Search

Stability of the trunk is relevant in determining trunk response to different loading in everyday tasks initiated by the limbs. Descriptions of the trunk's mechanical movement patterns in response to different loads while lifting objects are still under debate. Hence, the aim of this study was to analyze the influence of weight on 3-dimensional segmental motion of the trunk during l-handed lifting. Ten asymptomatic subjects were included (29 ± 3 y; 1.79 ± 0.09 m; 75 ± 14 kg). Subjects lifted 3x a light and heavy load from the ground up onto a table. Three-dimensional segmental trunk motion was measured (12 markers; 3 segments: upper thoracic area |UTA], lower thoracic area [LTA], lumbar area [LA]). Outcomes were total motion amplitudes (ROM;[°]) for anterior flexion, lateral flexion, and rotation of each segment. The highest ROM was observed in the LTA segment (anterior flexion), and the smallest ROM in the UTA segment (lateral flexion). ROM differed for all planes between the 3 segments for both tasks (P < .001). There were no differences in ROM between light and heavy loads (P > .05). No interaction effects (load x segment) were observed, as ROM did not reveal differences between loading tasks. Regardless of weight, the 3 segments did reflect differences, supporting the relevance of multisegmental analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a 6-week sensorimotor or resistance training on maximum trunk strength and response to sudden, high-intensity loading in athletes. Forty-three healthy, well-trained participants were randomized into sensorimotor (SMT; n = 11), resistance training (RT; n = 16) and control groups (CG; n = 16). Treatment groups received either sensorimotor training (SMT) or resistance training (RT) for 6 weeks, 3 times a week. At baseline and after 6 weeks of intervention, participants' maximum isokinetic strength in trunk rotation and extension was tested (concentric/eccentric 30 -/s). In addition, sudden, high-intensity trunk loading was assessed for eccentric extension and rotation, with additional perturbation. Peak torque [Nm] was calculated as the outcome. Interventions showed no significant difference for maximum strength in concentric and eccentric testing (p > 0.05). For perturbation compensation, higher peak torque response following SMT (Extension: + 24 Nm 95 %CI + 19 Nm; Rotation: + 19 Nm 95 %CI + 13 Nm) and RT (Extension: + 35 Nm 95 %CI + 16 Nm; Rotation: + 5 Nm 95 %CI + 4 Nm) compared to CG (Extension: -4 Nm 95 %CI ± 16 Nm; Rotation: -2 Nm 95 %CI ± 4 Nm) was present (p < 0.05). This study showed that isokinetic strength gains were small, but that significant improvements in high-intensity trunk loading response could be shown for both interventions. Therefore, depending on the individual's preference, therapists have two treatment options to enhance trunk function for back pain prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]