Lumbar Spine Kinematics Research Articles

Biomechanics of Lumbar Spine Injury in Road Barrier Collision–Finite Element Study

Literature and field data from CIREN database have shown that lumbar spine injuries occur during car crashes. There are multiple hypotheses regarding how they occur; however, there is no biomechanical explanation for these injuries during collisions with road safety barriers (RSBs). Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the mechanics of vertebral fractures during car collisions with concrete RSBs. The finite element method was used for the numerical simulations. The global model of the car collision with the concrete RSB was created. The lumbar spine kinematics were extracted from the global simulation and then applied as boundary conditions to the detailed lumbar spine model. The results showed that during the collision, the occupant was elevated, and then dropped during the vehicle landing. This resulted in axial compression forces 2.6 kN with flexion bending moments 34.7 and 37.8 Nm in the L2 and L3 vertebrae. It was shown that the bending moment is the result of the longitudinal force on the eccentricity. The lumbar spine index for the L1–L5 section was 2.80, thus indicating a lumbar spine fracture. The minimum principal strain criterion of 7.4% and damage variable indicated L2 and L3 vertebrae and the inferior part of L1, as those potentially prone to fracture. This study found that lumbar spine fractures could occur as a consequence of vehicle landing during a collision with a concrete RSB mostly affecting the L1–L3 lumbar spine section. The fracture was caused by a combination of axial forces and flexion bending moments.

Carrying the handbag changes the variability of lumbar spine kinematics during walking

Carrying the handbag changes the variability of lumbar spine kinematics during walking

Effects of Lumbar Spine Abnormality and Serve Types on Lumbar Kinematics in Elite Adolescent Tennis Players

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is pervasive among elite junior tennis players. Previous research has explored the relationship between serving mechanics and LBP, though the participants in these studies had already experienced LBP. Therefore, it is unclear whether their serving mechanics caused the LBP or are a result of having LBP. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the flat and kick serve kinematics of asymptomatic elite adolescent male and female tennis players with and without lumbar spine abnormalities. Twenty-four players (nine of which had confirmed lumbar spine abnormalities) carried out a series of flat and kick serves, while marker trajectories were recorded by a 3D motion capture system. Pelvis and lumbar spine kinematics (anterior/posterior tilt, lateral tilt, axial rotation and flexion/extension, lateral flexion and axial rotation respectively) were compared between players with and without lumbar spine abnormalities, genders, and serve types using a mixed-effects model. Exploratory data pertaining to the order and timing of key serve events was also collected.ResultsMales had significantly greater posterior pelvis tilt than females during the drive phase of both flat (M, − 7.1 ± 5°; F, 4 ± 5.5°) and kick serves (M, − 8.6 ± 5.1°; F, 2.1 ± 5.8°). Independent of serve type, males also impacted the ball ~ 15 cm further into the court than females, while all players contacted flat serves significantly further forward (~ 17 cm). There were no effects for abnormality in the magnitude of pelvis and trunk kinematics. The order and timing of key serve events, however, did tend to differ between those with and without lumbar spine abnormalities. Players with abnormalities entered peak front knee flexion and initiated pelvis rotation earlier than players without abnormalities. Lastly, the timing of pelvis rotation was highly variable among females though not males.ConclusionPelvis and ball toss kinematics vary with gender and serve type but not necessarily abnormality in the elite adolescent serve. There is evidence to suggest that the order and timing of key serve events might help to identify those at risk of lumbar spine abnormalities; however, further research is needed to investigate the statistical significance of the timing of these events.

Lumbar Spine Kinematics in Asymptomatic People When Changing Body Position From Sitting to Standing

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the lumbar spine kinematics in 3 movement axes in asymptomatic individuals in the sit-to-stand (STS) movement performed in a habitual, flexion, or extension manner. MethodsThere were 30 participants (16 women, 14 men), aged 23 to 37 years. Each participant performed an STS test. We registered the total time of the STS movement and the maximum acceleration of the lumbar spine in the vertical, anteroposterior, and mediolateral axes. The examination of the movement pattern was performed with the use of a BTS G-sensor device. ResultsThe highest movement dynamics in the lumbar spine were observed during the STS performed in a habitual manner in the 3 axes (P < .01). The lowest movement dynamics ere associated with the extension STS pattern. The flexion pattern differed from the habitual one in total performance time in both groups (P < .01). There were no significant differences in kinematic lumbar spine between sexes. ConclusionThe kinematics of the STS movement for asymptomatic individuals were characterized by significant variability in the maximum acceleration in the 3 axes. The highest movement dynamics were observed during the STS performed in a habitual manner, and the lowest dynamics with the extension pattern of STS.

The influence of second-row players on lumbar spine kinematics of front-row players during rugby union scrummaging

Summary Objectives In rugby union scrummaging, front-row players often sustain lumbar spine injuries, which can lead to physical impairments and absence from play. Poor lumbar spine posture adopted by front-row players during scrummaging may contribute to these lumbar spine injuries. However, few studies have investigated lumbar spine kinematics in front-row players during scrummaging and therefore little is known about what factors influence lumbar spine posture. The focus of this study was to determine whether interactions with other players affect front-row players’ ability to adopt and/or maintain a neutral lumbar spine posture. Equipment and methods Lumbar spine kinematics were investigated in 15 front-row players during scrums under two conditions: (i) one-man scrums, and (ii) scrums with the support of two second-row players. Lumbar spine three-dimensional kinematics were obtained using a system of five digital single-lens reflex cameras and photogrammetric software package. A Bayesian approach was used to determine the effect of scrummaging conditions. Results The results showed that players adopt neutral posture when scrummaging alone. In contrast, when supported by second-row players, participants adopted a flexed posture (kyphosis), which may contribute to lumbar spine injuries. However, the supported scrum condition did not change lateral-flexion (0° to 2°) and axial rotation (0° to 2°) of the spine substantially. These results suggest that training and rehabilitation programs should focus on practicing a neutral posture during scrums involving second-row players to minimise spinal stress.

Changes in Low Back Muscle Activity and Spine Kinematics in Response to Smartphone Use During Walking.

Within-subject design of an experimental study. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of smartphone use on the activity level of the lumbar erector spinae muscles and spine kinematics during walking. Using a smartphone while walking makes the user hold the phone steady and look downward to interact with the phone. Walking with this non-natural posture of the head and the arms may alter the spine kinematics and increase the muscular load on the low back extensor muscles. Twenty healthy young individuals participated in the laboratory experiment. Each participant walked on a treadmill in five different conditions: normal walking without using a phone, conducting one-handed browsing while walking, two-handed texting while walking, walking with one arm bound, and walking with both arms bound. Spine kinematics variables and the myoelectric activity levels of the lumbar erector spinae muscles were quantified and compared between the five walking conditions. Participants walked with significantly (P < 0.05) more thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis when using a phone compared to when walking without using the phone. The median level of muscle activity was also 16.5% (browsing) to 31.8% (texting) greater for the two smartphone use conditions than for the normal walking condition, and the differences were significant (P < .05). Between the normal walking and the two bound arm walking conditions, no significant difference in the muscle activity was found. Study results show that the concurrent use of a smartphone while walking could pose a larger muscular load to the lumbar erector spinae muscles than that of normal walking. Habitual use of a smartphone while walking could be a risk factor for low back musculoskeletal problems.Level of Evidence: N/A.

Do different sit–stand workstations influence lumbar kinematics, lumbar muscle activity and musculoskeletal pain in office workers? A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Purpose. This study investigated the effect of different sit–stand workstations on lumbar spine kinematics, lumbar muscle activity and musculoskeletal pain. Methods. Thirty-two office workers were randomized to one of three sit–stand workstations (Group 1, ratio of minutes spent sitting to standing each hour at work 40:20, n = 8; Group 2, 30:30, n = 6; Group 3, 20:40, n = 7) and a control group (usual sitting, n = 11). Intervention groups (Groups 1, 2 and 3) were collapsed into one group for analysis (n = 21). Data on lumbar kinematics and muscle activity were only collected for 25 participants due to equipment availability. Results. Participants in the intervention group had lower overall lumbar spine flexion angles during the workday compared to the control group (mean difference 10.6°; 95% confidence interval [−18.1, −3.2]; p = 0.008; Cohen’s d = 1.5). There were no between-group differences for the remaining kinematic measures (i.e., mean flexion angle in standing and sitting, mean side flexion angle in standing and sitting, and percentage of time in upright sitting), muscle activity or presence of musculoskeletal pain. Conclusions. Sit–stand workstations reduced overall lumbar spine flexion angles over the course of a workday but had no effect on other kinematic measures, lumbar spine muscle activity or musculoskeletal pain. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry identifier: ACTRN12615001018505..

Brace yourself: How abdominal bracing affects intersegmental lumbar spine kinematics in response to sudden loading

Abdominal bracing is a voluntary method of increasing spine stiffness to restrict spine displacement. Previous investigations of abdominal bracing have measured effects on whole lumbar motion; however, how this effect is distributed across the lumbar spine is unknown. Therefore, this study was designed to test the influence of abdominal bracing on spine intersegmental (T9/T10 to L5/S1) flexion, measured via skin surface markers, in response to sudden loading perturbations applied through the hands in 16 young healthy participants. Abdominal and back muscle activation responses were also measured. The results demonstrated that abdominal bracing significantly reduced sagittal plane motion at intersegmental levels T12/L1 to L4/L5, by 45% (0.74 degrees) at L4/L5 to 94% (0.71 degrees) at L1/L2 compared to control. L5/S1 experienced a 50% (0.36 degrees) reduction, but this was not statistically significant. Additionally, abdominal bracing resulted in greater baseline activation of all abdominal and back muscles, but did not affect onset times or response magnitudes of any of the back muscles acting counter to the perturbation. Therefore, the elevated baseline activation of trunk musculature during an abdominal brace serves to restrict flexion motion at the majority of the intersegmental lumbar spine (T12/L1 to L4/5) in response to sudden trunk flexion perturbations.

Center of rotation locations during lumbar spine movements: a scoping review protocol.

The objective of this review is to identify and map current literature describing the center of rotation locations and migration paths during lumbar spine movements. Altered lumber spine kinematics has been associated with pain and injury. Intervertebral segments' center of rotations, the point around which spinal segments rotate, are important for determining the features of lumbar spine kinematics and the potential for increased injury risk during movements. Although many studies have investigated the center of rotations of humans' lumbar spine, no review has summarized and organized the state of the science related to center of rotation locations and migration paths of the lumbar spine during lumbar spine movements. This review will consider studies that include human lumbar spines of any age and condition (e.g. heathy, pathological) during lumbar spine movements. Quantitative study designs, including clinical, observational, laboratory biomechanical experimental studies, mathematical and computer modeling studies will be considered. Only studies published in English will be included, and there will be no limit on dates of publication. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library Controlled Register of Trials, CINAHL, ACM Digital Library, Compendex, Inspec, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and dissertation and theses repositories will be searched. After title and abstract screening of identified references, two independent reviewers will screen the full-text of identified studies and extract data. Data will be summarized and categorized, and a comprehensive narrative summary will be presented with the respective results.

Finite Element Analysis of Short- Versus Long-Segment Posterior Fixation for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture

The thoracolumbar (TL) area marks the transition of the rigid thoracic spine into the mobile lumbar spine, and it is considered to be the weakest part of the spine. This study was designed to develop a finite element (FE) model of the TL junction (T9-L3) to provide data that could help the clinician and researcher to answer the question of whether short-segment posterior fixation is sufficient for biomechanical performance. In addition, the aim was to examine whether long-segment posterior fixation carries a greater risk of the development of adjacent segment disease. This was a biomechanical finite element model analysis. FE analysis of the spine was conducted with posterior instrumentation under multidirectional loading conditions in order to evaluate the kinematics of the instrumented lumbar spine, as well as stresses in the posterior spinal instrumentation. We analyzed the following: 1) the range of motion of the T9-L3 region; and 2) the von Mises stress nephograms of the pedicle screws, rods, vertebrae, endplates, and intervertebral discs of 2 fixation FE models. Long-segment stabilization was found to be beneficial in terms of reducing total stress on the spine. However, it is possible to reduce the stress on the system by incorporating the spinal fracture into the stabilization system. Therefore, short-segment stabilization is sufficient to create a safe and robust stabilization system and to maintain neighboring intact vertebrae. Short-segment posterior fixation is sufficient to stabilize fractures at the TL junction, where the spinal fracture is included in the stabilization system.

Kinematics of the Spine Under Healthy and Degenerative Conditions: A Systematic Review.

Understanding spinal kinematics is essential, not only for the comprehension and diagnosis of spinal diseases, but also for improving modern tools and software. The sheer volume and complexity of now available information can be overwhelming. We aimed to distil it into a form that facilitates comparison among diverse studies addressing spinal kinematics under healthy and degenerative conditions. We specifically aimed to define a baseline definition of the spectrum of normal spinal kinematics that in turn allows a comparable definition of kinematics of the degenerative lumbar spine. The considered data was obtained by a systematic MEDLINE search including studies on angular/translational segmental motion contribution, range of motion, coupling and center of rotation. As for degenerative conditions, we collected publications on disc degeneration, facet joint osteoarthritis, facet joint tropism, spondylolisthesis, ligament degeneration and paraspinal muscle degeneration. While we could demonstrate repeating motion patterns for some topics, agreement in other fields is limited due to methodological variances and small sample sizes, particularly in publications with highly accurate but complex techniques. Besides, the high frequency of concurrent degenerative processes complicates the association between diseases and subsequent kinematical changes. Despite several substantial gaps, we stand at the precipice of technological breakthroughs that can power future large-scale studies.

Effects of myofascial release in erector spinae myoelectric activity and lumbar spine kinematics in non-specific chronic low back pain: Randomized controlled trial

BackgroundFlexion-relaxation response of the lumbar erector spinae has been previously studied after different interventions such as exercise programs or spinal manipulation, in subjects with chronic low back pain. The objective of the study was to investigate the effects of an isolated myofascial release protocol on erector spinae myoelectric activity and lumbar spine kinematics in chronic low back pain. MethodsThirty-six participants, with nonspecific chronic low back pain, were randomized to myofascial release group (n = 18) receiving four sessions of myofascial treatment, each lasting 40 min, and to control group (n = 18) receiving a sham myofascial release. Electromyographic and kinematic variables as well as pain and disability questionnaires were analyzed. FindingsThere was a bilateral reduction of the flexion relaxation ratio in individuals receiving myofascial release and who did not show myoelectric silence at baseline (right difference M = 0.34, 95% CI [0.16, 0.33], p ≤ .05 and left difference M = 0.45, 95% CI [0.16, 0.73], p ≤ .05). There was also a significant reduction in pain in the myofascial release group (difference M = −9.1, 95% CI [−16.3, −1.8], p ≤ .05) and disability (difference M = −5.6, 95% CI [−9.1, −2.1], p ≤ .05), compared with control group. No significant differences between groups were found for the kinematic variables. InterpretationThe myofascial release protocol contributed to the normalization of the flexion- relaxation response in individuals who did not show myoelectric silence before the intervention, and also showed a significant reduction in pain and disability compared with the sham group.

Test-retest reliability of sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit analysis in people with and without chronic nonspecific low back pain

Sit-to-stand (STD) and stand-to-sit (SIT) analysis can provide information on functional independence in daily activities in patients with low back pain (LBP). However, in order for measurements to be clinically useful, data on psychometric properties should be available. The main purpose of this study was to investigate intra-rater reliability of STD and SIT tasks in participants with and without chronic nonspecific LBP (CNLBP). The second purpose was to detect any differences in lumbar spine and hips sagittal plane kinematics and coordination between asymptomatic individuals and CNLBP patients during STD and SIT. Twenty-three CNLBP patients and 23 demographically-matched controls were recruited. Ten markers were placed on specific anatomical landmarks. Participants were asked to perform STD and SIT at a preferred speed. Peak flexion angles, mean angular velocities, lumbar to hip movement ratios, and relative phase angles were measured. The procedure was repeated after 2 h and 6–8 days. Differences between two groups were analyzed using independent t -test. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 3,k), standard error of measurement (SEM), and limits of agreement (LOAs) were also estimated. The ICC values showed moderate to excellent intra-rater reliability, with relatively low SEM values (≤ 10.17°). The 95% LOAs demonstrated that there were no differences between the measured parameters. Furthermore, CNLBP patients had limited sagittal plane angles, smaller angular velocities, and lumbar-hip discoordination compared to asymptomatic participants. The results showed moderate to excellent test-retest reliability of STD and SIT analysis. Moreover, CNLBP patients had altered kinematics during STD and its reverse compared to asymptomatic participants.

Biomechanical Analysis of a Long-Segment Fusion in a Lumbar Spine-A Finite Element Model Study.

Examine the biomechanical effect of material properties, geometric variables, and anchoring arrangements in a segmental pedicle screw with connecting rods spanning the entire lumbar spine using finite element models (FEMs). The objectives of this study are (1) to understand how different variables associated with posterior instrumentation affect the lumbar spine kinematics and stresses in instrumentation, (2) to compare the multidirectional stability of the spinal instrumentation, and (3) to determine how these variables contribute to the rigidity of the long-segment fusion in a lumbar spine. A lumbar spine FEM was used to analyze the biomechanical effects of different materials used for spinal rods (TNTZ or Ti or CoCr), varying diameters of the screws and rods (5 mm and 6 mm), and different fixation techniques (multilevel or intermittent). The results based on the range of motion and stress distribution in the rods and screws revealed that differences in properties and variations in geometry of the screw-rod moderately affect the biomechanics of the spine. Further, the spinal screw-rod system was least stable under the lateral bending mode. Stress analyzes of the screws and rods revealed that the caudal section of the posterior spinal instrumentation was more susceptible to high stresses and hence possible failure. Although CoCr screws and rods provided the greatest spinal stabilization, these constructs were susceptible to fatigue failure. The findings of the present study suggest that a posterior instrumentation system with a 5-mm screw-rod diameter made of Ti or TNTZ is advantageous over CoCr instrumentation system.

Gender-Related Differences in Reliability of Thorax, Lumbar, and Pelvis Kinematics During Gait in Patients With Non-specific Chronic Low Back Pain.

ObjectiveTo evaluate test-retest reliability of trunk kinematics relative to the pelvis during gait in two groups (males and females) of patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) using three-dimensional motion capture system.MethodsA convenience sample of 40 NCLBP participants (20 males and 20 females) was evaluated in two sessions. Participants were asked to walk with self-selected speed and kinematics of thorax and lumbar spine were captured using a 6-infrared-cameras motion-analyzer system. Peak amplitude of displacement and its measurement errors and minimal detectable change (MDC) were then calculated.ResultsIntraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were relatively constant but small for certain variables (lower lumbar peak flexion in female: inter-session ICC=0.51 and intra-session ICC=0.68; peak extension in male: inter-session ICC=0.67 and intra-session ICC=0.66). The measurement error remained constant and standard error of measurement (SEM) difference was large between males (generally ≤4.8°) and females (generally ≤5.3°). Standard deviation (SD) was higher in females. In most segments, females exhibited higher MDCs except for lower lumbar sagittal movements.ConclusionAlthough ICCs were sufficiently reliable and constant in both genders during gait, there was difference in SEM due to difference in SD between genders caused by different gait disturbance in chronic low back pain. Due to the increasing tendency of measurement error in other areas of men and women, attention is needed when measuring lumbar motion using the method described in this study.

Test-retest reliability of sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit analysis in people with and without chronic non-specific low back pain

BackgroundSit-to-stand (STD) and stand-to-sit (SIT) analysis can provide information on functional independence in daily activities in patients with low back pain (LBP). However, in order for measurements to be clinically useful, data on psychometric properties should be available. ObjectivesThe main purpose was to investigate intra-rater reliability of STD and SIT tasks in participants with and without chronic non-specific LBP (CNLBP). The second purpose was to detect any differences in lumbar spine and hips sagittal plane kinematics and coordination between asymptomatic individuals and CNLBP patients during STD and SIT. DesignCross-sectional study. MethodTwenty-three CNLBP patients and 23 demographically-matched controls were recruited. Ten markers were placed on specific anatomical landmarks. Participants were asked to perform STD and SIT at a preferred speed. Peak flexion angles, mean angular velocities, lumbar to hip movement ratios, and relative phase angles were measured. The procedure was repeated after 2 h and 6–8 days. Differences between two groups were analyzed using independent t-test. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 3,k), standard error of measurement (SEM), and limits of agreement (LOAs) were also estimated. ResultsThe ICC values showed moderate to excellent intra-rater reliability, with relatively low SEM values (≤10.17°). The 95% LOAs demonstrated that there were no differences between the measured parameters. Furthermore, CNLBP patients had limited sagittal plane angles, smaller angular velocities, and lumbar-hip dis-coordination compared to asymptomatic participants. ConclusionsThe results indicated moderate to excellent test-retest reliability of STD and SIT analysis. Moreover, CNLBP patients had altered kinematics during STD and its reverse.

A model-based approach for estimation of changes in lumbar segmental kinematics associated with alterations in trunk muscle forces

The kinematics information from imaging, if combined with optimization-based biomechanical models, may provide a unique platform for personalized assessment of trunk muscle forces (TMFs). Such a method, however, is feasible only if differences in lumbar spine kinematics due to differences in TMFs can be captured by the current imaging techniques. A finite element model of the spine within an optimization procedure was used to estimate segmental kinematics of lumbar spine associated with five different sets of TMFs. Each set of TMFs was associated with a hypothetical trunk neuromuscular strategy that optimized one aspect of lower back biomechanics. For each set of TMFs, the segmental kinematics of lumbar spine was estimated for a single static trunk flexed posture involving, respectively, 40° and 10° of thoracic and pelvic rotations. Minimum changes in the angular and translational deformations of a motion segment with alterations in TMFs ranged from 0° to 0.7° and 0 mm to 0.04 mm, respectively. Maximum changes in the angular and translational deformations of a motion segment with alterations in TMFs ranged from 2.4° to 7.6° and 0.11 mm to 0.39 mm, respectively. The differences in kinematics of lumbar segments between each combination of two sets of TMFs in 97% of cases for angular deformation and 55% of cases for translational deformation were within the reported accuracy of current imaging techniques. Therefore, it might be possible to use image-based kinematics of lumbar segments along with computational modeling for personalized assessment of TMFs.

Differences in lumbar spine and lower extremity kinematics in people with and without low back pain during a step-up task: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) affects more than one third of the population at any given time, and chronic LBP is responsible for increased medical costs, functional limitations and decreased quality of life. A clear etiology is often difficult to identify, but aberrant posture and movement are considered contributing factors to chronic LBP that are addressed during physiotherapy intervention. Information about aberrant movement during functional activities in people with LBP can help inform more effective interventions. The purpose of this study was to determine if there are differences in lumbar spine and lower extremity kinematics in people with and without LBP during a step-up task.MethodsA convenience sample of 37 participants included 19 with LBP and 18 without a history of LBP. All participants were between the ages of 18 and 65, and controls were matched to participants with LBP based on age, gender and BMI. A motion capture system was used to record spine and lower extremity kinematics during the step-up task. ANOVA tests were used to determine differences in three-dimensional kinematics between groups.ResultsParticipants with LBP displayed less lower lumbar motion in the sagittal plane (P = 0.001), more knee motion in the coronal plane (P = 0.001), and more lower extremity motion in the axial plane (P = 0.002) than controls.ConclusionsPeople with LBP display less lower lumbar spine motion in the sagittal plane and more out-of-plane lower extremity motion. Clinically, the step-up task can be used to identify these aberrant movements to develop more focused functional interventions for patients with LBP.Trial registrationNot applicable.

The Effect of Core Stabilization Exercise on the Kinematics and Joint Coordination of the Lumbar Spine and Hip During Sit-to-Stand and Stand-to-Sit in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain (COSCIOUS): Study Protocol for a Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial.

BackgroundChronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) is among the most prevalent health problems. Lumbar spine and hips kinematics and coordination can be affected in CNLBP. The effects of exercises on the kinematics and coordination of lumbar spine and hips during sit-to-stand (STS) and its reverse have not been evaluated.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to investigate the effect of core stabilization exercise on the kinematics and joint coordination of the lumbar spine and hip during STS and its reverse in CNLBP patients.MethodsCOSCIOUS is a parallel randomized double-blind controlled trial. A total of 30 CNLBP patients and 15 asymptomatic participants will be included. The kinematics and joint coordination of the lumbar spine and hips will be evaluated during STS and its reverse using a motion capture system. The participants will be asked to sit in their usual posture on a stool. Reflective markers will be placed over the T12, S2, anterior and posterior superior iliac spines, greater trochanters, and lateral femoral epicondyles of both legs. The participants will be instructed to stand up at natural speed, remain in the erect posture for 3 seconds, and then sit down. Kinematic variables of the lumbar spine and hip will be computed. Afterward, the CNLBP participants will be allocated at random to receive one of 2 interventions: core stabilization or general exercise. Treatment sessions will be held 3 times per week for 16 sessions. After intervention, CNLBP participants will be assessed again.ResultsFunding for the study was provided in 2016 by Iran University of Medical Sciences. The study is expected to last approximately 12 months, depending on recruitment. Findings on the study’s primary outcomes are expected to be finalized by December 2017. The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.ConclusionsThis investigation will evaluate the effects of core stabilization exercise on the kinematics and joint coordination of the lumbar spine and hip during STS and its reverse in patients with CNLBP. In addition, the effects of CNLBP on STS and its reverse will be investigated in COSCIOUS.Trial RegistrationIranian Registry of Clinical Trials IRCT2016080812953N2; http://en.search.irct.ir/view/32003?format=xml (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6qjTWd4Az)

Differences in lumbar spine and lower extremity kinematics during a step down functional task in people with and people without low back pain

BackgroundWhen functional movements are impaired in people with low back pain, they may be a contributing factor to chronicity and recurrence. The purpose of the current study was to examine lumbar spine, pelvis, and lower extremity kinematics during a step down functional task between people with and without a history of low back pain. MethodsA 3-dimensional motion capture system was used to analyze kinematics during a step down task. Total excursion of the lumbar spine, pelvis, and lower extremity segments in each plane were calculated from the start to end of the task. Separate analysis of variance tests (α=0.05) were conducted to determine the effect of independent variables of group and plane on lumbar spine, pelvis, and lower extremity kinematics. An exploratory analysis was conducted to examine kinematic differences among movement-based low back pain subgroups. FindingsSubjects with low back pain displayed less lumbar spine movement than controls across all three planes of movement (P-values=0.001–0.043). This group difference was most pronounced in the sagittal plane. For the lower extremity, subjects with low back pain displayed more frontal and axial plane knee movement than controls (P-values=0.001). There were no significant differences in kinematics among movement-based low back pain subgroups. InterpretationPeople with low back pain displayed less lumbar region movement in the sagittal plane and more off-plane knee movements than the control group during a step down task. Clinicians can use this information when assessing lumbar spine and lower extremity movement during functional tasks, with the goal of developing movement-based interventions.