| Literature DB >> 35428169 |
Le Ge1, Huanjie Huang1, Qiuhua Yu1, Yan Li1, Xin Li1, Zhicheng Li1, Xi Chen2, Le Li3, Chuhuai Wang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated that elderly people with low back pain (LBP) may have poor postural control compared to healthy older adults. Poor postural control is associated with poor balance performance and a high risk of serious falls. A variety of training strategies are proposed for LBP therapy, particularly core stabilization training. But this treatment for older people with LBP remains unclear.Entities:
Keywords: Core stability exercise; Exercise; Low back pain; Older women
Year: 2022 PMID: 35428169 PMCID: PMC9011968 DOI: 10.1186/s11556-022-00289-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Rev Aging Phys Act ISSN: 1813-7253 Impact factor: 6.650
Fig. 1Flowchart showing participate screening and the experimental protocol
Fig. 2TrA ultrasound image
Fig. 3FSST test image
Fig. 4Image of training. Core stabilization exercises: (A). crawl position exercise, (B). the quadruped exercise with yoga blocks, (C). abdomen exercise with swiss ball in supine position (D). abdomen exercise with resistance band in supine position
Demographic characteristics of the two groups
| Characteristic | TG ( | CG ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 64.60 (3.71) | 64.12 (2.96) | 0.39 | 0.69 | |
| Sex | Female | Female | – | – | |
| Hand dominance | Right | Right | – | – | |
| Height (m) | 1.58 (4.63) | 1.57 (3.29) | 0.69 | 0.49 | |
| Weight (kg) | 58.40 (5.06) | 56.06 (3.15) | 1.553 | 0.13 | |
| MMSE | 28.93 (0.96) | 29.06 (0.85) | −0.39 | 0.69 | |
| MoCA | 26.66 (0.72) | 26.81 (0.83) | −0.51 | 0.60 | |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 23.34 (1.37) | 22.72 (1.20) | 1.337 | 0.19 | |
| Pain duration (years) | 8.40 (3.37) | 7.81 (3.05) | 0.50 | 0.61 | |
| Academic level | Primary education (0-7 years) | 2 (13.33) | 0 | – | 0.28 |
| Secondary education (8-15 years) | 10 (66.67) | 11 (73.33) | – | ||
| Tertiary education (≥16 years) | 3 (20) | 5 (29.41) | – | ||
The categorical variables are expressed as n (%), and the continuous variable are expressed as the mean (standard deviations). kg kilogram, m meter, MMSE Mini-Mental State Examination, MoCA Montreal Cognitive Assessment, VAS visual analog scale, ODI Oswestry disability index, CG control group, TG core stability training group.
Fig. 5Presents a Pre- and Post-intervention-related change in all outcome measures
Outcome variables pre- and post-interventions for two groups
| Items | TG | CG | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome variables | Pre | post | Pre | post |
| TrA | 2.64 (0.54) | 2.82 (0.51) | 2.61 (0.64) | 2.58 (0.59) |
| VAS | 5.80 (0.94) | 3.80 (1.35) | 6.00 (0.89) | 5.5 (0.63) |
| ODI | 34.0 (7.78) | 21.72 (8.84) | 32.00 (9.43) | 29.37 (8.66) |
| TUG | 11.09 (0.89) | 9.24 (0.90) | 11.20 (0.76) | 11.09 (1.17) |
| 10 M-WT | 11.16 (1.24) | 9.89 (0.85) | 11.15 (0.69) | 10.95 (1.03) |
| FSST | 10.24 (0.86) | 9.11 (1.09) | 10.16 (1.45) | 10.67 (1.08) |
VAS visual analog scale, ODI Oswestry disability index, CG control group, TG core stability training, TUG timed up-and-go, 10 M-WT 10-m walking test, FSST four-square step test, TrA transverse abdominal muscle.
Associations between the change of TrA thickness and the change of dynamic balance scores from pre- and post-interventions for two groups
| TUG | 10 M-WT | FSST | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TrA thickness | Core training group | 0.165 | 0.085 | 0.079 | |
| 0.557 | 0.764 | 0.780 | |||
| Control group | 0.091 | 0.242 | 0.361 | ||
| 0.737 | 0.366 | 0.369 | |||