Vera-Garcia Francisco J, Brown Stephen H M, Gray John R, McGill Stuart M
Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Spine Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W., Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3G1.
Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2006 Jun;21(5):443-55. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.12.006. Epub 2006 Jan 27.
Studies examining rapid spine loading have documented the influence of steady-state trunk preloads, and the resulting levels of trunk muscle preactivation, on the control of spine stability. However, the effects of different levels of muscle coactivation, and resulting spine loads, on the response to a perturbation of the externally unloaded trunk are unclear.
Fourteen male subjects coactivated the abdominal muscles at four different levels (approximately 0%, 10%, 20% and 30% of the maximal voluntary contraction) monitored by an electromyography biofeedback system while semi-seated in a neutral lumbar spine position. They were loaded posteriorly in two directions (0 degrees and 30 degrees from the sagittal plane) and with two different loads (6.80 and 9.07 kg). Force perturbation, spine displacement and electromyography activity were measured, and torso compression and stability were modeled.
Abdominal coactivation significantly increased spine stability and reduced the movement of the lumbar spine after perturbation, but at the cost of increasing spinal compression. Preactivation also reduced the frequency and magnitude, and delayed the onset of muscle reactions, mainly for the back muscles and the internal oblique. The higher magnitude load and the load applied in an oblique direction both showed more potentially hazardous effects on the trunk.
Torso coactivation increases spinal stiffness and stability and reduces the necessity for sophisticated muscle responses to perturbation. Although further investigation is needed, it appears there is an asymptotic function between coactivation and both stiffness and stability. There also appears to be more hazard when buttressing twisting components of a sudden load compared to sagittal components. Patients with trunk instability and intolerance to spine compression may benefit from low to moderate levels of coactivation.
研究快速脊柱负荷的实验记录了稳态躯干预负荷及其导致的躯干肌肉预激活水平对脊柱稳定性控制的影响。然而,不同水平的肌肉共同激活及其导致的脊柱负荷对外侧无负荷躯干受到扰动时的反应影响尚不清楚。
14名男性受试者在半坐姿且腰椎处于中立位时,通过肌电图生物反馈系统以四种不同水平(约为最大自主收缩的0%、10%、20%和30%)共同激活腹部肌肉。他们在两个方向(矢状面0度和30度)接受两种不同负荷(6.80和9.07千克)的向后加载。测量了力扰动、脊柱位移和肌电图活动,并对躯干压缩和稳定性进行了建模。
腹部共同激活显著提高了脊柱稳定性,并减少了扰动后腰椎的移动,但代价是增加了脊柱压缩。预激活还降低了频率和幅度,并延迟了肌肉反应的起始,主要是对背部肌肉和腹内斜肌而言。更高幅度的负荷以及以倾斜方向施加的负荷对躯干均显示出更具潜在危险的影响。
躯干共同激活增加了脊柱刚度和稳定性,并减少了对扰动进行复杂肌肉反应的必要性。尽管需要进一步研究,但共同激活与刚度和稳定性之间似乎存在渐近函数关系。与矢状面分量相比,支撑突然负荷的扭转分量时似乎也存在更多危险。躯干不稳定且不耐受脊柱压缩的患者可能会从低至中等水平的共同激活中受益。