Search

Background: Individuals with chronic low back pain demonstrate impaired responses to volitional and externally-generated postural perturbations that may impact stability whilst performing activities of daily living. Understanding how balance may be impaired by strategy selection is an important consideration during rehabilitation from low back pain to prevent future injurious balance loss.Research Question: This cross-sectional study explored the influence of an active pain episode on volitional movement patterns and stability during a sit-to-stand task in individuals with chronic low back pain compared to those with no low back pain history.Methods: Thirteen participants with low back pain who were in an active flare-up and 13 without pain sat on a height-adjusted chair and performed 5 sit-to-stand movements. Sagittal plane kinematics, kinetics, and surface electromyography were used to compute neuromuscular variables across Acceleration, Transition and Deceleration phases. Stability was assessed using times to contact of body centers of mass and pressure to base of support boundaries. Independent samples t-tests were used to examine group effects, and repeated measures analyses of variance assessed within-subjects effects across movement phases.Results: Individuals with low back pain tended to restrict proximal joint motions through heightened muscle activity while increasing distal joint movement and distal muscle contributions. Individuals with low back pain used a greater driving force, indicated by a longer time to contact of the center of pressure, to achieve comparable center of mass stability. Individuals with low back pain may prioritize trunk restriction and stability through the sit-to-stand movement, possibly related to fear of pain or movement.Significance: The tendency for individuals with active low back pain to restrict trunk movements may require additional effort to maintain stability. Further research should examine whether trunk restriction is related to pain-related fear of movement and whether additional cognitive resources are required to maintain movement stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People with a history of low back pain (LBP) exhibit altered responses to postural perturbations, and the central neural control underlying these changes in postural responses remains unclear. To characterize more thoroughly the change in muscle activation patterns of people with LBP in response to a perturbation of standing balance, and to gain insight into the influence of early- vs. late-phase postural responses (differentiated by estimates of voluntary reaction times), this study evaluated the intermuscular patterns of electromyographic (EMG) activations from 24 people with and 21 people without a history of chronic, recurrent LBP in response to 12 directions of support surface translations. Twofactor general linear models examined differences between the 2 subject groups and 12 recorded muscles of the trunk and lower leg in the percentage of trials with bursts of EMG activation as well as the amplitudes of integrated EMG activation for each perturbation direction. The subjects with LBP exhibited 1) higher baseline EMG amplitudes of the erector spinae muscles before perturbation onset, 2) fewer early-phase activations at the internal oblique and gastrocnemius muscles, 3) fewer late-phase activations at the erector spinae, internal and external oblique, rectus abdominae, and tibialis anterior muscles, and 4) higher EMG amplitudes of the gastrocnemius muscle following the perturbation. The results indicate that a history of LBP associates with higher baseline muscle activation and that EMG responses are modulated from this activated state, rather than exhibiting acute burst activity from a quiescent state, perhaps to circumvent trunk displacements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background People with low back pain (LBP) exhibit impaired anticipatory postural adjustments (APAs). Objective To evaluate whether current motor retraining treatments address LBP-associated changes in movement coordination during tasks that do and do not require APAs. Design Prospectively registered randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor. Setting Outcome evaluations occurred in a university laboratory; treatments were carried out in outpatient physical therapy clinics. Patients Fifteen subjects without LBP and 33 subjects with chronic, recurrent, and nonspecific LBP. Intervention Twelve subjects with LBP received stabilization treatment, 21 received movement system impairment–based treatment, for more than 6 weekly 1-hour sessions plus home exercises. Measurements Pre- and post-treatment, surface electromyography (EMG) was recorded bilaterally from trunk and leg muscles during unsupported and supported leg-lifting tasks, which did and did not require an APA, respectively. Vertical reaction forces under the contralateral leg were recorded to characterize the APA. Oswestry disability scores and numeric pain ratings were also recorded. Results Persons with LBP demonstrated an impaired APA compared with persons without LBP, characterized by increased premovement contralateral force application and increased postmovement trunk EMG amplitude, regardless of the task. After treatments, both groups similarly improved in disability and function; however, APA characteristics did not change (ie, force application or EMG amplitude) in either task. Limitations Treating clinicians were not blinded to treatment allocation, only short-term outcomes were assessed, and main effects of treatment do not rule out nonspecific effects of time or repeated exposure. Conclusions Movement impairments in persons with LBP are not limited to tasks requiring an APA. Stabilization and movement system impairment–based treatments for LBP do not ameliorate and may exacerbate APA impairments (ie, excessive force application and increased post-movement trunk muscle activation). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]