The Effects of Paraspinal Muscle Volume on Physiological Load on the Lumbar Vertebral Column

Spine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Sungwook Kang ◽  
Min Cheol Chang ◽  
Hwanjin Kim ◽  
Jaewoong Kim ◽  
Youngjae Jang ◽  
...  
2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seung Jae Hyun ◽  
Young Baeg Kim ◽  
Yang Soo Kim ◽  
Seung Won Park ◽  
Taek Kyun Nam ◽  
...  

1986 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 690-701 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. C. Saumarez

The actions of the intercostal and paraspinal muscles in stabilizing the human upper rib cage have been analyzed using a geometrically realistic mathematical model of the first six ribs, vertebrae, and associated musculature. The model suggests roles of the deep layers of erector spinae in stabilizing the vertebral column so that it can support the loads placed upon it by the ribs under physiological load. If we assume that the tension exerted by an intercostal muscle is proportional to its local thickness, the model predicts that the observed distribution of intercostal thickness is close to that which minimizes the stresses in ribs when the model is subjected to peak physiological load. The observed shape of the ribs are optimal to withstand the calculated pattern of loading along their length. These calculations raise the hypothesis that the arrangement of intercostal musculature and rib geometry result in an optimally light rib cage, which is capable of withstanding the loads placed upon it. The analysis of the mechanics of the entire model indicates that the geometrical simplifications made in Hamberger's model are not valid when applied to the rib cage.


Spine ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 27 (21) ◽  
pp. 2374-2382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Se-Il Suk ◽  
Jin-Hyok Kim ◽  
Won-Joong Kim ◽  
Sang-Min Lee ◽  
Ewy-Ryong Chung ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Ömer Akçali ◽  
Ismail Safa Satoglu ◽  
Mehmet Alphan Çakiroğlu
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
pp. 026921552110034
Author(s):  
Nico Nitzsche ◽  
Alexander Stäuber ◽  
Samuel Tiede ◽  
Henry Schulz

Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of low-load Resistance Training (RT) with or without Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) compared with conventional RT on muscle strength in open and closed kinetic chains, muscle volume and pain in individuals with orthopaedic impairments. Data sources: Searches were conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane databases, including the reference lists of randomised controlled trials (RCT’s) up to January 2021. Review method: An independent reviewer extracted study characteristics, orthopaedic indications, exercise data and outcome measures. The primary outcome was muscle strength of the lower limb. Secondary outcomes were muscle volume and pain. Study quality and reporting was assessed using the TESTEX scale. Results: A total of 10 RCTs with 386 subjects (39.2 ± 17.1 years) were included in the analysis to compare low-load RT with BFR and high or low-load RT without BFR. The meta-analysis showed no significant superior effects of low-load resistance training with BFR regarding leg muscle strength in open and closed kinetic chains, muscle volume or pain compared with high or low-load RT without BFR in subjects with lower limb impairments. Conclusion: Low-load RT with BFR leads to changes in muscle strength, muscle volume and pain in musculoskeletal rehabilitation that are comparable to conventional RT. This appears to be independent of strength testing in open or closed kinetic chains.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document