Roessingh Research and Development, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Eur J Pain. 2010 Jul;14(6):640-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.10.011. Epub 2009 Dec 4.
Concerning chronic low back pain (CLBP), different cognitive-behavioral models have hypothesized that coping strategies play a role in the chronification of pain by changes in physical activity. Strategies such as avoidance - or persistent coping may be related to changes in (lumbar) muscle activity.
Investigate the different coping strategies present in CLBP and whether these are differentially related to lumbar muscle activity during walking.
In a cross sectional study, 63 subjects with CLBP walked on a treadmill at 3.8 km/h. Coping strategies were measured with the Dutch version of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire and three factors were identified with principal component analysis. Surface electromyography data of the erector spinae were obtained and smooth rectified electromyography (SRE) values were averaged per periods of swing and double support. The ratio of SRE values (swing/double support) was used as a measure of relaxation. The relation between SRE values and coping strategies was analyzed with random coefficient analysis.
Three coping strategies (i.e. "catastrophizing", "distraction" and "persistence and control") could be discerned. "Catastrophizing" was positively related to (natural logarithm) SRE values (beta=0.06, 95% CI=0.01-0.10; R(2)=7.7%). "Distraction" was negatively associated with SRE ratios (beta=-0.03, 95% CI=-0.05 to -0.01; R(2)=7.5%). No relation was found between "persistence and control" and SRE values or ratios.
In CLBP, a maladaptive coping strategy like "catastrophizing" is related to increased lumbar muscle activity, and an adaptive strategy like "distraction" to increased lumbar muscle relaxation during walking.
关于慢性下腰痛(CLBP),不同的认知行为模型假设应对策略通过改变身体活动在疼痛的慢性化中起作用。回避或持续应对等策略可能与(腰椎)肌肉活动的变化有关。
调查 CLBP 中存在的不同应对策略,以及这些策略是否与行走时腰椎肌肉活动存在差异相关。
在一项横断面研究中,63 名 CLBP 患者在跑步机上以 3.8 公里/小时的速度行走。使用荷兰版应对策略问卷测量应对策略,并通过主成分分析确定了三个因素。获得竖脊肌的表面肌电图数据,并对摆动和双支撑期的平均平滑整流肌电图(SRE)值进行平均。SRE 值(摆动/双支撑)的比值用作松弛的衡量指标。使用随机系数分析分析 SRE 值与应对策略之间的关系。
可以辨别出三种应对策略(即“灾难化”、“分心”和“坚持和控制”)。“灾难化”与(自然对数)SRE 值呈正相关(β=0.06,95%置信区间为 0.01-0.10;R²=7.7%)。“分心”与 SRE 比值呈负相关(β=-0.03,95%置信区间为-0.05 至-0.01;R²=7.5%)。“坚持和控制”与 SRE 值或比值之间没有关系。
在 CLBP 中,一种适应不良的应对策略,如“灾难化”,与腰椎肌肉活动增加有关,而一种适应良好的策略,如“分心”,与行走时腰椎肌肉放松增加有关。