The Effects of Three Different Types of Orthoses on the Range of Motion of the Lumbar Spine During 15 Activities of Daily Living

Spine ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (26) ◽  
pp. 2346-2353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kolawole A. Jegede ◽  
Christopher P. Miller ◽  
Jesse E. Bible ◽  
Peter G. Whang ◽  
Jonathan N. Grauer
2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse E. Bible ◽  
Debdut Biswas ◽  
Christopher P. Miller ◽  
Peter G. Whang ◽  
Jonathan N. Grauer

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 6-8
Author(s):  
James B. Talmage ◽  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract In 2005, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved an artificial disc replacement (ADR), and physicians likely will be called on to evaluate permanent impairment in some patients who have been treated using an ADR. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in 2000, before the approval of ADRs, and thus is silent about evaluating ADR-associated impairment. FDA based its approval on the results of a study in which the indications were tightly limited and for which the list of relative contraindications was quite long. One review of 100 consecutive lumbar spine surgery patients found that 95% had at least 1 contraindication to ADR. The AMA Guides recommends using the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) method, but some situations (eg, multilevel involvement in the same spinal region) warrant use of the range-of-motion (ROM) method. Assuming a single injury and one level of loss of the activities of daily living, the DRE is the correct method to rate the permanent impairment, and the authors recommend that ADR be accepted as the equivalent to loss of motion segment integrity, warranting a rating from CRE Category IV. ADR is in its infancy, and until the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, is available, evaluators can rate one level ADR from DRE Category IV.


2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 200S
Author(s):  
Christopher Miller ◽  
Jesse Bible ◽  
Debdut Biswas ◽  
Peter Whang ◽  
Jonathan Grauer

2014 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 406-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. I. Bain ◽  
N. Polites ◽  
B. G. Higgs ◽  
R. J. Heptinstall ◽  
A. M. McGrath

The purpose of this study was to measure the functional range of motion of the finger joints needed to perform activities of daily living. Using the Sollerman hand grip function test, 20 activities were assessed in ten volunteers. The active and passive range of motion was measured with a computerized electric goniometer. The position of each finger joint was evaluated in the pre-grasp and grasp positions. The functional range of motion was defined as the range required to perform 90% of the activities, utilizing the pre-grasp and grasp measurements. The functional range of motion was 19°–71°, 23°–87°, and 10°–64° at the metacarpophalangeal, proximal interphalangeal, and distal interphalangeal joints, respectively. This represents 48%, 59%, and 60% of the active motion of these joints, respectively. There was a significant difference in the functional range of motion between the joints of the fingers, with the ulnar digits having greater active and functional range. The functional range of motion is important for directing indications for surgery and rehabilitation, and assessing outcome of treatment.


2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (06) ◽  
pp. 1550058 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott P. Breloff ◽  
Li-Shan Chou

Back pain can affect up to 65% of the American population and cost the health care system approximately fifty billion dollars each year. Due to the difficulty with recording spine/trunk movement, several methods and models exist. The myriad of methods and the need for understanding of spine/trunk motion has led to a lack in a ‘gold-standard’ of treatment for individuals with back pain. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of different activities of daily living on the kinematics of individual trunk segments in young adults to determine how common ambulatory tasks will alter trunk motion compared to level walking. Young healthy adults completed, in a random order, four activities of daily living: level walking, obstacle crossing, stair ascent and descent using a previously validated model. Subjects were outfitted with a full body marker set which included a segmented trunk. Multi-segmented trunk angles between the three inferior segments, sacrum to lower lumbar [SLL], lower lumbar to upper lumbar [LLUL] and upper lumbar to lower thorax [ULLT], were calculated and compared between tasks. Peak flexion angles, instance of peak angle and range of motion were analyzed. The overall hypothesis that different spine levels will have altered kinematics during various activities of daily living was supported. Stair descent had smaller peak flexion angles than obstacle crossing and stair ascent. The instance of peak angle were different depending on trunk angle and daily task. The most inferior trunk angle — Sacrum-to-Lower Lumbar — had the largest range of motion during all four tasks in all three (sagittal, frontal and transverse) planes of motion. This study was able to show how various activities of daily living produce different motions in the three inferior segments of a multi-segmented trunk method. The results of this study are the first steps in understanding how the trunk responds on a daily basis and how those responses could lead to back pain.


PeerJ ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. e1365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey M. Patterson ◽  
Andrew D. Vigotsky ◽  
Nicole E. Oppenheimer ◽  
Erin H. Feser

Training the bench press exercise on a traditional flat bench does not induce a level of instability as seen in sport movements and activities of daily living. Twenty participants were recruited to test two forms of instability: using one dumbbell rather than two and lifting on the COR bench compared to a flat bench. Electromyography (EMG) amplitudes of the pectoralis major, middle trapezius, external oblique, and internal oblique were recorded and compared. Differences in range of motion (ROM) were evaluated by measuring an angular representation of the shoulder complex. Four separate conditions of unilateral bench press were tested while lifting on a: flat bench with one dumbbell, flat bench with two dumbbells, COR Bench with one dumbbell, and COR Bench with two dumbbells. The results imply that there are no differences in EMG amplitude or ROM between the COR bench and traditional bench. However, greater ROM was found to be utilized in the single dumbbell condition, both in the COR bench and the flat bench.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document