Investigating the contribution of the upper and lower lumbar spine, relative to hip motion, in everyday tasks

Alqhtani, Raee S.; Jones, Michael David; Theobald, Peter; Williams, Jonathan M.

doi:10.1016/j.math.2015.09.014

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The concept of relative motion between two neighbouring anatomical regions has been reported previously. [42][43][44] In golfers, altered relative motion between the hips and lumbar spine was identified in those with LBP, suggesting greater relative contribution from the lumbar spine (and reduced contribution from the hips). 44 45 This finding was mirrored in tennis where ROM, normalised to maximal range, during forehand strokes resulted in a range of rotation values beyond the maximum, in those with LBP during 'wind up'.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical risk factors of lower back pain in cricket fast bowlers using inertial measurement units: a prospective and retrospective investigation

Senington

Lee

Williams

2020

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo investigate spinal kinematics, tibial and sacral impacts during fast bowling, among bowlers with a history of low back pain (LBP) (retrospective) and bowlers who developed LBP in the follow-up season (prospective).Methods35 elite male fast bowlers; senior (n=14; age=24.1±4.3 years; height=1.89±0.05 m; weight=89.2±4.6 kg) and junior (n=21; age=16.9±0.7; height=1.81±0.05; weight=73.0±9.2 kg) were recruited from professional county cricket clubs. LBP history was gathered by questionnaire and development of LBP was monitored for the follow-up season. Spinal kinematics, tibial and sacral impacts were captured using inertial measurement units placed over S1, L1, T1 and anteromedial tibia. Bonferroni corrected pairwise comparisons and effect sizes were calculated to investigate differences in retrospective and prospective LBP groups.ResultsApproximately 38% of juniors (n=8) and 57% of seniors (n=8) reported a history of LBP. No differences were evident in spinal kinematics or impacts between those with LBP history and those without for seniors and juniors. Large effect sizes suggest greater rotation during wind-up (d=1.3) and faster time-to-peak tibial impacts (d=1.5) in those with no history of LBP. One junior (5%) and four (29%) seniors developed LBP. No differences were evident in spinal kinematics or impacts between those who developed LBP and those who did not for seniors. In seniors, those who developed LBP had lower tibial impacts (d=1.3) and greater lumbar extension (d=1.9) during delivery.ConclusionRetrospective analysis displayed non-significant differences in kinematics and impacts. It is unclear if these are adaptive or impairments. Prospective analysis demonstrated large effect sizes for lumbar extension during bowling suggesting a target for future coaching interventions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical risk factors of lower back pain in cricket fast bowlers using inertial measurement units: a prospective and retrospective investigation

Senington

Lee

Williams

2020

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Decreased lumbar lordosis from the posterior pelvic tilt in sitting can limit the load distributing and absorbing function of lumbar spine. Spine, pelvis and lower extremity movements are closely interconnected due to the closed kinematic chain [25]. For example, induced calcaneal eversion using a wedge under the hindfoot tilted the pelvis anteriorly [24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex Difference in the Range of Pelvic Tilt in Sitting and Standing Among Korean Young Adults

Yoon

2020

Physical Therapy Korea

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Muscle length Pelvic tilt Range of motion Sex characteristics Testing positionBackground: The range of pelvic tilt is one of modifiable risk factors in preventing the lower back pain. Objects:The purpose of this study were to compare the range of pelvic tilt motion by testing position and sex.Methods: One hundred five young adults (61 females and 44 males) agreed to participate in measuring the anterior and posterior pelvic tilt with the PALM (Palpation Meter) in sitting and standing. The range of pelvic tilt motion was defined as the difference between the pelvic anterior and posterior tilt angles. Results:In general, the anterior pelvic tilt was greater (p < 0.01) in standing than in sitting and the posterior pelvic tilt was lesser (p < 0.01) in sitting than in standing. The anterior pelvic tilt in sitting and standing was greater (p < 0.01) in the females than in the males. However, the effect of sex on the posterior pelvic tilt was only significant in sitting (p < 0.01), but not in standing (p = 0.78). The range of pelvic tilt was greater (p = 0.03) in sitting but not significantly (p = 0.07) affected by the sex. Conclusion:The pelvic tilt motion in these young adults showed large variability and further studies are needed to understand better its relationship to the prevalence of the lower back disorders.

show abstract

“…The natural history of CS implies that the location of HV is a decisive factor for the curve evolution of the deformity 2,3 . The lower lumbar/lumbosacral (LL/LS) HV, defined as HV between L 3 and S 1 vertebrae, often causes early trunk decompensation and a long compensatory curve above since the spine below lacks the ability to compensate 4,5 . As the age increases, the LL/LS HV tends to inevitably result in gross trunk imbalance and pelvic obliquity 6 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 2 , 3 The lower lumbar/lumbosacral (LL/LS) HV, defined as HV between L 3 and S 1 vertebrae, often causes early trunk decompensation and a long compensatory curve above since the spine below lacks the ability to compensate. 4 , 5 As the age increases, the LL/LS HV tends to inevitably result in gross trunk imbalance and pelvic obliquity. 6 As a result, early surgical interventions including posterior spinal fusion and various osteotomy techniques are necessary in the treatment of this particular cohort.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Failure of Posterior Lower Lumbar/Lumbosacral Hemi‐Vertebra Resection: An Analysis of Reasons and Revision Strategies

Liu

Shi

et al. 2022

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate the causes of failed primary surgery and the revision strategies for congenital scoliosis (CS) patients with lower lumbar/lumbosacral (LL/LS) hemi-vertebra (HV).Methods: Fifteen CS patients with LL/LS HV (seven females and eight males) with a mean age of 20.4 AE 10.4 years undergoing revision surgery in our center were retrospectively reviewed. The radiographic parameters including Cobb angle, distance between C 7 plumb line and center sacral vertical line (C 7 PL-CSVL), thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL) and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were assessed at pre-revision, post-revision and the last follow-up. The causes of failure in primary operation, and radiographic and clinical outcomes of revision procedures were analyzed. Results:The revision rate of patients undergoing LL/LS HV resection and correction surgery was 11.4%. The average time interval between primary surgery and revision surgery was 18.2 AE 10.6 months. The operation duration and estimated blood loss of revision surgery were 194 AE 56 min and 326 AE 74 ml, respectively. Reasons for failed primary operations were as follows: internal fixation fracture in 10 cases, curve progression in two cases, implant loose in two cases and post-operative coronal imbalance in one case. The post-revision Cobb angle was significantly improved from 29.9 AE 8.3 to 18.7 AE 6.7 (P < 0.001) with a correction rate of 37.5% AE 12.6%. At the final follow-up, the average Cobb angle was 18.9 AE 6.2 and the correction was well maintained (P = 0.788). The C 7 PL-CSVL at pre-revision, post-revision and at last follow-up were 23.2 AE 9.3 mm, 14.8 AE 4.8 mm and 14.9 AE 5.4 mm, respectively. Significant improvements (P = 0.004) were observed after revision surgery and there was no evident loss of correction (P = 0.703). There was no significant difference in TK, LL and SVA before and after revision surgery (all P > 0.05). At the last follow-up, no significant correction loss of above coronal and sagittal parameters were observed (all P > 0.05). The revision methods were individualized according to the primary surgical procedures and the reasons for revision. The recommended revision strategies include incision of pseudarthrosis with sufficient bone graft, fixation of satellite rods, thorough residual HV excision, prolonged fusion to S 2 and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at lumbosacral region. Solid bony fusion and no implant-related complication were detected during the follow-up. Conclusions:The causes of revision surgery for patients with congenital scoliosis (CS) due to lumbosacral HV were verified and implant failure with pseudarthrosis was the main reason for failed primary operation.

show abstract

Investigating the contribution of the upper and lower lumbar spine, relative to hip motion, in everyday tasks

Abstract: This study has consistently demonstrated differences in the contribution of the upper and lower spinal regions across a range of everyday tasks; hence, it would appear that greater focus should be given to performing more detailed assessments to fully appreciate spinal movement.

Cited by 17 publications

References 34 publications

Biomechanical risk factors of lower back pain in cricket fast bowlers using inertial measurement units: a prospective and retrospective investigation

Biomechanical risk factors of lower back pain in cricket fast bowlers using inertial measurement units: a prospective and retrospective investigation

Sex Difference in the Range of Pelvic Tilt in Sitting and Standing Among Korean Young Adults

Failure of Posterior Lower Lumbar/Lumbosacral Hemi‐Vertebra Resection: An Analysis of Reasons and Revision Strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About