Spine stabilization exercises, in which patients are taught to perform isolated contractions of the transverses abdominus (TrA) during ''abdominal hollowing'', are a popular physiotherapeutic treatment for low back pain (LBP). Successful performance is typically judged by the relative increase in TrA thickness compared with that of the internal (OI) and external (OE) oblique muscles, measured using ultrasound. The day-to-day measurement error (imprecision) associated with these indices of preferential activation has not been assessed but is important to know since it influences the interpretation of changes after treatment. On 2 separate days, 14 controls and 14 patients with chronic LBP (cLBP) performed abdominal hollowing exercises in hook-lying, while M-mode ultrasound images superimposed with tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) data were recorded from the abdominal muscles (N = 5 on each side). The fascial lines bordering the TrA, OI and OE were digitized, and muscle thicknesses were calculated. The betweenday error (intra-observer) was expressed as the standard error of measurement, SEM; SEM as a percentage of the mean gave the coefficient of variation (CV). There were no significant between-day differences for the mean values of resting or maximal thickness for any muscle, in either group (P [ 0.05). The median SEM and CV of all thickness variables was 0.71 mm and 10.9%, respectively for the controls and 0.80 mm or 11.3%, respectively for the cLBP patients. For the contraction ratios (muscle thickness contracted/ thickness at rest), the CVs were 3-11% (controls) and 5-12% (patients). The CVs were unacceptably high (30-50%, both groups) for the TrA preferential activation ratio (TrA proportion of the total lateral abdominal muscle thickness when contracted minus at rest). In both the controls and patients, the precision of measurement of absolute muscle thickness and relative change in thickness during abdominal hollowing was acceptable, and commensurate with that typical of biological measurements. The TrA preferential activation ratio is too imprecise to be of clinical use. Knowledge of the SEM for these indices is essential for interpreting the clinical relevance of any changes observed following physiotherapy.

The symmetry of, and physical characteristics influencing, the thickness of the lateral abdominal muscles at rest and during abdominal exercises were examined in 57 healthy subjects (20 men, 37 women; aged 22-62 years). M-mode ultrasound images were recorded from the abdominal muscles at rest and during abdominal hollowing exercises in hook-lying. The fascial lines bordering the transvs. abdominis, obliquus internus and obliquus externus were digitized and the absolute thickness, relative thickness (% of total lateral thickness) and contraction ratio (thickness during hollowing/thickness at rest), as well as the asymmetry (difference between sides expressed as a percent of the smallest value for the two sides) for each of these parameters were determined for each muscle. Both at rest and during hollowing, obliquus internus was the thickest and transvs. abdominis the thinnest muscle. There were no significant differences between left and right sides for group mean thicknesses of any muscle; however, individual asymmetries were evident, with mean values for the different muscles ranging from 11% to 26%; asymmetry was much less for the contraction ratios (mean % side differences, 5-14% depending on muscle). Body mass was the most significant positive predictor of absolute muscle thickness, for all muscles at rest and during hollowing, accounting for 30-44% variance. Body mass index explained 20-30% variance in transvs. abdominis contraction ratio (negative relationship). The influence of these confounders must be considered in comparative studies of healthy controls and back pain patients, unless groups are very carefully matched. Asymmetries observed in patients should be interpreted with caution, as they are also common in healthy subjects.

Spine stabilisation exercises, in which patients are taught to preferentially activate the transversus abdominus (TrA) during ''abdominal hollowing'' (AH), are a popular treatment for chronic low back pain (cLBP). The present study investigated whether performance during AH differed between cLBP patients and controls to an extent that would render it useful diagnostic tool. 50 patients with cLBP (46.3 ± 12.5 years) and 50 healthy controls (43.6 ± 12.7 years) participated in this case-control study. They performed AH in hook-lying. Using M-mode ultrasound, thicknesses of TrA, and obliquus internus and externus were determined at rest and during 5 s AH (5 measures each body side). The TrA contraction-ratio (TrA-CR) (TrA contracted/rest) and the ability to sustain the contraction [standard deviation (SD) of TrA thickness during the stable phase of the hold] were investigated. There were no significant group differences for the absolute muscle thicknesses at rest or during AH, or for the SD of TrA thickness. There was a small but significant difference between the groups for TrA-CR: cLBP 1.35 ± 0.14, controls 1.44 ± 0.24 (p \ 0.05). However, Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC) analysis revealed a poor and non-significant ability of TrA-CR to discriminate between cLBP patients and controls on an individual basis (ROC area under the curve, 0.60 [95% CI 0.495; 0.695], p = 0.08). In the patient group, TrA-CR showed a low but significant correlation with Roland Morris score (Spearman Rho = 0.328; p = 0.02). In conclusion, the difference in group mean values for TrA-CR was small and of uncertain clinical relevance. Moreover, TrA-CR showed a poor ability to discriminate between control and cLBP subjects on an individual basis. We conclude that the TrA-CR during abdominal hollowing does not distinguish well between patients with chronic low back pain and healthy controls.

Neither baseline lateral abdominal muscle function nor its improvement after a programme of stabilisation exercises was a statistical predictor of a good clinical outcome. It is hence difficult to attribute the therapeutic result to any specific effects of the exercises on these trunk muscles. The association between changes in catastrophising and outcome serves to encourage further investigation on larger groups of patients to clarify whether stabilisation exercises have some sort of "central" effect, unrelated to abdominal muscle function per se.

Exercise rehabilitation is one of the few evidence-based treatments for chronic non-specific low back pain (cLBP), but individual success is notoriously variable and may depend on the patient's adherence to the prescribed exercise regime. This prospective study examined factors associated with adherence and the relationship between adherence and outcome after a programme of physiotherapeutic spine stabilisation exercises. A total of 32/37 patients with cLBP completed the study (mean age, 44.0 (SD = 12.3) years; 11/32 (34%) male). Adherence to the 9-week programme was documented as: percent attendance at therapy, percent adherence to daily home exercises (patient diary) and percent commitment to rehabilitation (Sports Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale (SIRAS)). The average of these three measures formed a multidimensional adherence index (MAI). Psychological disturbance, fear-avoidance beliefs, catastrophising, exercise self-efficacy and health locus of control were measured by questionnaire; disability in everyday activities was scored with the Roland-Morris disability scale and back pain intensity with a 0-10 graphic rating scale. Overall, adherence to therapy was very good (average MAI score, 85%; median (IQR), 89 (15)%). The only psychological/beliefs variable showing a unique significant association with MAI was exercise self-efficacy (Rho = 0.36, P = 0.045). Pain intensity and self-rated disability decreased significantly after therapy (each P < 0.01). Adherence to home exercises showed a moderate, positive correlation with the reduction in average pain (Rho = 0.54, P = 0.003) and disability (Rho = 0.38, P = 0.036); higher MAI scores were associated with greater reductions in average pain (Rho = 0.48, P = 0.008) and a (n.s.) tendency for greater reductions in disability (Rho = 0.32, P = 0.07) Neither attendance at therapy nor SIRAS were significantly related to any of the outcomes. The benefits of rehabilitation depended to a large extent on the patient's exercise behaviour outside of the formal physiotherapy sessions. Hence, more effort should be invested in finding ways to improve patients' motivation to take responsibility for the success of their own therapy, perhaps by increasing exercise self-efficacy. Whether the "adherence-outcome" interaction was mediated by improvements in function related to the specific exercises, or by a more "global" effect of the programme, remains to be examined.