Mueller Juliane, Engel Tilman, Mueller Steffen, Stoll Josefine, Baur Heiner, Mayer Frank
University Outpatient Clinic, Sports Medicine & Sports Orthopaedics, University of Potsdam, Germany.
Bern University of Applied Sciences, Health, Physiotherapy, Bern, Switzerland.
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 20;12(3):e0174034. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174034. eCollection 2017.
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.
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.
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.
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.
与健康对照组(H)相比,背痛患者(BPP)在对准静态突然的躯干负荷做出反应时,肌肉起始延迟、协同收缩增加且存在变异性。然而,尚不清楚这些结果是否能有效地应用于突然施加的步行扰动,这是一种自动化但更具功能性和复杂性的运动模式。显然需要制定基于研究的背痛康复策略。因此,研究H和BPP在功能性运动中躯干稳定性的差异,对于确定合适的干预方案至关重要。本研究的目的是分析H和BPP在步行扰动期间的神经肌肉反射活动以及三维躯干运动学。
80名H组受试者(31名男性/49名女性;29±9岁;174±10厘米;71±13千克)和14名BPP组受试者(6名男性/8名女性;30±8岁;171±10厘米;67±14千克)在分体式跑步机上以1米/秒的速度行走,同时随机施加15次右侧扰动(皮带减速,40米/秒²,持续50毫秒;足跟接触后200毫秒)。使用12导联肌电图设置评估躯干肌肉活动。使用由12个标记(上胸部(UTA)、下胸部(LTA)、腰部区域(LA))组成的三段模型测量躯干运动学。计算肌电图均方根(EMG-RMS,扰动后0-200毫秒)并将其归一化到未受扰动步态的均方根。分析潜伏期(TON,毫秒)和达到最大活动的时间(TMAX,毫秒)。计算未受扰动和受扰动步态期间三个节段中每个节段的屈伸、侧屈和旋转的总运动幅度(ROM,[°])和平均角度(Amean,[°])(整个步幅周期;扰动后0-200毫秒)。对于ROM,仅将受扰动的整个步幅以及扰动后200毫秒的ROM归一化为未受扰动步幅的百分比。对数据进行描述性分析,然后进行学生t检验以分析组间差异。分析腹侧和背侧肌肉之间的协同收缩(V:R)以及右侧与左侧的比率(Sright:Sleft)。计算变异系数(CV,%)(EMG-RMS;ROM)以评估所有组中15次扰动之间的变异性。由于参与者在组间分布不均,进行了额外的匹配组分析。从H组中选取14名健康对照与BPP组进行性别、年龄和人体测量学匹配(Hmatched组)。
在EMG-RMS或CV分析(EMG/ROM)中未观察到组间差异(p>0.025)。协同收缩分析显示组间V:R和Srigth:Sleft无差异(p>0.025)。BPP组的TON和TMAX增加,腹直肌(p = 0.019)和胸腰段竖脊肌(p = 0.005/p = 0.015)差异显著。在未受扰动的步幅周期内进行的ROM分析显示组间无差异(p>0.025)。将受扰动的ROM归一化为未受扰动的步幅后,腰椎节段(LA)在侧屈方面存在显著差异,BPP组的归一化ROM高于Hmatched组(p = 0.02)。在正常行走(Amean)期间,BPP组显示出明显更高的屈曲姿势(UTA(p = 0.02);LTA(p = 0.004))。与BPP组相比,H/Hmatched组在扰动期间的躯干姿势(Amean)在LTA节段显示出更高的躯干伸展值(p = 0.003)。匹配组(BPP组与Hmatched组)分析未显示组间所有结果有任何系统性变化。
与H组相比,BPP组的肌肉反应时间和躯干姿势受损,尤其是在矢状面和横断面,这可能表明在步态扰动期间躯干稳定性降低和负荷增加。