Stokes Ian A F, Fox James R, Henry Sharon M
Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA.
Eur Spine J. 2006 May;15(5):658-67. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-0893-7. Epub 2005 May 20.
Trunk stability requires muscle stiffness associated with appropriate timing and magnitude of activation of muscles. Abnormality of muscle function has been implicated as possible cause or consequence of back pain. This experimental study compared trunk muscle activation and responses to transient force perturbations in persons with and without self-reported history of low back pain. The objective was to determine whether or not history of back pain was associated with (1) altered anticipatory preactivation of trunk muscles or altered likelihood of muscular response to a transient force perturbation and (2) altered muscle activation patterns during a ramped effort. Twenty-one subjects who reported having back pain (LBP group) and twenty-three reporting no recent back pain (NLBP group) were tested while each subject stood in an apparatus with the pelvis immobilized. They performed 'ramped-effort' tests (to a voluntary maximum effort), and force perturbation tests. Resistance was provided by a horizontal cable from the thorax to one of five anchorage points on a wall track to the subject's right at angles of 0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 135 degrees and 180 degrees to the forward direction. In the perturbation tests, subjects first pulled against the cable to generate an effort nominally 15% or 30% of their maximum extension effort. The effort and the EMG activity of five right/left pairs of trunk muscles were recorded, and muscle responses were detected. In the ramped-effort tests the gradient of the EMG-effort relationship provided a measure of each muscle's activation. On average, the LBP group subjects activated their dorsal muscles more than the NLBP group subjects in a maximum effort task when the EMG values were normalized for the maximum EMG, but this finding may have resulted from lesser maximum effort generated by LBP subjects. Greater muscle preactivation was recorded in the LBP group than the NLBP group just prior to the perturbation. The likelihood of muscle responses to perturbations was not significantly different between the two groups. The findings were consistent with the hypothesis that LBP subjects employed muscle activation in a quasi-static task and preactivation prior to a perturbation in an attempt to stiffen and stabilize the trunk. However, interpretation of the findings was complicated by the fact that LBP subjects generated lesser efforts, and it was not known whether this resulted from anatomical differences (e.g., muscle atrophy) or reduced motivation (e.g., pain avoidance).
躯干稳定性需要与肌肉激活的适当时间和幅度相关的肌肉僵硬度。肌肉功能异常被认为可能是背痛的原因或结果。这项实验研究比较了有和没有自我报告的下背痛病史的人的躯干肌肉激活情况以及对瞬态力扰动的反应。目的是确定背痛病史是否与以下情况相关:(1)躯干肌肉预期预激活的改变或对瞬态力扰动的肌肉反应可能性的改变;(2)在递增用力过程中肌肉激活模式的改变。21名报告有背痛的受试者(LBP组)和23名报告近期无背痛的受试者(NLBP组)在骨盆固定于器械中站立时接受测试。他们进行了“递增用力”测试(至自愿最大用力)和力扰动测试。阻力由一根水平电缆提供,该电缆从胸部连接到受试者右侧墙壁轨道上五个锚固点之一,与向前方向成0度、45度、90度、135度和180度角。在扰动测试中,受试者首先拉动电缆以产生名义上为其最大伸展用力15%或30%的用力。记录用力情况以及五对左右躯干肌肉的肌电图活动,并检测肌肉反应。在递增用力测试中,肌电图-用力关系的梯度提供了对每块肌肉激活情况的一种度量。平均而言,当肌电图值针对最大肌电图进行归一化时,在最大用力任务中,LBP组受试者比NLBP组受试者更多地激活其背部肌肉,但这一发现可能是由于LBP受试者产生的最大用力较小所致。在扰动之前,LBP组记录到的肌肉预激活比NLBP组更大。两组之间对扰动的肌肉反应可能性没有显著差异。这些发现与以下假设一致,即LBP受试者在准静态任务中采用肌肉激活,并在扰动之前进行预激活,以试图使躯干变硬并稳定。然而,由于LBP受试者产生的用力较小,这一事实使研究结果的解释变得复杂,并且不知道这是由解剖学差异(例如肌肉萎缩)还是动机降低(例如避免疼痛)导致的。