A Comparison of the Abdominal and Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Size in Patients With Lumbar Spondylolisthesis and Healthy Patients at Rest and During Contraction Using Ultrasonography

Shadani, Ailin; Bandpei, Mohammad Ali Mohseni; Rahmani, Nahid; Bassampour, Seyed Alireza

doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2018.07.001

Cited by 12 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ultrasound probe was perpendicularly placed at the L4/L5 vertebral body. Then, the CSA and AP thickness of LM muscle were captured bilaterally [ 40 ]. During contraction, subjects were asked to lift their contralateral arm about 2 cm off the table while elbows were flexed about 90° and shoulders abducted about 120° [ 22 , 41 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Morphology Changes in Patient with Different Degrees of Lumbar Disc Herniation: An Ultrasonographic Study

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objective: Previous studies demonstrated that the prevalence of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is relatively high. This investigation aimed to evaluate the size of lumbar multifidus (LM) muscle in patients with different degrees of LDH compared to healthy group, during rest and contraction, using ultrasonography. Materials and Methods: In this non-experimental, analytic, and case control study, ultrasound imaging was used to assess cross-sectional area (CSA) and thickness of the LM muscle in 15 healthy subjects and 60 patients with different stages of LDH (bulging group = 15, protrusion group = 15, extrusion group = 15, sequestration group = 15). Measurements were taken bilaterally at the L4–L5 level, during rest and contraction and results were compared between groups. Results: There was a significant difference between healthy subjects and the extrusion and sequestration groups during rest and contraction for LM muscle CSA and thickness (p = 0.001), as LM muscle CSA and thickness were significantly smaller in extrusion and sequestration patient groups compared to healthy subjects. LM atrophy was greater in patients with extrusion and sequestration groups than in patients with bulging and protrusion, both at rest and during contraction. Significant correlations were also observed between functional disability and intensity of pain with LM CSA and thickness measurements. Conclusions: Patients with extrusion and sequestration LDH had smaller LM muscle at rest and during contraction compared to healthy subjects. Larger LDH lesions were associated with decreased LM muscle size. Patient with more pain, disability, and extrusion and sequestration LDH had greater LM size changes. LM muscle size was not correlated with symptom duration. Further investigation with greater sample size is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Morphology Changes in Patient with Different Degrees of Lumbar Disc Herniation: An Ultrasonographic Study

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The model previously proposed by O’Sullivan for motor control training is still current [ 109 , 114 – 116 ], addressing the activation of stabilizer muscles at rest and during contraction, together with reducing the overuse of superficial muscles [ 7 , 8 ] (see Fig. 4 ).…”

Section: Management and Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Degenerative SPL is mostly caused by degenerative arthritis or disorders of the disc space. In adulthood and elderly, SPL is associated with degeneration of facet joints, smaller stabilizer muscle thickness at rest and during contraction, and overuse of stabilization muscles [ 6 – 8 ]. Multifidus atrophy has been reported in several studies on patients with SPL [ 8 – 10 ], and a reduction of the force of global back muscles may lead to, or aggravate, forward slipping in isthmic and degenerative SPL [ 9 – 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar spondylolisthesis: STATE of the art on assessment and conservative treatment

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction There is weak relationship between the presence of lumbar spondylolisthesis [SPL] and low back pain that is not always associated with instability, either at the involved lumbar segment or at different spinal levels. Therefore patients with lumbar symptomatic SPL can be divided into stable and unstable, based on the level of mobility during flexion and extension movements as general classifications for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Different opinions persist about best treatment (conservative vs. surgical) and among conservative treatments, on the type, dosage, and progression of physical therapy procedures. Purpose and importance to practice The aim of this Masterclass is to provide clinicians evidence-based indications for assessment and conservative treatment of SPL, taking into consideration some subgroups related to specific clinical presentations. Clinical implications This Masterclass addresses the different phases of the assessment of a patient with SPL, including history, imaging, physical exam, and questionnaires on disability and cognitive-behavioral components. Regarding conservative treatment, self- management approaches and graded supervised training, including therapeutic relationships, information and education, are explained. Primary therapeutic procedures for pain control, recovery of the function and the mobility through therapeutic exercise, passive mobilization and antalgic techniques are suggested. Moreover, some guidance is provided on conservative treatment in specific clinical presentations (lumbar SPL with radiating pain and/or lumbar stenosis, SPL complicated by other factors, and SPL in adolescents) and the number/duration of sessions. Future research priorities Some steps to improve the diagnostic-therapeutic approach in SPL are to identify the best cluster of clinical tests, define different lumbar SPL subgroups, and investigate the effects of treatments based on that classification, similarly to the approach already proposed for non-specific LBP.

show abstract

“…However, a cross-sectional study found that it was the MF muscle activation, rather than the TVA muscle, that is associated with successful clinical decision using stabilization exercises for patients with cLBP [12]. In addition, some research revealed that individuals with cLBP had increased fatigue of the MF, decreased activation of the TVA [13], and reduced MF muscle thickness at rest and during contraction as compared to healthy individuals [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies of TVA and MF muscles' function in the presence of cLBP focused mostly on electromyography (EMG) signals and muscle size in isolation [13,14], and the studies of the relationship between the two muscles have been limited to the clinical qualitative outcome. Therefore, the first purpose of this study was to compare the cortical motor representation of the TVA and MF muscles in healthy individuals and cLBP patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortical Representations of Transversus Abdominis and Multifidus Muscles Were Discrete in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: Evidence Elicited by TMS

Liu

et al. 2021

Neural Plasticity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. The transversus abdominis (TVA) and multifidus (MF) muscles are the main segmental spinal stabilizers that are controlled by the primary motor cortex of the brain. However, relocations of the muscle representation in the motor cortex may occur after chronic lower back pain (cLBP); it still needs more evidence to be proven. The current study was aimed at applying transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to investigate the changes of representation of TVA and MF muscles at the cortical network in individuals with cLBP. Methods. Twenty-four patients with cLBP and 12 age-matched healthy individuals were recruited. Responses of TVA and MF to TMS during muscle contraction were monitored and mapped over the contralateral cortex using a standardized grid cap. Maps of the center of gravity (CoG), area, volume, and latency were analyzed, and the asymmetry index was also computed and compared. Results. The locations of MF CoG in cLBP individuals were posterior and lateral to the CoG locations in healthy individuals. In the healthy group, the locations of TVA and MF CoG were closed to each other in both the left and right hemispheres. In the cLBP group, these two locations were next to each other in the right hemisphere but discrete in the left hemisphere. In the cLBP group, the cortical motor map of TVA and MF were mutually symmetric in five out of eleven (45.5%) subjects and leftward asymmetric in four out of ten (40.0%) subjects. Conclusions. Neural representations of TVA and MF muscles were closely organized in both the right and left motor cortices in the healthy group but were discretely organized in the left motor cortex in the cLBP group. This provides strong support for the neural basis of pathokinesiology and clinical treatment of cLBP.

show abstract

A Comparison of the Abdominal and Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Size in Patients With Lumbar Spondylolisthesis and Healthy Patients at Rest and During Contraction Using Ultrasonography

Cited by 12 publications

References 37 publications

Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Morphology Changes in Patient with Different Degrees of Lumbar Disc Herniation: An Ultrasonographic Study

Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Morphology Changes in Patient with Different Degrees of Lumbar Disc Herniation: An Ultrasonographic Study

Lumbar spondylolisthesis: STATE of the art on assessment and conservative treatment

Cortical Representations of Transversus Abdominis and Multifidus Muscles Were Discrete in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: Evidence Elicited by TMS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About