Measurement of Muscle Strength of the Trunk and the Lower Extremities in Subjects With History of Low Back Pain

Spine ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 20 (18) ◽  
pp. 1994-1996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joon-Hee Lee ◽  
Yoshio Ooi ◽  
Kozo Nakamura
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. p1
Author(s):  
K. Nakagawa ◽  
A. Mitomo ◽  
Y. Takahashi

Background: For long-distance runners, low back pain as well as lower extremity disorders are becoming more common. This study analyzed the relationship between regular physical assessment results and nonspecific low back pain among long-distance runners. Methods: Subjects included 105 high school long-distance runners, who were divided into the low back pain group (n = 20; LP) and non-pain group (n = 85; NP). All subjects underwent regular chronic pain and physical assessments every six months. Differences in each measurement between both groups were analyzed using an unpaired t-test for comparison.Results: The LP had a shorter history of athletics (LP=3.2 years, NP=4.6 years, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -2.55, -0.28, r=0.45), a greater hip extension angle (LP=32.7°, NP=28.4°, 95% CI: 2.85, 5.61, r=0.67), a lower hip extension muscle strength (LP=3.1 kgf/kg, NP=4.0 kgf/kg, 95% CI; 0.19, 0.61, r=0.45), and a greater number of times during the stand-up test (LP=11.1, NP=8.1, 95% CI; 0.40, 5.56, r=0.45) than the NP.Conclusion: An excessive hip extension angle and insufficient hip extension muscle strength were considered as risk factors. It is possible that the excessive movement of the hip joint and the biarticular muscles may have caused the low back pain in the inexperienced runners.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Tataryn ◽  
Vini Simas ◽  
Tailah Catterall ◽  
James Furness ◽  
Justin W. L. Keogh

Abstract Background While chronic exercise training has been demonstrated to be an effective non-pharmacological treatment for chronic low back pain (CLBP), there has been a relative lack of evidence or clinical guidelines for whether a posterior chain resistance training programme provides any benefits over general exercise (GE). Objectives To determine if chronic posterior chain resistance training (PCRT), defined as exercise programmes of ≥6 weeks duration focused on the thoracic, lumbar and hip extensor musculature, is more effective than GE in improving pain, level of disability, muscular strength and the number of adverse events in recreationally active and sedentary individuals with CLBP. Methods Four electronic databases were systematically searched from 25 September 2019 until 30 August 2020. Using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools checklist for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), articles were critically appraised and compared against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Standardized mean difference (SMD), risk difference (RD) and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Review Manager 5.3. Results Eight articles were included, with a total of 408 participants (203 PCRT, 205 GE). Both PCRT and GE were effective in improving a number of CLBP-related outcomes, but these effects were often significantly greater in PCRT than GE, especially with greater training durations (i.e. 12–16 weeks compared to 6–8 weeks). Specifically, when compared to GE, PCRT demonstrated a greater reduction in pain (SMD = − 0.61 (95% CI − 1.21 to 0.00), p = 0.05; I2 = 74%) and level of disability (SMD = − 0.53 (95% CI − 0.97 to − 0.09), p = 0.02; I2 = 52%), as well as a greater increase in muscle strength (SMD = 0.67 (95% CI 0.21 to 1.13), p = 0.004; I2 = 0%). No differences in the number of adverse events were reported between PCRT and GE (RD = − 0.02 (95% CI − 0.10 to 0.05), p = 0.57; I2 = 72%). Conclusion Results of the meta-analysis indicated that 12–16 weeks of PCRT had a statistically significantly greater effect than GE on pain, level of disability and muscular strength, with no significant difference in the number of adverse events for recreationally active and sedentary patients with CLBP. Clinicians should strongly consider utilizing PCRT interventions for 12–16 weeks with patients with CLBP to maximize their improvements in pain, disability and muscle strength. Future research should focus on comparing the efficacy and adverse events associated with specific PCRT exercise training and movement patterns (i.e. deadlift, hip lift) in treating this population. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42020155700.


2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (11) ◽  
pp. 1206-1212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Martinez-Valdes ◽  
Fiona Wilson ◽  
Neil Fleming ◽  
Sarah-Jane McDonnell ◽  
Alex Horgan ◽  
...  

Spine ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (13) ◽  
pp. E435-E441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niko Paalanne ◽  
Raija Korpelainen ◽  
Simo Taimela ◽  
Jouko Remes ◽  
Pertti Mutanen ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 400-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Whitney Williams ◽  
Noelle M. Selkow

Context: Decreased hamstring flexibility can lead to a plethora of musculoskeletal injuries, including low back pain, hamstring strains, and patellofemoral pain. Lack of flexibility may be the result of myofascial adhesions. The fascia connected to the hamstrings is part of the superficial back line that runs from the cranium to the plantar aspect of the foot. Any disruption along this chain may limit the flexibility of the hamstring. Objective: To investigate if self-myofascial release (SMR) of the plantar surface of the foot in addition to the hamstring group was more effective at improving the flexibility of the hamstrings when compared with either intervention alone. Design: Cross-over study. Setting: Athletic training facility. Participants: Fifteen college students (5 males and 10 females; age: 20.9 [1.4] y, height: 173.1 [10.3] cm, mass: 80.0 [24.9] kg) who were not older than 30, with no history of low back pain or injury within the past 6 months, no history of leg pain or injury within the past 6 months, no current signs or symptoms of cervical or lumbar radicular pain, no current complaint of numbness or tingling in the lower-extremity, and no history of surgery in the lower-extremity or legs. Interventions: Each participant received each intervention separated by at least 96 hours in a randomized order: hamstring foam rolling, lacrosse ball on the plantar surface of the foot, and a combination of both. Main Outcome Measures: The sit-and-reach test evaluated hamstring flexibility of each participant before and immediately after each intervention. Results: There were no significant differences found among the SMR techniques on sit-and-reach distance (F2,41 = 2.7, P = .08, ). However, at least 20% of participants in each intervention improved sit-and-reach distance by 2.5 cm. Conclusions: SMR may improve sit-and-reach distance, but one technique of SMR does not seem to be superior to another.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document