Search

Trunk control involves integration of sensorimotor information in the brain. Individuals with chronic low back pain (cLBP) have impaired trunk control and show differences in brain structure and function in sensorimotor areas compared with healthy controls (HC). However, the relationship between brain structure and trunk control in this group is not well understood. This cross-sectional study aimed to compare seated trunk control and sensorimotor white matter (WM) structure in people with cLBP and HC and explore relationships between WM properties and trunk control in each group. Thirty-two people with cLBP and 35 HC were tested sitting on an unstable chair to isolate trunk control; performance was measured using the 95% confidence ellipse area (CEA95) of center-of-pressure tracing. A WM network between cortical sensorimotor regions of interest was derived using probabilistic tractography. WM microstructure and anatomical connectivity between cortical sensorimotor regions were assessed. A mixed-model ANOVA showed that people with cLBP had worse trunk control than HC (F = 12.96; p < .001; ηp2 = .091). There were no differences in WM microstructure or anatomical connectivity between groups (p = 0.564 to 0.940). In the cLBP group, WM microstructure was moderately correlated (|r| = .456 to .565; p ≤ .009) with trunk control. Additionally, the cLBP group demonstrated stronger relationships between anatomical connectivity and trunk control (|r| = .377 to .618 p < .034) compared to the HC group. Unique to the cLBP group, WM connectivity between right somatosensory and left motor areas highlights the importance of interhemispheric information exchange for trunk control. Parietal areas associated with attention and spatial reference frames were also relevant to trunk control. These findings suggest that people with cLBP adopt a more cortically driven sensorimotor integration strategy for trunk control. Future research should replicate these findings and identify interventions to effectively modulate this strategy.

BackgroundThe current clinical gold standard for assessing isometric quadriceps muscle strength is an isokinetic dynamometer (IKD). However, in clinics without an IKD, clinicians default to using handheld dynamometers (HHD), which are less reliable and accurate than the IKD, particularly for large muscle groups. A novel device (ND) was developed that locks the weight stack of weight machines, and measures forces applied to the machine, turning this equipment into an isometric dynamometer. The objectives of this study were to characterize the test-retest reliability of the ND, determine the within-day and between-days inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity compared with that of the HHD, in healthy volunteers (HV) and individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA) for measuring knee extensors isometric muscle force.Materials and methods29 healthy (age = 28.4 ± 7.4 years) and 15 knee OA (age = 37.6 ± 13.4 years) participants completed three maximum force isometric strength testing trials on dominant side knee extensor muscles on three devices (ND, HHD, and IKD) in two separate sessions by two raters. The maximum force (Fmax) produced, and the force-time series were recorded. Reliability and validity were assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman Plots, Pearson's r, and cross-correlations.ResultsThe ND demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (ICC2,3 = 0.97). The within-day (ICC2,3 = 0.88) and between-day inter-rater reliability (ICC2,3 = 0.87) was good for HHD. The ND showed excellent within-day (ICC2,3 = 0.93) and good between-day (ICC2,3 = 0.89) inter-rater reliability. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed HHD systematic bias and underestimation of force particularly with quadriceps force values exceeding 450 N. Mean differences were found in maximum force between HHD vs. IKD (MDabs = 58 N, p < .001) but not the HHD vs. ND (MDabs = 24 N, p = .267) or ND vs. IKD (MDabs = 34 N, p = .051). The concurrent validity of Fmax (r = 0.81) and force-time curve correlation (0.96 ± 0.05) were the highest between the ND and IKD.ConclusionsThe ND's test-retest reliability and concurrent validity make it a potential strength assessment tool with utility in physical therapy and fitness settings for large muscle groups such as the knee extensors.

Low back pain is associated with changes in trunk muscle structure and function and motor control impairments. Voluntary force modulation (FM) of trunk muscles is a unique and under-investigated motor control characteristic. One of the reasons for this paucity of evidence is the lack of exploration and publication on the reliability and validity of trunk FM protocols. The purpose of this study was to determine the within- and between-day test-retest reliability and construct validity for trunk extensor muscle FM. Twenty-nine healthy participants were tested under three FM conditions with different modulation rates. Testing was performed on a custom-built apparatus designed for trunk isometric force testing. FM accuracy relative to a fluctuating target force (20-50%MVF) was quantified using the root mean square error of the participant's generated force relative to the target force. Reliability and precision of measurement were assessed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable difference (MDD95), and Bland-Altman plots. In a subset of participants, we collected surface electromyography of trunk and hip muscles. We used non-negative matrix factorization (NNMF) to identify the underlying motor control strategies. Within- and between-day test-retest reliability was excellent for FM accuracy across the three conditions (ICC range: 0.865 to 0.979). SEM values ranged 0.9-1.8 Newtons(N) and MDD95 ranged from 2.4-4.9N. Conditions with faster rates of FM had higher ICCs. NNMF analysis revealed two muscle synergies that were consistent across participants and conditions. These synergies demonstrate that the muscles primarily involved in this FM task were indeed the trunk extensor muscles. This protocol can consistently measure FM accuracy within and between testing sessions. Trunk extensor FM, as measured by this protocol, is not specific to any trunk muscle group but is the result of modulation by all the trunk extensor muscles.