Suppr超能文献

腰椎多裂肌形态描述不一致:范围综述。

Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review.

机构信息

Anesthesiology Pain Center, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Location Beatrixoord, Dilgtweg 5, Haren, the Netherlands.

Faculty of Physical Activity and Health, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, the Netherlands.

出版信息

BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 May 19;21(1):312. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03257-7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Lumbar multifidus (LM) is regarded as the major stabilizing muscle of the spine. The effects of exercise therapy in low back pain (LBP) are attributed to this muscle. A current literature review is warranted, however, given the complexity of LM morphology and the inconsistency of anatomical descriptions in the literature.

METHODS

Scoping review of studies on LM morphology including major anatomy atlases. All relevant studies were searched in PubMed (Medline) and EMBASE until June 2019. Anatomy atlases were retrieved from multiple university libraries and online. All studies and atlases were screened for the following LM parameters: location, imaging methods, spine levels, muscle trajectory, muscle thickness, cross-sectional area, and diameter. The quality of the studies and atlases was also assessed using a five-item evaluation system.

RESULTS

In all, 303 studies and 19 anatomy atlases were included in this review. In most studies, LM morphology was determined by MRI, ultrasound imaging, or drawings - particularly for levels L4-S1. In 153 studies, LM is described as a superficial muscle only, in 72 studies as a deep muscle only, and in 35 studies as both superficial and deep. Anatomy atlases predominantly depict LM as a deep muscle covered by the erector spinae and thoracolumbar fascia. About 42% of the studies had high quality scores, with 39% having moderate scores and 19% having low scores. The quality of figures in anatomy atlases was ranked as high in one atlas, moderate in 15 atlases, and low in 3 atlases.

DISCUSSION

Anatomical studies of LM exhibit inconsistent findings, describing its location as superficial (50%), deep (25%), or both (12%). This is in sharp contrast to anatomy atlases, which depict LM predominantly as deep muscle. Within the limitations of the self-developed quality-assessment tool, high-quality scores were identified in a majority of studies (42%), but in only one anatomy atlas.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a lack of standardization in the depiction and description of LM morphology. This could affect the precise understanding of its role in background and therapy in LBP patients. Standardization of research methodology on LM morphology is recommended. Anatomy atlases should be updated on LM morphology.

摘要

背景

腰椎多裂肌(LM)被认为是脊柱的主要稳定肌。运动疗法对腰痛(LBP)的疗效归因于该肌肉。然而,鉴于 LM 形态的复杂性以及文献中解剖描述的不一致性,有必要进行当前的文献综述。

方法

对包括主要解剖图谱在内的腰椎多裂肌形态学研究进行范围界定综述。在 2019 年 6 月之前,在 PubMed(Medline)和 EMBASE 中搜索了所有相关研究。从多个大学图书馆和在线资源中检索解剖图谱。所有研究和图谱都针对以下 LM 参数进行筛选:位置、成像方法、脊柱水平、肌肉轨迹、肌肉厚度、横截面积和直径。还使用五项评估系统评估研究和图谱的质量。

结果

共纳入 303 项研究和 19 部解剖图谱。在大多数研究中,通过 MRI、超声成像或绘图来确定 LM 形态,特别是对于 L4-S1 水平。在 153 项研究中,LM 仅被描述为浅层肌肉,在 72 项研究中仅被描述为深层肌肉,在 35 项研究中同时被描述为浅层和深层肌肉。解剖图谱主要将 LM 描绘为被竖脊肌和胸腰筋膜覆盖的深层肌肉。大约 42%的研究具有较高的质量评分,39%的研究具有中等评分,19%的研究具有较低评分。解剖图谱中图像的质量被评为高的有 1 个,中等的有 15 个,低的有 3 个。

讨论

LM 的解剖研究结果不一致,其位置被描述为浅层(50%)、深层(25%)或两者(12%)。这与主要将 LM 描绘为深层肌肉的解剖图谱形成鲜明对比。在所开发的自我评估工具的限制范围内,大多数研究(42%)的质量评分较高,但只有一个解剖图谱的质量评分较高。

结论

我们发现 LM 形态的描述和描述缺乏标准化。这可能会影响对其在腰痛患者背景和治疗中作用的准确理解。建议对 LM 形态学的研究方法进行标准化。应更新关于 LM 形态学的解剖图谱。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ea3b/7236939/e0a168c8ce47/12891_2020_3257_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验