Search

Background Individuals with lower limb loss are at an increased risk for falls, likely due to impaired balance control. Standing balance is typically explained by double- or single-inverted pendulum models of the hip and/or ankle, neglecting the knee joint. However, recent work suggests knee joint motion contributes toward stabilizing center-of-mass kinematics during standing balance. Research Question To what extent do hip, knee, and ankle joint motions contribute to postural sway in standing among individuals with lower limb loss? Methods Forty-two individuals (25 m/17f) with unilateral lower limb loss (30 transtibial, 12 transfemoral) stood quietly with eyes open and eyes closed, for 30 s each, while wearing accelerometers on the pelvis, thigh, shank, and foot. Triaxial inertial measurement units were transformed to inertial anterior-posterior components and sway parameters were computed: ellipse area, root-mean-square, and jerk. A state-space model with a Kalman filter calculated hip, knee, and ankle joint flexion-extension angles and ranges of motion. Multiple linear regression predicted postural sway parameters from intact limb joint ranges of motion, with BMI as a covariate (p Results With eyes open, intact limb hip flexion predicted larger sway ellipse area, whereas hip flexion and knee extension predicted larger sway root-mean-square, and hip flexion, knee extension, and ankle plantarflexion predicted larger sway jerk. With eyes closed, intact limb hip flexion remained the predictor of sway ellipse area; no other joint motions influenced sway parameters in this condition. Significance Hip, knee, and ankle motions influence postural sway during standing balance among individuals with lower limb loss. Specifically, increasing intact-side hip flexion, knee extension, and ankle plantarflexion motion increased postural sway. With vision removed, a re-weighting of lower limb joint sensory mechanisms may control postural sway, such that increasing sway may be regulated by proximal coordination strategies and vestibular responses, with implications for fall risk.

Introduction Low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent after lower limb amputation (LLA). Reports describing longitudinal changes in spine health before and after amputation are rare. This study describes lumbar spine pathology, muscle morphology, and the continuum of care for LBP before and after LLA. Materials and Methods We queried electronic medical records of patients who sought care for LBP before and after unilateral LLA between January 2002 and April 2020 and who had documented lumbar imaging pre- and post-LLA. Patient demographics, muscle morphology, spinal pathology, premorbid and comorbid conditions, self-reported pain, and treatment interventions were assessed. Results Four patients with LBP and imaging before and after LLA were identified. Intervertebral disc degeneration progressed after amputation in three patients, whereas facet arthrosis progressed in both female patients. The fat content of lumbar musculature generally increased after amputation. Conservative management of LBP before and after amputation was standard, with progression to steroidal injections. Conclusions Lumbar spine health may degrade after amputation. Here, lumbar muscle size did not change after LLA, yet the fat content increased in combination with increases in facet and intervertebral disc degeneration.

Objective To retrospectively investigate trunk-pelvis kinematic outcomes among persons with unilateral transtibial and transfemoral limb loss with time from initial independent ambulation with a prosthesis, while secondarily describing self-reported presence and intensity of low back pain. Over time, increasing trunk-pelvis range of motion and decreasing trunk-pelvis coordination with increasing presence and/or intensity of low back pain were hypothesized. Additionally, less trunk-pelvis range of motion and more trunk-pelvis coordination for persons with more distal limb loss was hypothesized. Design Inception cohort with up to 5 repeated evaluations, including both biomechanical and subjective outcomes, during a 1-year period (0, 2, 4, 6, 12 months) after initial ambulation with a prosthesis. Setting Biomechanics laboratory within military treatment facility. Participants Twenty-two men with unilateral transtibial limb loss and 10 men with unilateral transfemoral limb loss (N=32). Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Triplanar trunk-pelvis range of motion and intersegmental coordination (continuous relative phase) obtained at self-selected (∼1.30m/s) and controlled (∼1.20m/s) walking velocities. Self-reported presence and intensity of low back pain. Results An interaction effect between time and group existed for sagittal (P=.039) and transverse (P=.009) continuous relative phase at self-selected walking velocity and transverse trunk range of motion (P=.013) and sagittal continuous relative phase (P=.005) at controlled walking velocity. Trunk range of motion generally decreased, and trunk-pelvis coordination generally increased with increasing time after initial ambulation. Sagittal trunk and pelvis range of motion were always less and frontal trunk-pelvis coordination was always greater for persons with more distal limb loss. Low back pain increased for persons with transtibial limb loss and decreased for persons with transfemoral limb loss following the 4-month time point. Conclusions Temporal changes (or lack thereof) in features of trunk-pelvis motions within the first year of ambulation help elucidate relationships between (biomechanical) risk factors for low back pain after limb loss.

Background The kinetic chain theory is widely used as a rationale for the inclusion of core stability training in athletes. Core stability (muscle capacity and neuromuscular control) impairments may result in less than optimal performance and abnormal force dissipation to the shoulder complex that could lead to shoulder injuries. However, a paucity of literature exists to support this relationship, and no previous studies have investigated the relationship between isolated core neuromuscular control and shoulder injuries. Additionally, lower extremity postural stability has been associated with athletic function and may also be associated with shoulder injuries. The purpose of this study was to compare biomechanical measures of isolated core neuromuscular control and lower extremity postural stability between athletes with and without non-traumatic shoulder injuries. Methods Eighty athletes (55 males, age: 21.2 ± 3.3 years, 40 with a current shoulder injury) completed biomechanical measures of isolated core neuromuscular control and lower extremity postural stability. Athletes were matched by age, gender, body mass index, and sport type. MANOVAs were used to assess differences between measures of core neuromuscular control and lower extremity postural stability between groups. Findings There were no statistically significant differences between athletes with and without shoulder injuries for the static core neuromuscular control measures, F(4,75) = 0.45, P = 0.78, η2 = 0.02; dynamic core neuromuscular control measures, F(4,75) = 0.81, P = 0.52, η2 = 0.04; or lower extremity postural stability measures, F(8,61) = 0.85, P = 0.56, η2 = 0.10. Interpretation Although core stability is widely incorporated in rehabilitation of athletes with shoulder injuries, athletes with current non-traumatic shoulder injuries may not present with impairments in core neuromuscular control or lower extremity postural stability.

Background Repeated exposures to larger lateral trunk-pelvic motion and features of knee joint loading likely influence the onset of low back pain and knee osteoarthritis among persons with lower-limb amputation. Decreased hip abductor strength can also influence frontal plane trunk-pelvic motion and knee moments; however, it is unclear how these are inter-related post-amputation. Methods Twenty-four participants with unilateral lower-limb amputation (14 transtibial; 10 transfemoral) and eight uninjured controls walked at 1.3 m/s while full-body biomechanical data were captured. Multiple linear regression and Cohen's f2 predicted (P Findings There were no group differences in hip strength, peak knee adduction moment or pelvis acceleration (p > 0.06). The combination of hip strength, and mediolateral trunk and pelvic motion did not predict (F(5,29) = 2.53, p = 0.06, adjusted R2 = 0.27, f2 = 0.08) peak knee adduction moment. However, the combination of hip strength and trunk and pelvis acceleration predicted knee adduction moment loading rate (F(7,29) = 3.59, p = 0.008, adjusted R2 = 0.45, f2 = 0.25), with peak trunk acceleration (β = 0.72, p = 0.008) and intact hip strength (β = 0.78, p = 0.008) significantly contributing to the model. Interpretation These data suggest increased hip abductor strength counteracts increased lateral trunk acceleration, concomitantly influencing the rate at which the ground reaction force vector loads the intact knee joint. Persons with lower-limb amputation perhaps compensate for increased intact limb loading by increasing trunk motion, thereby increasing demand on hip abductors to attenuate this preferential loading.

Balance is sustained through multi-joint coordination in response to postural perturbations. Low back pain alters postural responses; however, it is unknown how coordination between the trunk and lower extremities affects center of mass control during standing balance among persons with limb loss, particularly those with back pain.Forty participants with unilateral lower limb loss (23 with back pain) stood with eyes open and closed on a firm surface, while wearing IMUs on the sternum, pelvis, and bilaterally on the thigh, shank, and foot. A state-space model with Kalman filter calculated sagittal trunk, hip, knee, and ankle joint angles. Fuzzy entropy quantified center of mass variability of sagittal angular velocity at the sacrum. Normalized cross-correlation functions identified coordination patterns (trunk-hip, trunk-knee, trunk-ankle). Multiple linear regression predicted fuzzy entropy from cross-correlation values for each pattern, with body mass and amputation level as covariates.With eyes open, trunk-lower limb joint coordination on either limb did not predict fuzzy entropy. With eyes closed, positive trunk-hip coordination on the intact limb predicted fuzzy entropy in the pain group (p = 0.02), but not the no pain group. On the prosthetic side, inverse trunk-hip coordination patterns predicted fuzzy entropy in pain group (p = 0.03) only.Persons with limb loss and back pain demonstrated opposing coordination strategies between the lower limbs and trunk when vision was removed, perhaps identifying a mechanism for pain recurrence. Vision is the dominant source of balance stabilization in this population, which may increase fall risk when visual feedback is compromised.

Objective This study preliminarily characterizes and compares the impact of lower limb loss and development of chronic low back pain (cLBP) on psychosocial factors, as well as the relationship between these factors and low back pain–related functional disability. Design Cross-sectional study. Methods Participants were adults, active duty or retired military, with traumatic lower limb loss with and without chronic low back pain. Psychosocial factors and low back pain–related functional disability were measured using common clinical self-report questionnaires. The presence of psychosocial factors was compared between those with and without cLBP using multivariate analysis of covariance (P Results There were no statistically significant differences among psychosocial factors between those with vs without cLBP (F(4, 13) = 0.81, P = 0.54, η2= 0.19). Employment status (ρ = 0.43, P = 0.02), anxiety (ρ = 0.45, P = 0.04), and kinesiophobia (ρ = 0.47, P = 0.04) were moderately associated with low back pain–related disability. Conclusions Psychological (i.e., anxiety) and social (i.e., employment status) factors may influence how persons with traumatic lower limb loss respond to self-reported measures of low back pain–related disability. The findings suggest that the Modified Oswestry Disability Index identifies cLBP-related functional disability in the context of lower limb loss. These results support the interdependence among biological, psychological, and social factors, which should be collectively considered during the development of rehabilitative strategies to treat secondary musculoskeletal conditions within this population.

Background Persons with unilateral lower-limb loss are at increased risk for developing chronic low back pain. Aberrant trunk and pelvis motor behavior secondary to lower-limb loss potentially alters trunk postural control and increases demands on the trunk musculature for stability. However, it is unclear whether trunk postural control is associated with the presence or chronicity of low back pain within this population. Research question Is there a potential role of impaired trunk postural control among persons with lower limb loss and chronic low back pain? Methods Two groups of males with unilateral lower-limb loss (n = 18 with chronic low back pain; n = 13 without pain) performed an unstable sitting task. Trunk postural control was characterized using traditional and non-linear measures derived from center-of-pressure time series, as well as trunk kinematics and the ratio of lumbar to thoracic erector spinae muscle activations. Results Traditional and non-linear center-of-pressure measures and trunk muscle activation ratios were similar between groups, while participants with chronic low back pain demonstrated greater trunk motion and reduced local dynamic stability. Significance Our results suggest that persons with both lower-limb loss and chronic low back pain exhibit impaired trunk postural control compared to those with limb loss but without pain. Aberrant trunk motor behavior may be a response to altered functional requirements of walking with a prosthesis. An inability to adequately control the trunk could lead to spinal instability and pain in the presence of repetitive exposure to aberrant motor behavior of these proximal structures during everyday activities.

Background To assist with forward progression during gait, persons with unilateral lower-limb amputation typically perform more work within the unaffected versus affected limb. However, prior cross-sectional (>2years post-amputation) studies cannot necessarily elucidate the origin or evolution of these compensatory mechanics. Research question Do lower limb joint kinetics change during the initial stages of independent ambulation among persons with lower-limb amputation? Methods Nine males with unilateral lower-limb amputation (6 transtibial; 3 transfemoral) completed instrumented gait analyses (speed = 1.2 m/s) at 2 and 12-months post-independent ambulation. Within the unaffected limb, sagittal and frontal plane total positive and negative work, peak power, average positive power, and percent contribution of each joint were compared between time points using paired t-tests. Results No differences existed between time points in total positive or negative work, at any joint (p > 0.038) in either plane. Similarly, there were no differences in percent contribution by each joint to total average power by sagittal (p > 0.15) or frontal (p > 0.32) planes. Significance Persons with unilateral lower-limb amputation do not alter power distribution among joints within the unaffected limb during initial independent ambulation. However, compared to previous cross-sectional reports, smaller peak powers in the unaffected hip and knee here suggest mechanical work increases with time since amputation. Future research should longitudinally monitor segment mechanics to determine when deleterious strategies develop, as these have implications for joint degeneration and pain.

Persons with lower limb amputation (LLA) are at high risk for developing chronic low back pain (LBP), often with biomechanical factors considered as likely contributors. Here, trunk and pelvis kinematics, muscle forces, and resultant spinal loads were characterized in persons with LLA, with and without chronic LBP. Thirty-five persons with unilateral LLA - 19 with chronic LBP ("LLA-cLBP"), 16 without LBP ("LLA-nLBP") - and 15 (uninjured) persons without LBP ("CTR-nLBP") walked overground (1.3 m/s) while thorax and pelvis kinematics were tracked (and ranges of motion [ROM] computed), and used as inputs for a non-linear finite element model of the spine to estimate global and local muscle forces, and resultant spinal loads. In the frontal and transverse planes, thorax ROM were up to 66.6% smaller in LLA-nLBP versus LLA-cLBP (P 0.001) and CTR-nLBP (P 0.001). In the sagittal plane, pelvis ROM was 50.4% smaller in LLA-nLBP versus LLA-cLBP (P = 0.014). LLA-cLBP exhibited 45.5% and 34.2% greater peak local and global muscle forces, respectively, versus CTR-nLBP (P 0.011). Up to 48.1% greater spinal loads were observed in LLA-cLBP versus CTR-nLBP (P 0.013); peak compression and local muscle forces were respectively 20.2% and 41.0% larger in LLA-nLBP versus CTR-nLBP (P 0.005). Despite differences in trunk and pelvis kinematics between LLA-cLBP and LLA-nLBP, trunk muscle forces and spinal loads were similar (P 0.101) between these groups. Similar loading parameters regardless of LBP presence, while highly dependent on trunk muscle activation strategies, may mitigate further accumulation of mechanical fatigue. It remains important to understand the temporality of loading with respect to LBP onset following LLA.

Background Trunk postural control (TPC) is critical in maintaining balance following perturbations (i.e., avoiding falls), and impaired among persons with lower extremity trauma, contributing to elevated fall risk. Previously, a fall-prevention program improved TPC in individuals with unilateral transtibial amputation following trip-inducing perturbations. However, it is presently unclear if these improvements are task specific. Research question Do improvements to TPC gained from a fall-prevention program translate to another task which assesses TPC in isolation (i.e., unstable sitting)? Secondarily, can isolated TPC be used to identify who would benefit most from the fall-prevention program? Methods Twenty-five individuals (21 male/4 female) with lower extremity trauma, who participated in a larger fall-prevention program, were included in this analysis. Trunk flexion and flexion velocity quantified TPC following perturbation; accelerometer-based sway parameters quantified TPC during unstable sitting. A generalized linear mixed-effects model assessed training-induced differences in TPC after perturbation; a generalized linear model assessed differences in sway parameters following training. Spearman’s rho related training-induced changes to TPC following perturbation (i.e., the difference in TPC measures at pre- and post-training assessments) with pre- vs. post-training changes to sway parameters during unstable sitting (i.e., the difference in sway parameters at pre- and post-training assessments) as well as pre-training sway parameters with the pre- vs. post-training differences in TPC following perturbation. Results Following training, trunk flexion angles decreased, indicating improved TPC; however, sway parameters did not differ pre- and post-training. In addition, pre- vs. post-training differences in TPC following perturbation were neither strongly nor significantly correlated with sway parameters. Moreover, pre-training sway parameters did not correlate with pre- vs. post-training differences in trunk flexion/flexion velocity. Significance Overall, these results indicate that improvements to TPC gained from fall-prevention training are task-specific and do not translate to other activities. Moreover, isolated TPC measures are not able to identify individuals that benefit most from the fall-prevention program.

Altered trunk movements during gait in persons with lower-limb amputation are often associated with an increased risk for secondary health conditions; however, the postural control strategies underlying such alterations remain unclear. In this secondary analysis, the authors employed nonlinear measures of triplanar trunk accelerations via short-term Lyapunov exponents to investigate trunk local stability as well as spatiotemporal gait parameters to describe gait mechanics. The authors also evaluated the influence of a concurrent task on trunk local stability and gait mechanics to explore if competition for neuromuscular processing resources can assist in identifying unique strategies to control kinematic variability. Sixteen males with amputation—8 transtibial and 8 transfemoral—and 8 uninjured males (controls) walked on a treadmill at their self-selected speed (mean = 1.2 m/s ±10%) in 5 experimental conditions (8 min each): 4 while performing a concurrent task (2 walking and 2 seated) and 1 with no concurrent task. Individuals with amputation demonstrated significantly smaller Lyapunov exponents than controls in all 3 planes of motion, regardless of concurrent task or level of amputation (P P

Background Relationships between core stability and lower extremity injuries have been described in the literature; however, evidence of the relationship between upper extremity injuries and core stability and balance is limited. Hypothesis/purpose The purpose of this study was to compare clinical measures of core stability and balance between athletes with and without non-traumatic shoulder injuries. Study design Cross sectional. Methods Eighty athletes (54 males, age: 21.2 + 3.3 years) participated in this study. Forty athletes with a current shoulder injury were matched to healthy athletes by age, gender, BMI, and sport. Athletes completed clinical core stability tests including flexor and extensor endurance tests, double leg lower test (°) and balance tests including single leg stance under eyes open and eyes closed conditions, and the Y-balance test. MANOVAs were used to assess group differences. Results No statistically significant differences existed between athletes with and without shoulder injuries for clinical tests of core stability, F(1,78)=0.97, p=0.41; η2 = 0.04. No statistically significant differences existed between injured athletes with and without shoulder injuries for static and dynamic balance measures, F(1,78)=0.86, p=0.53; η2 = 0.07. Conclusions Although core stability is widely incorporated in rehabilitation of athletes with shoulder injuries, performance on these clinical tests did not differ in the group of athletes assessed in this study. Level of evidence 3.

Trunk postural control (TPC) has been investigated in several populations and tasks. Previous work observed targeted training of TPC via isolated trunk control tasks may improve performance in other activities (e.g., walking). However, the nature of this relationship remains unknown. We therefore investigated the relationship between TPC, at both the global (i.e., response to finite perturbations) and local (i.e., resistance to continuous perturbations) levels, during walking and unstable sitting, both at varying levels of task demand. Thirteen individuals (11 Male, 2 Female) with no recent history (past 12 months) of illness, injury, or musculoskeletal disorders walked on a dual-belt treadmill at four speeds (-20%, -10%, +10%, and + 20% of self-selected walking speed) and completed an unstable sitting task at four levels of chair instability (100, 75, 60, and 45% of an individual's "neutral" stability as defined by the gravitational gradient). Three-dimensional trunk and pelvic kinematics were collected. Tri-planar Lyapunov exponents and sample entropy characterized local TPC. Global TPC was characterized by ranges of motion and, for seated trials, metrics derived from center-of-pressure time series (i.e., path length, 95% confidence ellipse area, mean velocity, and RMS position). No strong or significant correlations (-0.057 ρ 0.206) were observed between local TPC during walking and unstable sitting tasks. However, global TPC declined in both walking and unstable sitting as task demand increased, with a moderate inter-task relationship (0.336 ρ 0.544). While the mechanisms regulating local TPC are inherently different, global TPC may be similarly regulated across both tasks, supporting future translation of improvements in TPC between tasks.

Objectives Non-traumatic extremity injuries are particularly common in sports, representing a significant economic, academic, and psychosocial burden on athletes. Proposed musculoskeletal risk factors for increased injury and decreased performance in athletes include movement pattern inefficiency, decreased regional stability, decreased mobility, and asymmetrical movement. The Movement System Screening Tool (MSST) is a comprehensive screening tool designed to assess these factors. Thus, the purpose of this study was to describe the development and determine the content and construct validity and inter-rater reliability of the MSST. Methods A modified Delphi panel of experts determined content validity. 80 athletes (40 with and 40 without a current non-traumatic shoulder injury) completed 21 clinical tests, with exploratory factor analysis and known group analysis performed to determine construct validity. Two independent raters were used to establish individual item and composite score inter-rater reliability. Results Exploratory factor analysis identified three of the four apriori constructs over 7 factors (14 tests), representing 63% of the variance. Known group analysis revealed a significantly lower composite score in athletes with vs. without a current non-traumatic shoulder injury (56.9 ± 5.8 vs. 62.7 ± 4.5, respectively). A preliminary cut score of 62 was chosen with sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 44%. Composite score inter-rater reliability was excellent ICC (2,1) = 0.94, 95% CI (0.91, 0.96) and item reliability ranged from κ = .57 to 1.00. Conclusions The MSST possesses constructs representative of injury risk and measurement properties acceptable for use in clinical settings. Comprehensive screens with construct validity and known measurement error are needed not only to identify athletes at risk of injury, but also provide an instrument that can be used in studies that seek to validate training approaches proposed to change movement impairment and injury risk in athletes.

Relationships between core stability and lower extremity injuries have been described in the literature; however, evidence of the relationship between upper extremity injuries and core stability and balance is limited.The purpose of this study was to compare clinical measures of core stability and balance between athletes with and without non-traumatic shoulder injuries.Cross sectional.Eighty athletes (54 males, age: 21.2 + 3.3 years) participated in this study. Forty athletes with a current shoulder injury were matched to healthy athletes by age, gender, BMI, and sport. Athletes completed clinical core stability tests including flexor and extensor endurance tests, double leg lower test (°) and balance tests including single leg stance under eyes open and eyes closed conditions, and the Y-balance test. MANOVAs were used to assess group differences.No statistically significant differences existed between athletes with and without shoulder injuries for clinical tests of core stability, F(1,78)=0.97, p=0.41; η2 = 0.04. No statistically significant differences existed between injured athletes with and without shoulder injuries for static and dynamic balance measures, F(1,78)=0.86, p=0.53; η2 = 0.07.Although core stability is widely incorporated in rehabilitation of athletes with shoulder injuries, performance on these clinical tests did not differ in the group of athletes assessed in this study.3.

BACKGROUND: Programs designed to prevent or rehabilitate athletic injuries or improve athletic performance frequently focus on core stability. This approach is based upon the theory that poor core stability increases the risk of poor performance and/or injury. Despite the widespread use of core stability training amongst athletes, the question of whether or not sufficient evidence exists to support this practice remains to be answered. OBJECTIVES: 1) Open a dialogue on the definition and components of core stability. 2) Provide an overview of current science linking core stability to musculoskeletal injuries of the upper extremity. 3) Provide an overview of evidence for the association between core stability and athletic performance. DISCUSSION: Core stability is the ability to control the position and movement of the trunk for optimal production, transfer, and control of forces to and from the upper and lower extremities during functional activities. Muscle capacity and neuromuscular control are critical components of core stability. A limited body of evidence provides some support for a link between core stability and upper extremity injuries amongst athletes who participate in baseball, football, or swimming. Likewise, few studies exist to support a relationship between core stability and athletic performance. CONCLUSIONS: A limited body of evidence exists to support the use of core stability training in injury prevention or performance enhancement programs for athletes. Clearly more research is needed to inform decision making when it comes to inclusion or emphasis of core training when designing injury prevention and rehabilitation programs for athletes.

Persons with lower limb amputation (LLA) walk with altered trunk-pelvic motions. The underlying trunk muscle activation patterns associated with these motions may provide insight into neuromuscular control strategies post LLA and the increased incidence of low back pain (LBP). Eight males with unilateral LLA and ten able-bodied controls (CTR) walked over ground at 1.0 m/s, 1.3 m/s, 1.6 m/s, and self-selected speeds. Trunk muscle onsets/offsets were determined from electromyographic activity of bilateral thoracic (TES) and lumbar (LES) erector spinae. Trunk-pelvic kinematics were simultaneously recorded. There were no differences in TES onset times between groups; however, LLA demonstrated a second TES onset during mid-to-terminal swing (not seen in CTR), and activation for a larger percentage of the gait cycle. LLA (vs. CTR) demonstrated an earlier onset of LES and activation for a larger percentage of the gait cycle at most speeds. LLA walked with increased frontal plane trunk ROM, and a more in-phase inter-segmental coordination at all speeds. These data collectively suggest that trunk neuromuscular control strategies secondary to LLA are driven by functional needs to generate torque proximally to advance the affected limb during gait, though this strategy may have unintended deleterious consequences such as increasing LBP risk over time.

Significance: Advances in field-based trauma care, surgical techniques, and protective equipment have collectively facilitated the survival of a historically large number of service members (SMs) following combat trauma, although many sustained significant composite tissue injuries to the extremities, including limb loss (LL) and limb salvage (LS). Beyond the acute surgical and rehabilitative efforts that focus primarily on wound care and restoring mobility, traumatic LL and LS are associated with several debilitating longer term secondary health conditions (e.g., low back pain [LBP], osteoarthritis [OA], and cardiovascular disease [CVD]) that can adversely impact physical function and quality of life. Recent Advances: Despite recent advancements in prosthetic and orthotic devices, altered movement and mechanical loading patterns have been identified among persons with LL and salvage, which are purported risk factors for the development of longer term secondary musculoskeletal conditions and may limit functional outcomes and/or concomitantly impact cardiovascular health. Critical Issues: The increased prevalence of and risk for LBP, OA, and CVD among the relatively young cohort of SMs with LL and LS significantly impact physiological and psychological well-being, particularly over the next several decades of their lives. Future Directions: Longitudinal studies are needed to characterize the onset, progression, and recurrence of health conditions secondary to LL and salvage. While not a focus of the current review, detailed characterization of physiological biomarkers throughout the rehabilitation process may provide additional insight into the current understanding of disease processes of the musculoskeletal and cardiovascular systems.

Emerging evidence suggests poor core stability is a risk factor for low back and lower extremity injuries in athletes. Recently the trunk stability test (TST) and unilateral hip bridge endurance test (UHBE) were developed to clinically assess core stability. Although these and other clinical tests of core stability exist, how well they assess core stability when compared to biomechanical measures of isolated core stability has not been thoroughly evaluated.The purposes of this study were to 1) determine concurrent validity of two novel clinical core stability assessments (TST and UHBE), and 2) assess relationships between these assessments and the trunk endurance and Y-Balance tests. The authors' hypothesized that the TST and UHBE would be highly correlated to the lab-based biomechanical measure of isolated core stability. Also, the TST and UHBE would be moderately correlated with each other, but not with the trunk extensor endurance and Y-Balance.Cross-Sectional design.Twenty healthy active individuals completed the TST (recorded number of errors), UHBE (s), trunk extensor endurance (s), Y-Balance (% leg length) test (YBT), and biomechanical test of core stability.Correlational analyses revealed a small, non-significant association between TST and biomechanical measures (rs = 0.2 - 0.22), while a moderate, significant relationship existed between UHBE and biomechanical measures (rs = -0.49 to -0.56, p 0.05). There was little to no relationship between TST and UHBE (r = -0.07 to - 0.21), or TST and extensor endurance (r = -0.18 to -0.24). A moderate, significant association existed between TST and two reach directions of the YBT (r = -0.41 to -0.43, p 0.05).Study data support the utility of UHBE as a clinical measure of core stability. The poor relationship between the TST and biomechanical measures, combined with observation of most control faults occurring in the lower extremity (LE) suggest the TST may not be an appropriate clinical test of core stability.Level 3.