Fujii Ren, Imai Ryota, Shigetoh Hayato, Tanaka Shinichiro, Morioka Shu
Department of Neurorehabilitation, Graduate School of Health Science, Kio University, Koryo-cho, Japan.
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Medical Corporation Tanakakai, Musashigaoka Hospital, Kumamoto-shi, Japan.
SAGE Open Med Case Rep. 2022 Oct 24;10:2050313X221131162. doi: 10.1177/2050313X221131162. eCollection 2022.
We report a case (a worker with low back pain) who was provided patient education and therapeutic exercise, and we performed a detailed kinematic analysis of his work-related activity over time. The subjects were one 28-year-old male worker with low back pain. In addition, to clearly identify impaired trunk movement during work-related activity in the low back pain subject, 20 age-matched healthy males (control group) were also included as a comparison subject. He received pain neurophysiology education and exercise instruction. We analyzed the subject's trunk movement pattern during a lifting task examined by a three-dimensional-motion capture system. In addition, task-specific fear that occurred during the task was assessed by the numerical rating scale. The assessment was performed at the baseline phase (4 data points), the intervention phase (8 data points), and the follow-up phase (8 data points), and finally at 3 and 8 months after the follow-up phase. No intervention was performed in the control group; they underwent only one kinematic evaluation at baseline. As a result, compared to the control group, the low back pain subject had slower trunk movement velocity (peak trunk flexion velocity = 50.21 deg/s, extension velocity = -47.61 deg/s), and his upper-lower trunk segments indicated an in-phase motion pattern (mean absolute relative phase = 15.59 deg) at baseline. The interventions reduced his pain intensity, fear of movement, and low back pain-related disability; in addition, his trunk velocity was increased (peak trunk flexion velocity = 82.89 deg/s, extension velocity = -77.17 deg/s). However, the in-phase motion pattern of his trunk motor control remained unchanged (mean absolute relative phase = 16.00 deg). At 8 months after the end of the follow-up, the subject's in-phase motion pattern remained (mean absolute relative phase = 13.34 deg) and his pain intensity had increased. This report suggests that if impaired trunk motor control remains unchanged after intervention, as in the course of the low back pain subject, it may eventually be related to a recurrence of low back pain symptoms.
我们报告了一例(一名患有腰痛的工人)接受患者教育和治疗性锻炼的病例,并对其与工作相关活动随时间进行了详细的运动学分析。受试者为一名28岁患有腰痛的男性工人。此外,为了明确识别腰痛受试者在与工作相关活动中受损的躯干运动,还纳入了20名年龄匹配的健康男性(对照组)作为对照受试者。他接受了疼痛神经生理学教育和运动指导。我们通过三维运动捕捉系统分析了受试者在提起任务期间的躯干运动模式。此外,通过数字评分量表评估任务期间出现的特定任务恐惧。评估在基线期(4个数据点)、干预期(8个数据点)和随访期(8个数据点)进行,最后在随访期后的3个月和8个月进行。对照组未进行干预;他们仅在基线时接受了一次运动学评估。结果,与对照组相比,腰痛受试者的躯干运动速度较慢(躯干最大前屈速度 = 50.21°/s,伸展速度 = -47.61°/s),并且在基线时其上、下躯干节段呈现同相运动模式(平均绝对相对相位 = 15.59°)。干预措施降低了他的疼痛强度、运动恐惧和与腰痛相关的残疾;此外,他的躯干速度增加了(躯干最大前屈速度 = 82.89°/s),伸展速度 = -77.17°/s)。然而,他的躯干运动控制的同相运动模式保持不变(平均绝对相对相位 = 16.00°)。在随访结束后的8个月,受试者的同相运动模式仍然存在(平均绝对相对相位 = 13.34°),并且他的疼痛强度有所增加。本报告表明,如果干预后受损的躯干运动控制保持不变,就像腰痛受试者的情况一样,最终可能与腰痛症状的复发有关。