@misc{MuellerEngelMuelleretal.2017,
  author    = {M{\"u}ller, Juliane and Engel, Tilman and M{\"u}ller, Steffen and Stoll, Josefine and Baur, Heiner and Mayer, Frank},
  title     = {Effects of sudden walking perturbations on neuromuscular reflex activity and three-dimensional motion of the trunk in healthy controls and back pain symptomatic subjects},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-394931},
  pages     = {11},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Background Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison to healthy controls (H). However, it is unclear whether these results can validly be transferred to suddenly applied walking perturbations, an automated but more functional and complex movement pattern. There is an evident need to develop research-based strategies for the rehabilitation of back pain. Therefore, the investigation of differences in trunk stability between H and BPP in functional movements is of primary interest in order to define suitable intervention regimes. The purpose of this study was to analyse neuromuscular reflex activity as well as three-dimensional trunk kinematics between H and BPP during walking perturbations. Methods Eighty H (31m/49f;29±9yrs;174±10cm;71±13kg) and 14 BPP (6m/8f;30±8yrs;171±10cm;67±14kg) walked (1m/s) on a split-belt treadmill while 15 right-sided perturbations (belt decelerating, 40m/s2, 50ms duration; 200ms after heel contact) were randomly applied. Trunk muscle activity was assessed using a 12-lead EMG set-up. Trunk kinematics were measured using a 3-segment-model consisting of 12 markers (upper thoracic (UTA), lower thoracic (LTA), lumbar area (LA)). EMG-RMS ([\%],0-200ms after perturbation) was calculated and normalized to the RMS of unperturbed gait. Latency (TON;ms) and time to maximum activity (TMAX;ms) were analysed. Total motion amplitude (ROM;[°]) and mean angle (Amean;[°]) for extension-flexion, lateral flexion and rotation were calculated (whole stride cycle; 0-200ms after perturbation) for each of the three segments during unperturbed and perturbed gait. For ROM only, perturbed was normalized to unperturbed step [\%] for the whole stride as well as the 200ms after perturbation. Data were analysed descriptively followed by a student´s t-test to account for group differences. Co-contraction was analyzed between ventral and dorsal muscles (V:R) as well as side right:side left ratio (Sright:Sleft). The coefficient of variation (CV;\%) was calculated (EMG-RMS;ROM) to evaluate variability between the 15 perturbations for all groups. With respect to unequal distribution of participants to groups, an additional matched-group analysis was conducted. Fourteen healthy controls out of group H were sex-, age- and anthropometrically matched (group Hmatched) to the BPP. Results No group differences were observed for EMG-RMS or CV analysis (EMG/ROM) (p>0.025). Co-contraction analysis revealed no differences for V:R and Srigth:Sleft between the groups (p>0.025). BPP showed an increased TON and TMAX, being significant for Mm. rectus abdominus (p = 0.019) and erector spinae T9/L3 (p = 0.005/p = 0.015). ROM analysis over the unperturbed stride cycle revealed no differences between groups (p>0.025). Normalization of perturbed to unperturbed step lead to significant differences for the lumbar segment (LA) in lateral flexion with BPP showing higher normalized ROM compared to Hmatched (p = 0.02). BPP showed a significant higher flexed posture (UTA (p = 0.02); LTA (p = 0.004)) during normal walking (Amean). Trunk posture (Amean) during perturbation showed higher trunk extension values in LTA segments for H/Hmatched compared to BPP (p = 0.003). Matched group (BPP vs. Hmatched) analysis did not show any systematic changes of all results between groups. Conclusion BPP present impaired muscle response times and trunk posture, especially in the sagittal and transversal planes, compared to H. This could indicate reduced trunk stability and higher loading during gait perturbations.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{MuellerMuellerStolletal.2017,
  author    = {M{\"u}ller, Steffen and M{\"u}ller, Juliane and Stoll, Josefine and Prieske, Olaf and Cassel, Michael and Mayer, Frank},
  title     = {Incidence of back pain in adolescent athletes},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-101874},
  pages     = {5},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Background Recently, the incidence rate of back pain (BP) in adolescents has been reported at 21\%. However, the development of BP in adolescent athletes is unclear. Hence, the purpose of this study was to examine the incidence of BP in young elite athletes in relation to gender and type of sport practiced. Methods Subjective BP was assessed in 321 elite adolescent athletes (m/f 57\%/43\%; 13.2 ± 1.4 years; 163.4 ± 11.4 cm; 52.6 ± 12.6 kg; 5.0 ± 2.6 training yrs; 7.6 ± 5.3 training h/week). Initially, all athletes were free of pain. The main outcome criterion was the incidence of back pain [\%] analyzed in terms of pain development from the first measurement day (M1) to the second measurement day (M2) after 2.0 ± 1.0 year. Participants were classified into athletes who developed back pain (BPD) and athletes who did not develop back pain (nBPD). BP (acute or within the last 7 days) was assessed with a 5-step face scale (face 1-2 = no pain; face 3-5 = pain). BPD included all athletes who reported faces 1 and 2 at M1 and faces 3 to 5 at M2. nBPD were all athletes who reported face 1 or 2 at both M1 and M2. Data was analyzed descriptively. Additionally, a Chi2 test was used to analyze gender- and sport-specific differences (p = 0.05). Results Thirty-two athletes were categorized as BPD (10\%). The gender difference was 5\% (m/f: 12\%/7\%) but did not show statistical significance (p = 0.15). The incidence of BP ranged between 6 and 15\% for the different sport categories. Game sports (15\%) showed the highest, and explosive strength sports (6\%) the lowest incidence. Anthropometrics or training characteristics did not significantly influence BPD (p = 0.14 gender to p = 0.90 sports; r2 = 0.0825). Conclusions BP incidence was lower in adolescent athletes compared to young non-athletes and even to the general adult population. Consequently, it can be concluded that high-performance sports do not lead to an additional increase in back pain incidence during early adolescence. Nevertheless, back pain prevention programs should be implemented into daily training routines for sport categories identified as showing high incidence rates.},
  language  = {en}
}