).
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male 3, Female 12 | Male 6, Female 9 | NA | 0.247 |
| Age | 26.53 ± 2.70 | 23.20 ± 2.76 | 3.348 | 0.002 |
| Height | 164.80 ± 6.34 | 164.73 ± 7.30 | 0.027 | 0.979 |
| Weight | 57.10 ± 8.88 | 56.67 ± 10.69 | 0.121 | 0.905 |
| BMI | 20.94 ± 2.27 | 20.72 ± 2.48 | 0.249 | 0.805 |
| VAS | 5.19 ± 1.11 | NA | ||
| ODI | 8.00 ± 4.33 | NA | ||
| RDQ | 3.53 ± 2.53 | NA |
BMI, body mass index; VAS, visual analog scale; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; RDQ, Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire; NA, not application.
chi-square test;
independent sample t-tests.
p-value marked with * means significant difference compared to the control group p < 0.05.
EIM parameters of bilateral LPM in the groups at different frequencies (mean ± SD).
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLBP-left LPM | 37.31 ± 2.70 | 32.11 ± 7.29 | 29.91 ± 7.97 | 28.15 ± 7.22 | |
| HC-left LPM | 32.34 ± 4.28 | 26.62 ± 4.35 | 24.28 ± 4.47 | 22.46 ± 4.55 | |
|
| 0.047 | 0.019 | 0.017 | 0.016 | |
| partial eta2 | 0.139 | 0.188 | 0.195 | 0.195 | |
| CLBP-right LPM | 38.53 ± 9.24 | 33.25 ± 9.03 | 31.03 ± 9.06 | 29.29 ± 9.05 | |
| HC-right LPM | 32.04 ± 4.99 | 26.34 ± 4.94 | 24.01 ± 4.99 | 22.24 ± 5.05 | |
|
| 0.084 | 0.047 | 0.043 | 0.044 | |
| Partial eta2 | 0.107 | 0.138 | 0.143 | 0.142 | |
| CLBP-left LPM | 2.18 ± 0.50 | 4.21 ± 0.58 | 3.90 ± 0.53 | 3.14 ± 0.43 | |
| HC-left LPM | 2.33 ± 0.40 | 4.49 ± 0.58 | 4.07 ± 0.45 | 3.17 ± 0.39 | |
|
| 0.053 | 0.089 | 0.336 | 0.923 | |
| Partial eta2 | 0.131 | 0.103 | 0.034 | 0.000 | |
| CLBP-right LPM | 2.29 ± 0.51 | 4.26 ± 0.72 | 3.91 ± 0.64 | 3.12 ± 0.49 | |
| HC-right LPM | 2.30 ± 0.47 | 4.48 ± 0.44 | 4.03 ± 0.34 | 3.13 ± 0.25 | |
|
| 0.346 | 0.163 | 0.447 | 0.978 | |
| partial eta2 | 0.033 | 0.071 | 0.022 | 0.000 | |
| PA | CLBP-left LPM | 3.39 ± 0.78 | 7.77 ± 1.81 | 7.78 ± 1.90 | 6.70 ± 1.66 |
| HC-left LPM | 4.15 ± 0.76 | 9.86 ± 2.45 | 9.89 ± 2.62 | 8.41 ± 2.41 | |
|
| <0.001 | 0.003 | 0.009 | 0.019 | |
| Partial eta2 | 0.420 | 0.277 | 0.229 | 0.186 | |
| CLBP-right LPM | 3.47 ± 0.77 | 7.72 ± 2.15 | 7.67 ± 2.28 | 6.54 ± 1.94 | |
| HC-right LPM | 4.12 ± 0.70 | 9.99 ± 2.32 | 9.95 ± 2.50 | 8.44 ± 2.27 | |
|
| 0.005 | 0.007 | 0.015 | 0.024 | |
| Partial eta2 | 0.260 | 0.242 | 0.201 | 0.175 | |
| CLBP-left LPM | 37.38 ± 7.43 | 32.40 ± 7.24 | 30.18 ± 7.22 | 28.34 ± 7.19 | |
| HC-left LPM | 32.43 ± 4.28 | 27.02 ± 4.26 | 24.64 ± 4.37 | 22.70 ± 4.48 | |
|
| 0.048 | 0.020 | 0.017 | 0.017 | |
| partial eta2 | 0.139 | 0.183 | 0.192 | 0.194 | |
| CLBP-right LPM | 38.60 ± 9.24 | 33.54 ± 8.97 | 31.30 ± 9.00 | 29.45 ± 9.01 | |
| HC-right LPM | 32.13 ± 4.99 | 26.74 ± 4.85 | 24.36 ± 4.90 | 22.47 ± 4.98 | |
|
| 0.085 | 0.050 | 0.044 | 0.045 | |
| Partial eta2 | 0.106 | 0.135 | 0.141 | 0.141 |
LPM, lumbar paraspinal muscle; X, reactance; R, resistance; PA, phase angle;
p-value marked with * means p < 0.05,
p-value marked with ** means p < 0.01.
Figure 2Impedance parameters from the bilateral lumbar paraspinal muscles of the chronic low back pain and healthy control groups at different current frequencies. At the four different current frequencies: (A) Resistance: mean RCLBP > mean RHC; p < 0.05, except for the right side at 5 kHz (p = 0.084); (B) Reactance: mean XCLBP < mean XHC; p > 0.05; (C) Phase angle: mean PACLBP > mean PAHC; p < 0.05; (D) Z value: mean ZCLBP > mean ZHC; p < 0.05, except for the right side at 5 kHz (p = 0.085). CLBP, chronic low back pain; HCs, healthy controls.
Figure 3Scatter diagrams illustrating the correlation between Oswestry Disability Index score, Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire score, resistance value, and PA of the unilateral lumbar paraspinal muscles in the chronic low back pain group at 50 kHz. (A) ODI score shows a negative correlation with the R value of the left LPM (p < 0.05); (B) ODI score shows a negative correlation with the R value of the right LPM (p < 0.05); (C) RDQ score shows a negative correlation with the R value of the left LPM (p < 0.05); (D) RDQ score shows a negative correlation with the R value of the right LPM (p < 0.05); (E) RDQ score has no significant correlation with the PA of the left LPM (p > 0.05); (F) RDQ score shows a positive correlation with the R value of the right LPM (p < 0.05). ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; R, resistance; LPM, lumbar paraspinal muscles; PA, phase angle.