Mueller Steffen, Stoll Josefine, Mueller Juliane, Cassel Michael, Mayer Frank
University Outpatient Clinic, Sports Medicine and Sports Orthopaedics, University of PotsdamPotsdam, Germany.
Front Physiol. 2017 May 4;8:274. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00274. eCollection 2017.
In the context of back pain, great emphasis has been placed on the importance of trunk stability, especially in situations requiring compensation of repetitive, intense loading induced during high-performance activities, e.g., jumping or landing. This study aims to evaluate trunk muscle activity during drop jump in adolescent athletes with back pain (BP) compared to athletes without back pain (NBP). Eleven adolescent athletes suffering back pain (BP: m/f: = 4/7; 15.9 ± 1.3 y; 176 ± 11 cm; 68 ± 11 kg; 12.4 ± 10.5 h/we training) and 11 matched athletes without back pain (NBP: m/f: = 4/7; 15.5 ± 1.3 y; 174 ± 7 cm; 67 ± 8 kg; 14.9 ± 9.5 h/we training) were evaluated. Subjects conducted 3 drop jumps onto a force plate (ground reaction force). Bilateral 12-lead SEMG (surface Electromyography) was applied to assess trunk muscle activity. Ground contact time [ms], maximum vertical jump force [N], jump time [ms] and the jump performance index [m/s] were calculated for drop jumps. SEMG amplitudes (RMS: root mean square [%]) for all 12 single muscles were normalized to MIVC (maximum isometric voluntary contraction) and analyzed in 4 time windows (100 ms pre- and 200 ms post-initial ground contact, 100 ms pre- and 200 ms post-landing) as outcome variables. In addition, muscles were grouped and analyzed in ventral and dorsal muscles, as well as straight and transverse trunk muscles. Drop jump ground reaction force variables did not differ between NBP and BP ( > 0.05). Mm obliquus externus and internus abdominis presented higher SEMG amplitudes (1.3-1.9-fold) for BP ( < 0.05). Mm rectus abdominis, erector spinae thoracic/lumbar and latissimus dorsi did not differ ( > 0.05). The muscle group analysis over the whole jumping cycle showed statistically significantly higher SEMG amplitudes for BP in the ventral ( = 0.031) and transverse muscles ( = 0.020) compared to NBP. Higher activity of transverse, but not straight, trunk muscles might indicate a specific compensation strategy to support trunk stability in athletes with back pain during drop jumps. Therefore, exercises favoring the transverse trunk muscles could be recommended for back pain treatment.
在背痛的背景下，人们非常强调躯干稳定性的重要性，特别是在需要补偿高性能活动（如跳跃或着陆）期间产生的重复性、高强度负荷的情况下。本研究旨在评估与无背痛（NBP）的运动员相比，背痛（BP）青少年运动员在纵跳时的躯干肌肉活动。对11名患有背痛的青少年运动员（BP：男/女 = 4/7；15.9 ± 1.3岁；176 ± 11厘米；68 ± 11千克；每周训练12.4 ± 10.5小时）和11名匹配的无背痛运动员（NBP：男/女 = 4/7；15.5 ± 1.3岁；174 ± 7厘米；67 ± 8千克；每周训练14.9 ± 9.5小时）进行了评估。受试者在测力板上进行3次纵跳（地面反作用力）。应用双侧12导联表面肌电图（SEMG）评估躯干肌肉活动。计算纵跳的地面接触时间[毫秒]、最大垂直跳力[牛顿]、跳跃时间[毫秒]和跳跃性能指数[米/秒]。将所有12块单块肌肉的SEMG振幅（均方根：RMS [%]）归一化为最大等长自主收缩（MIVC），并在4个时间窗口（初始地面接触前100毫秒和后200毫秒、着陆前100毫秒和后200毫秒）作为结果变量进行分析。此外，将肌肉分组为腹侧和背侧肌肉，以及直肌和横肌进行分析。NBP和BP之间的纵跳地面反作用力变量没有差异（P > 0.05）。BP组的腹外斜肌和腹内斜肌的SEMG振幅更高（1.3 - 1.9倍）（P < 0.05）。腹直肌、胸腰段竖脊肌和背阔肌无差异（P > 0.05）。在整个跳跃周期的肌肉分组分析显示，与NBP相比，BP组腹侧（P = 0.031）和横肌（P = 0.020）的SEMG振幅在统计学上显著更高。横肌而非直肌的更高活动可能表明在纵跳期间背痛运动员支持躯干稳定性的一种特定补偿策略。因此，对于背痛治疗，可推荐有利于横肌的锻炼方法。
