Kinematic analyses of trunk stability in one leg standing for individuals with recurrent low back pain

Ham, Yong Woon; Kim, Dong‐Myung; Baek, Ju Yuel; Lee, Dongchul C.; Sung, Paul S.

doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2010.05.011

Cited by 37 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The method of computation was based on mathematical techniques, and kinematic joint angles were derived from the direction cosine matrices of the sensors [22,23]. The reliability of the motion analysis system has also been reported and confirmed with previous studies [2,24,26].…”

Section: Outcome Measuressupporting

confidence: 72%

“…Among the demographic factors, age and gender demonstrated significant interactions with shoulder-pelvic angle changes. As a result, it is important to examine stiffened functional motion in the pelvic region while considering the whole spine to understand compensatory mechanisms in addition to poor proprioception in subjects with recurrent LBP [2,25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The validity of outcome measurements has been reported in previous studies from our motion laboratory [2,24,25]. For the reliability component of the study, subjects completed the axial trunk rotation test five times during the session, and the average of the results was taken to avoid any changes or procedural discrepancies.…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…It has been reported that impaired trunk movement in subjects with low back pain (LBP) results in limited range of motion (ROM) of the trunk or abnormal patterns of lumbopelvic motion [1,2]. Several other investigators have also reported decreased flexibility and back muscle tightness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Factors affecting shoulder–pelvic integration during axial trunk rotation in subjects with recurrent low back pain

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Shoulder-pelvic integration could play a central role in the control of dynamic posture and movement. However, kinematic coordination during axial trunk rotation has not been carefully investigated in subjects with recurrent low back pain (LBP). The purpose of this study was to compare the maximum rotational angles of the shoulders and pelvis in the transverse plane between subjects with and without recurrent LBP. Materials and methods A total of 38 age-matched subjects (19 control subjects: 69.00 ± 5.75 years old and 19 subjects with LBP: 68.79 ± 5.40 years old) participated in the study. The axial trunk rotation test was conducted in the upright position with bilateral hips and knees fully extended and both feet shoulder width apart. Results The results of this study indicated that there was a difference in pelvic girdle rotation between groups (100.79 ± 26.46 in the control group, 82.12 ± 23.16 in the LBP group; t = 2.31, p = 0.02); however, there was no difference for the shoulder girdle (177.63 ± 36.98 in the control group, 156.42 ± 30.09 in the LBP group; t = 1.91, p = 0.06). There were interactions with age (F = 9.27, p = 0.004) and BMI (F = 7.50, p = 0.01) with the rotational angles of the shoulder and pelvis. Conclusion These results indicated a different pattern of trunk rotation movement with the age and BMI serving as important factors to consider for recurrent LBP. The results of our study also indicated a different pattern of shoulder and pelvic coordination with age and gender. Clinicians need to consider the consequences of limited shoulderpelvic rotational angles, especially limited rotational angle on the pelvis during trunk axial rotation. Further studies are required to determine the causes of the underlying problems for clinical decision-making and altered shoulderpelvic rotation in subjects with recurrent LBP.

show abstract

Section: Outcome Measuressupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Factors affecting shoulder–pelvic integration during axial trunk rotation in subjects with recurrent low back pain

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Poor postural alignment, dynamic standing balance, and postural strategies are often found in individuals with chronic low back pain (LBP) [1][2][3]. Control of postural balance is a complex function involving numerous neuromuscular processes which are dependent upon sensory input from the vestibular, visual, and somatosensory systems [4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A kinematic analysis of relative stability of the lower extremities between subjects with and without chronic low back pain

Song²,

Lee³

et al. 2011

Eur Spine J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even though a number of studies have evaluated postural adjustments based on kinematic changes in subjects with low back pain (LBP), kinematic stability has not been examined for abnormal postural responses during the one leg standing test. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative kinematic stability of the lower extremities and standing duration in subjects with and without chronic LBP. In total, 54 subjects enrolled in the study, including 28 subjects without LBP and 26 subjects with LBP. The average age of the subjects was 37.8 ± 12.6 years and ranged from 19 to 63 years. The outcome measures included normalized holding duration and relative kinematic stability. All participants were asked to maintain the test position without visual input (standing on one leg with his/her eyes closed and with the contra lateral hip flexed 90°) for 25 s. The age variable was used as a covariate to control confounding effects for the data analyses. The control group demonstrated significantly longer holding duration times (T = -2.78, p = 0.007) than the LBP group (24.6 ± 4.2 s vs. 20.5 ± 6.7 s). For the relative kinematic stability, there was a difference in dominance side (F = 9.91, p = 0.003). There was a group interaction between side and lower extremities (F = 11.79, p = 0.001) as well as an interaction between age and dominance side (F = 7.91, p = 0.007). The relative kinematic stability had a moderate negative relationship with age (r = -0.60, p = 0.007) in subjects without LBP. Clinicians need to understand the effects of age and relative stability, which decreased significantly in the single leg holding test, in subjects with LBP in order to develop effective rehabilitation strategies.

show abstract

Postural control in individuals with and without non-specific chronic low back pain: a preliminary case–control study

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To the editor, We thank the authors for their comments on this paper. The authors raise concern over our methodology. 1. First, each position lasts 10 s and is repeated three times, 30 s totally in each position. Second, after the subject stands on the surface and achieves stability then we start the test, and screen will tell the subject the test will start. Third, these procedures were guided by the manufacturer , which are also used in lots of studies. 2. What the authors proposed is the detailed way to calculate COP. In our study, the COP is automatically calculated by the software, and what we wrote in the manuscript is the concept of COP. 3. The LSO position is guided by the manufacturer. 4. According to the previous studies, the test-retest reliability is excellent (ICC = 0.91) [1] (http ://www. reha bmea sure s.org/List s/Reha bMea sure s/Disp Form. aspx ?ID=897). To confirm that, an additional experiment was also conducted based on a sample with ten subjects in two independent testers. The result showed that the interobserver (ICC = 0.94) and intraobserver reliability (ICC = 0.91) was similar to previous studies. 5. ANOVA with repeated measure is commonly used in repeated measure design. In our study, it is not a repeated measure design. 6. We mentioned in the Method section, and we calculated the analysis power using an interactive program named PS (Power and Sample Size Calculation version 3.1.2, 2014, http ://bios tat.mc.vand erbi lt.edu/wiki /Main /Powe r Sam pleS ize#Refe renc es). The power of statistical analysis in the effect of LSO on Foam-EO and Foam-EC was 0.982 and 0.996, respectively. The power of statistical analysis in the difference between two groups in Foam-EO and Foam-EC was 0.814 and 0.815, respectively.

show abstract

Kinematic analyses of trunk stability in one leg standing for individuals with recurrent low back pain

Cited by 37 publications

References 43 publications

Factors affecting shoulder–pelvic integration during axial trunk rotation in subjects with recurrent low back pain

Factors affecting shoulder–pelvic integration during axial trunk rotation in subjects with recurrent low back pain

A kinematic analysis of relative stability of the lower extremities between subjects with and without chronic low back pain

Postural control in individuals with and without non-specific chronic low back pain: a preliminary case–control study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About