Refine
Year of publication
- 2017 (6) (remove)
Language
- English (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (6)
Keywords
- EMG (2)
- Young athletes (2)
- Core (1)
- Core stability (1)
- Injury (1)
- Lifting (1)
- MISPEX (1)
- MiSpEx (1)
- Pain occurrence (1)
- Split-belt treadmill (1)
AIM To analyze neuromuscular activity patterns of the trunk in healthy controls (H) and back pain patients (BPP) during one-handed lifting of light to heavy loads. METHODS RESULTS Seven subjects (3m/4f; 32 +/- 7 years; 171 +/- 7 cm; 65 +/- 11 kg) were assigned to BPP (pain grade >= 2) and 36 (13m/23f; 28 +/- 8 years; 174 +/- 10 cm; 71 +/- 12 kg) to H (pain grade <= 1). H and BPP did not differ significantly in anthropometrics (P > 0.05). All subjects were able to lift the light and middle loads, but 57% of BPP and 22% of H were not able to lift the heavy load (all women) chi(2) analysis revealed statistically significant differences in task failure between H vs BPP (P = 0.03). EMG-RMS ranged from 33% +/- 10%/30% +/- 9% (DL, 1 kg) to 356% +/- 148%/283% +/- 80% (VR, 20 kg) in H/BPP with no statistical difference between groups regardless of load (P > 0.05). However, the EMG-RMS of the VR was greatest in all lifting tasks for both groups and increased with heavier loads. CONCLUSION Heavier loading leads to an increase (2-to 3-fold) in trunk muscle activity with comparable patterns. Heavy loading (20 kg) leads to task failure, especially in women with back pain.
Core-specific sensorimotor exercises are proven to enhance neuromuscular activity of the trunk. However, the influence of high-intensity perturbations on training efficiency is unclear within this context. Sixteen participants (29 +/- 2 yrs; 175 +/- 8 cm; 69 +/- 13 kg) were prepared with a 12-lead bilateral trunk EMG. Warm-up on a dynamometer was followed by maximum voluntary isometric trunk (flex/ext) contraction (MVC). Next, participants performed four conditions for a one-legged stance with hip abduction on a stable surface (HA) repeated randomly on an unstable surface (HAP), on a stable surface with perturbation (HA + P), and on an unstable surface with perturbation (HAP + P). Afterwards, bird dog (BD) was performed under the same conditions (BD, BDP, BD + P, BDP + P). A foam pad under the foot (HA) or the knee (BD) was used as an unstable surface. Exercises were conducted on a moveable platform. Perturbations (ACC 50 m/sec(2);100 ms duration;10rep.) were randomly applied in the anterior-posterior direction. The root mean square (RMS) normalized to MVC (%) was calculated (whole movement cycle). Muscles were grouped into ventral right and left (VR;VL), and dorsal right and left (DR;DL). Ventral Dorsal and right-left ratios were calculated (two way repeated-measures ANOVA;alpha = 0,05). Amplitudes of all muscle groups in bird dog were higher compared to hip abduction (p <= 0.0001; Range: BD: 14 +/- 3% (BD;VR) to 53 +/- 4%; HA: 7 +/- 2% (HA;DR) to 16 +/- 4% (HA;DR)). EMG-RMS showed significant differences (p < 0.001) between conditions and muscle groups per exercise. Interaction effects were only significant for HA (p = 0.02). No significant differences were present in EMG ratios (p > 0.05). Additional high-intensity perturbations during core-specific sensorimotor exercises lead to increased neuromuscular activity and therefore higher exercise intensities. However, the beneficial effects on trunk function remain unclear. Nevertheless, BD is more suitable to address trunk muscles.
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.
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.
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.
The research aimed to investigate back pain (BP) prevalence in a large cohort of young athletes with respect to age, gender, and sport discipline. BP (within the last 7days) was assessed with a face scale (face 1-2=no pain; face 3-5=pain) in 2116 athletes (m/f 61%/39%; 13.3 +/- 1.7years; 163.0 +/- 11.8cm; 52.6 +/- 13.9kg; 4.9 +/- 2.7 training years; 8.4 +/- 5.7 training h/week). Four different sports categories were devised (a: combat sports, b: game sports; c: explosive strength sport; d: endurance sport). Analysis was described descriptively, regarding age, gender, and sport. In addition, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. About 168 (8%) athletes were allocated into the BP group. About 9% of females and 7% of males reported BP. Athletes, 11-13years, showed a prevalence of 2-4%; while prevalence increased to 12-20% in 14- to 17-year olds. Considering sport discipline, prevalence ranged from 3% (soccer) to 14% (canoeing). Prevalences in weight lifting, judo, wrestling, rowing, and shooting were 10%; in boxing, soccer, handball, cycling, and horse riding, 6%. 95% CI ranged between 0.08-0.11. BP exists in adolescent athletes, but is uncommon and shows no gender differences. A prevalence increase after age 14 is obvious. Differentiated prevention programs in daily training routines might address sport discipline-specific BP prevalence.