Search

There is limited information in the literature related to the lower back loading in patients with LBP, particularly those with non-chronic LBP. Toward addressing such a research gap, a case-control study was conducted to explore the differences in lower back mechanical loads between a group of females (n = 19) with non-chronic, non-specific LBP and a group of asymptomatic females (n = 19). The differences in lower back mechanical loads were determined when participants completed one symmetric lowering and lifting of a 4.5 kg load at their preferred cadence. The axial, shearing, and moment components of task demand at the time of peak moment component as well as measures of peak trunk kinematics were analyzed. Patient vs. asymptomatic group performed the task with smaller peak thoracic rotation and peak lumbar flexion. While no differences in the moment component of task demand on the lower back between the patients and controls were found, the shearing (40–50 age group) and axial components of task demand were, respectively, larger and smaller in patients vs. controls. Whether alterations in lower back loads in patients with non-chronic LBP are in response to pain or preceded the pain, the long-term exposure to abnormal lower back mechanics may adversely affect spinal structure and increase the likelihood of further injury or pain. Therefore, the underlying reason(s) as well as the potential consequence(s) of such altered lower back mechanics in patients with non-chronic LBP should to be further investigated.

Larger trunk and pelvic motions in persons with (vs. without) lower limb amputation during activities of daily living (ADLs) adversely affect the mechanical demands on the lower back. Building on evidence that such altered motions result in larger spinal loads during level-ground walking, here we characterize trunk-pelvic motions, trunk muscle forces, and resultant spinal loads among sixteen males with unilateral, transfemoral amputation (TFA) walking at a self-selected speed both up ("upslope"; 1.06 ± 0.14 m/s) and down ("downslope"; 0.98 ± 0.20 m/s) a 10-degree ramp. Tri-planar trunk and pelvic motions were obtained (and ranges-of-motion [ROM] computed) as inputs for a non-linear finite element model of the spine to estimate global and local muscle (i.e., trunk movers and stabilizers, respectively) forces, and resultant spinal loads. Sagittal- (p = 0.001), frontal- (p = 0.004), and transverse-plane (p 0.001) trunk ROM, and peak mediolateral shear (p = 0.011) and local muscle forces (p = 0.010) were larger (respectively 45, 35, 98, 70, and 11%) in upslope vs. downslope walking. Peak anteroposterior shear (p = 0.33), compression (p = 0.28), and global muscle (p = 0.35) forces were similar between inclinations. Compared to previous reports of persons with TFA walking on level ground, 5-60% larger anteroposterior and mediolateral shear observed here (despite ∼0.25 m/s slower walking speeds) suggest greater mechanical demands on the low back in sloped walking, particularly upslope. Continued characterization of trunk motions and spinal loads during ADLs support the notion that repeated exposures to these larger-than-normal (i.e., vs. level-ground walking in TFA and uninjured cohorts) spinal loads contribute to an increased risk for low back injury following lower limb amputation.

Despite the current knowledge about abnormalities in the lumbo-pelvic coordination of patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP), it is unclear how such abnormalities change with time. Timing and magnitude aspects of lumbo-pelvic coordination during a trunk forward bending and backward return task along with subjective measures of pain and disability were collected at three-time points over a six-month period from 29 patients who had non-chronic LBP at the time of enrollment in the study. To enable investigation of abnormalities in lumbo-pelvic coordination of patients, we also included lumbo-pelvic coordination data of age and gender-matched back healthy individuals from an earlier study of our group. Finally, differences in lumbo-pelvic coordination between patients with moderate-severe LBP (i.e., those whose level of pain was ≥ 4 (out of 10) at all three data collection sessions; n = 8) and patients with low-moderate LBP (n = 21) were investigated. There were clear distinctions in measures of lumbo-pelvic coordination between patients with low-moderate and moderate-severe LBP. Contrary to our expectation, however, the abnormalities in magnitude aspects of lumbo-pelvic coordination were larger (F 4.84, P 0.012) in patients with low-moderate LBP. These abnormalities in patients with low-moderate LBP, compared to controls, included larger (12°) pelvic and thoracic rotations as well as smaller (10°) lumbar flexion. The abnormal lumbo-pelvic coordination of patients with non-specific LBP, observed at baseline, persisted (F 1.96, P 0.156) or worsen (F 3.48, P 0.04) over the course of study period despite significant improvement in their pain (18% decrease; F = 12.10, P 0.001) and disability (10% decrease; F = 4.39, P = 0.017). Distinct but lingering abnormalities in lumbo-pelvic coordination, observed in patients with low-moderate and moderate-severe LBP, might have a role in persistence and/or relapse of symptoms in patients with non-specific LBP. Such inferences, however, should further be studied in future via investigation of the relationship between abnormalities in lumbo-pelvic coordination and clinical presentation of LBP.

Although military body armor is an effective life saver, it considerably loads more weight on the warfighters, increasing the risk of musculoskeletal injury. This study investigated the immediate and prolonged effects of wearing body armor on timing aspect of lumbo-pelvic coordination during the toe-touch (TT) and two-legged-squat (TLS) tests. A cross-over study design was used wherein twelve asymptomatic and gender-balanced individuals completed two experimental sessions with and without body armor. A session included two similar sets of tests, before and after exposure to a treadmill walk, containing a TT and a TLS test with ten cycles of fast bending and return. Reflective markers were attached on the participants to capture the kinematics of body segments in conjunction with a motion capture system. The mean absolute relative phase (MARP) and deviation phase (DP) between the thorax and pelvis were calculated for each test. The pre-walk MARP in the return was significantly larger with versus without body armor (p = 0.022), while there were no significant effects of body armor on the other outcome measures. In addition, the pre-walk MARP and DP in the bending and return, as well as the walk-induced changes in the MARP in the bending phase were significantly larger in TLS versus TT (p 0.026). Therefore, using a body armor immediately made the lumbo-pelvic coordination less in-phase during return, but no prolonged effects were found. Further investigation is necessary to specify chances wearing a body armor increases the risk of musculoskeletal injuries in the lower back and lower extremities joints.

The contribution of the trunk neuromuscular system (TNS) to spine stability has been shown in earlier studies by characterizing changes in antagonistic activity of trunk muscles following alterations in stability demands of a task. Whether and/or how much such changes in the response of TNS to alteration in stability demand of the task alter spinal stiffness remains unclear. To address this research gap, a repeated measure study was conducted on twenty gender-balanced asymptomatic individuals to evaluate changes in trunk bending stiffness throughout the lumbar spine’s range of flexion following alterations in both stability and equilibrium demands of a load holding task. Trunk bending stiffness was determined using trunk stiffness tests in upright posture on a rigid metal frame under different equilibrium and stability demands on the lower back. Increasing the stability demand by increasing the height of lifted load ∼30 cm only increased trunk bending stiffness (∼39%) over the lower range of lumbar flexion and under the low equilibrium demand condition. Similarly, increasing the equilibrium demand of the task by increasing the weight of lifted load by 3.5 kg only increased trunk bending stiffness (55%) over the low range of lumbar flexion and under the low stability demand condition. Our results suggest a non-linear relationship between changes in stability and equilibrium demands of a task and the contribution of TNS to trunk bending stiffness. Specifically, alterations in TNS response to changes in stability and equilibrium demand of a given task will increase stiffness of the trunk only if the background stiffness is low.

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.

Reports of larger passive and similar intrinsic trunk stiffness in older vs. younger populations suggest a diminishing demand for reflexive contributions of trunk muscles to spinal stability with aging. It remains unclear, though, whether such diminishing demands result in deterioration of trunk muscle reflexive behaviors. A cross-sectional study was completed to assess age-related differences in the latency and likelihood of trunk muscle reflexive responses to sudden perturbations. Sixty healthy individuals, aged 20-70 years, were recruited to form five equal-sized and gender-balanced age groups. Using a displacement-control, sudden perturbation paradigm, the latency and likelihood of trunk muscle reflexive responses to sudden perturbations were estimated, and the influences of age, gender, and level of effort (20% versus 30% of maximum voluntary exertion-MVE) were evaluated. There were no consistent age-related differences found in any of the measures of trunk muscle reflexive behavior. However, the latency of muscle response to perturbation was generally higher among older individuals, and this difference was significant in the condition involving 30% MVE effort. With an increase in level of effort (from 20% to 30% of MVE), there was a ~7% increase in the latency of trunk muscle responses to anteriorly-directed perturbations as well as ~ 15% (21%) decrease (increase) in response likelihood during anteriorly (posteriorly) directed perturbations. Furthermore, the reflexive response likelihood of trunk muscles was 28% (58%) larger (smaller) in female vs. male participants during anteriorly (posteriorly) directed perturbations. Our results did not, in general, support the hypothesis of an age-related decay in reflexive trunk muscle behaviors. Larger reflexive responses were associated with lower trunk intrinsic stiffness among females and during a lower level of effort, suggesting a secondary role for reflexive responses in spinal stability. Such secondary compensatory responses appear, however, to be consistent over a wide age range.

The prevalence of low back pain (LBP) increases with age, yet the underlying mechanism(s) responsible for this remains unclear. To explore the role of biomechanical factors, we investigated age-related differences in lower-back biomechanics during sagittally-symmetric simulated manual material handling tasks. For each task, trunk kinematics and mechanical demand on the lower back were examined, from among 60 participants within five equal-sized and gender-balanced age groups spanning from 20 to 70 years old. The tasks involved lowering a 4.5 kg load from an upright standing posture to both knee height and a fixed height and then lifting the load back to the initial upright posture. During these tasks, segmental body kinematics and ground reaction forces were collected using wireless inertial measurement units and a force platform. Overall, older participants completed the tasks with larger pelvic rotation and smaller lumbar flexion. Such adopted trunk kinematics resulted in larger peak shearing demand at the lower back in older vs. younger participants. These results suggest that older individuals may be at a higher risk for developing lower back pain when completing similar manual material handling tasks, consistent with epidemiological evidence for higher risks of occupational low back pain among this cohort.