Technical validation of a new movement therapy system for treatment of low back pain

Bauer, Christoph; Baumgartner, Lucas; Schelldorfer, Sarah; Ernst, Markus; Lawrence, Michael Anthony

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.10.249

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As part of a research procedure studying the validity of different movement tests of the trunk, lumbar spine and adjacent regions, we needed a reliable and convenient method for repeatedly placing markers and sensors on the same location of the back of a subject when the subject is in the upright standing position [11]. The use of anatomical landmarks and the assessment of behavioural properties (e.g.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of thoracic and lumbar spinal processes by their percentage position between C7 and the PSIS level

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAccurate measurements of spinal movement require reliable determination of anatomical landmarks. Current methods of identifying these are not sufficiently reliable or valid for this purpose. A reliable and convenient method of placing markers on selected vertebra is needed to compare measurements between different testers, subjects and sessions.FindingsTwo testers palpated T4, T7, T10, L1 and L4 spinal processes according to established criteria. They measured the position of spinal processes between C7 and the Posterior Superior Iliac Spine (PSIS) at the Pelvis independently using a flexible ruler placed on the spine. Subjects with a wide range of body heights but without visible spinal deformities were recruited for measurements. Reliability was calculated using absolute and relative values. Mean percentage position and 95% Confidence Intervals were calculated using the mean of both testers’ measurement for all subjects.Twenty-two subjects participated. The mean distance between C7 and the PSIS level was 50.9 cm (SD: 3.5 cm). Relative reliability for all spinal processes was almost perfect (ICC: > 0.9). Absolute reliability values showed high agreement between testers. Percentage position of T4 was found to be situated 21% along the distance between C7 and the PSIS level, T7 at 39%, T10 at 54.1%, L1 at 70.9% and L4 at 86.1% accordingly. 95% Confidence intervals around mean percentage positions had a maximum at L1 with 2.8% range from upper to lower limit.ConclusionsThe distance of three thoracic and two lumbar spinal processes can be reliably and accurately measured by independent testers, using a flexible ruler. Percentage positions between C7 and PSIS level correspond to spinal processes for subjects without visible deformities in the sagittal and frontal plane.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of thoracic and lumbar spinal processes by their percentage position between C7 and the PSIS level

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The system's validity has been shown before [18]. Sensors were placed on the right thigh (RTH), the sacrum (S2), the lower back (L1) and the upper back (T1).…”

Section: Measurement Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low back pain and postural control, effects of task difficulty on centre of pressure and spinal kinematics

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Association of low back pain and standing postural control (PC) deficits are reported inconsistently. Demands on PC adaptation strategies are increased by restraining the input of visual or somatosensory senses. The objectives of the current study are, to investigate whether PC adaptations of the spine, hip and the centre of pressure (COP) differ between patients reporting non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) and asymptomatic controls. The PC adaption strategies of the thoracic and lumbar spine, the hip and the COP were measured in fifty-seven NSLBP patients and 22 asymptomatic controls. We tested three "feet together" conditions with increasing demands on PC strategies, using inertial measurement units (IMUs) on the spine and a Wii balance board for centre of pressure (COP) parameters. The differences between NSLBP patients and controls were most apparent when the participants were blindfolded, but remaining on a firm surface. While NSLBP patients had larger thoracic and lumbar spine mean absolute deviations of position (MADpos) in the frontal plane, the same parameters decreased in control subjects (relative change (RC): 0.23, 95% confidence interval: 0.03 to 0.45 and 0.03 to 0.48). The Mean absolute deviation of velocity (MADvel) of the thoracic spine in the frontal plane showed a similar and significant effect (RC: 0.12 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.25). Gender, age and pain during the measurements affected some parameters significantly. PC adaptions differ between NSLBP patients and asymptomatic controls. The differences are most apparent for the thoracic and lumbar parameters of MADpos, in the frontal plane and while the visual condition was removed.

show abstract

“…Investigating the associations between movement and pain has been limited by difficulty in measuring and monitoring typical movement/posture both within clinical settings and in normal daily activity. Technological advances with movement sensors have enabled new opportunities to investigate the relationship between movement and pain [ 24 – 26 ]. These devices are skin surface-mounted and generate data on lumbo-pelvic movements and postures, such as angle, timing, position and concurrent surface electromyography.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How consistent are lordosis, range of movement and lumbo-pelvic rhythm in people with and without back pain?

Laird

Keating

2016

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundComparing movements/postures in people with and without lower back pain (LBP) may assist identifying LBP-specific dysfunction and its relationship to pain or activity limitation. This study compared the consistency in lumbo-pelvic posture and movement (range and pattern) in people with and without chronic LBP (>12 week’s duration).MethodsWireless, wearable, inertial measurement units measured lumbar lordosis angle, range of movement (ROM) and lumbo-pelvic rhythm in adults (n = 63). Measurements were taken on three separate occasions: two tests on the same day with different raters and a third (intra-rater) test one to two weeks later. Participants performed five repetitions of tested postures or movements. Test data were captured automatically. Minimal detectable change scores (MDC90) provided estimates of between-test consistency.ResultsThere was no significant difference between participants with and without LBP for lordosis angle. There were significant differences for pelvic flexion ROM (LBP 60.8°, NoLBP 54.8°, F(1,63) = 4.31, p = 0.04), lumbar right lateral flexion ROM (LBP 22.2°, NoLBP 24.6° F(1,63) = 4.48, p = .04), trunk right lateral flexion ROM (LBP 28.4°, NoLBP 31.7°, F(1,63) = 5.9, p = .02) and lumbar contribution to lumbo-pelvic rhythm in the LBP group (LBP 45.8 %, F(1,63) = 4.20, NoLBP 51.3 % p = .044). MDC90 estimates for intra and inter-rater comparisons were 10°–15° for lumbar lordosis, and 5°–15° for most ROM. For lumbo-pelvic rhythm, we found 8–15 % variation in lumbar contribution to flexion and lateral flexion and 36–56 % variation in extension. Good to excellent agreement (reliability) was seen between raters (mean r = .88, ICC (2,2)).ConclusionComparisons of ROM between people with and without LBP showed few differences between groups, with reduced relative lumbar contribution to trunk flexion. There was no difference between groups for lordosis. Wide, within-group differences were seen for both groups for ROM and lordosis. Due to variability between test occasions, changes would need to exceed 10°–15° for lumbar lordosis, 5°–15° for ROM components, and 8–15 % of lumbar contribution to lumbo-pelvic rhythm, to have 90 % confidence that movements had actually changed. Lordosis, range of movement and lumbo-pelvic rhythm typically demonstrate variability between same-day and different-day tests. This variability needs to be considered when interpreting posture and movement changes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-016-1250-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Technical validation of a new movement therapy system for treatment of low back pain

Cited by 5 publications

References 3 publications

Determination of thoracic and lumbar spinal processes by their percentage position between C7 and the PSIS level

Determination of thoracic and lumbar spinal processes by their percentage position between C7 and the PSIS level

Low back pain and postural control, effects of task difficulty on centre of pressure and spinal kinematics

How consistent are lordosis, range of movement and lumbo-pelvic rhythm in people with and without back pain?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About