The present results provided evidence that only GE increased right and left rectus muscle thickness. The only significant difference between CSE and GE groups was the right rectus thickness. As rectus is a global muscle, the effect of GE on strength improvement (one side stronger than the other) may have a negative effect on motor control of lumbopelvic muscles and possibly increase the risk of back pain occurring or becoming worse, though this was not observed in the present study.
It is a matter of controversy whether core stability exercise is preferred to other types of exercise for chronic low back pain. Lumbopelvic stability is an important element in low back pain. No study was found using lumbopelvic stability tests in comparing core stability and other exercises. The single leg squat, dip test, and runner pose test appear to be suitable as tests for lumbopelvic stability. The aim of this study was to compare "core stability" and "traditional trunk exercise" using these tests and also the Oswestry disability questionnaire and pain intensity. Twenty-nine non-specific chronic low back pain subjects were alternately allocated in one of the two exercise groups. For both groups, a 16-sessions exercise program was provided. Before and after training: (1) video was recorded while subjects performed the tests; (2) Oswestry disability questionnaire was completed; and (3) pain intensity was measured by visual analogue scale. The test videos were scored by three physiotherapists. Statistical analysis revealed a significant improvement in stability test scores (p = 0.020 and p = 0.041) and reduction in disability (p < 0.001) and pain (p < 0.001) within each group. No significant difference was seen between two groups in the three outcomes p = 0.41, p = 0.14, and p = 0.72. Insignificant differences between the two groups may indicate either non-specificity of CSE to increase lumbopelvic stability or equal effectiveness of TTE and CSE on improving LPS. The non-significant differences may also be attributable to the lack of sensitivity of our tests to assess stability change in two groups after training given the relatively small sample size.
According to most previous studies, inducing movements in internal laryngeal muscles by transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) was impossible. However, the movements have been reported after using needle electrodes inserted into the internal superior laryngeal nerve (ISLN). Herein, we aimed to apply an innovative TES protocol to cause movements in vocal folds. A short duration and high frequency electrical current was applied by two surface electrodes just above the entrance of ISLN to larynx. The subjects were 32 normal participants (mean age = 23.87; SD = 3.43). During TES application, the vocal folds' movements were examined by flexible videonasolaryngoscopy. Statistical paired t test was used to analyze the differences of vocal folds opening angle, in degrees, during rest and TES periods. Furthermore, the movements were judged by seven experienced speech pathologists via a 9-point rate scale from -1 (any abduction) to 8 (complete adduction). The mean vocal folds adduction increased by 35.68° (t = 9.35, p > 0.001) due to TES application. The mean qualitative scores assigned by raters to each subject were between 6 and 7 points, which indicate an acceptable adduction in vocal folds through TES. Unlike previous studies, the applied TES protocol in this research induced significant vocal fold movements. This might be attributed to our different stimulation parameters, which were designed to penetrate deeply and stimulate ISLN specifically. It is worth noting that we introduced a novel TES protocol, which should be confirmed and then examined as a complementary therapy for neurologic voice disorders in future studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.