Search

Patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP) may use postural control strategies that differ from healthy subjects. To study these possible differences, we measured the amount and structure of postural sway, and the response to muscle vibration in a working cohort of 215 subjects. Subjects were standing on a force plate in bipedal stance. In the first trial the eyes were open, no perturbation applied. In the following 6 trials, vision was occluded and subjects stood under various conditions of vibration/no vibration of the lumbar spine or m. Triceps Surae (TSM) on firm surface and on foam surface. We performed a factor analysis to reduce the large amount of variables that are available to quantify all effects. Subjects with LBP showed the same amount of sway as subjects without LBP, but the structure of their sway pattern was less regular with higher frequency content. Subjects with LBP also showed a smaller response to TSM vibration, and a slower balance recovery after cessation of vibration when standing on a solid surface. There was a weak but significant association between smaller responses to TSM vibration and an irregular, high frequency sway pattern, independent from LBP. A model for control of postural sway is proposed. This model suggests that subjects with LBP use more co-contraction and less cognitive control, to maintain a standing balance when compared to subjects without LBP. In addition, a reduced weighting of proprioceptive signals in subjects with LBP is suggested as an explanation for the findings in this study., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Optimal postural control is an essential capacity in daily life and can be highly variable. The purpose of this study was to investigate if young people have the ability to choose the optimal postural control strategy according to the postural condition and to investigate if non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) influences the variability in proprioceptive postural control strategies. Young individuals with NSLBP (n = 106) and healthy controls (n = 50) were tested on a force plate in different postural conditions (i.e., sitting, stable support standing and unstable support standing). The role of proprioception in postural control was directly examined by means of muscle vibration on triceps surae and lumbar multifidus muscles. Root mean square and mean displacements of the center of pressure were recorded during the different trials. To appraise the proprioceptive postural control strategy, the relative proprioceptive weighting (RPW, ratio of ankle muscles proprioceptive inputs vs. back muscles proprioceptive inputs) was calculated. Postural robustness was significantly less in individuals with NSLBP during the more complex postural conditions (p < 0.05). Significantly higher RPW values were observed in the NSLBP group in all postural conditions (p < 0.05), suggesting less ability to rely on back muscle proprioceptive inputs for postural control. Therefore, healthy controls seem to have the ability to choose a more optimal postural control strategy according to the postural condition. In contrast, young people with NSLBP showed a reduced capacity to switch to a more multi-segmental postural control strategy during complex postural conditions, which leads to decreased postural robustness.

Highlights: [•] Reliability of the effects of muscle vibration on postural sway was assessed. [•] Centre of pressure displacement due to vibration showed good reliability. [•] Weighting of lumbar and calf muscle proprioception showed fair to good reliability. [•] Change in sway velocity due to muscle vibration was not reliable. [•] Recovery of centre of pressure position shortly after vibration showed good reliability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In many sports, maintaining balance is necessary to compete at a high level. Also, in many health problems, balance is impaired. Postural sway (PS) is often used as an indicator of upright balance control, and physical activity (PA) might enhance balance control. However, the relationship between PS and PA has never been systematically reviewed. Objective: Our objective was to summarize the evidence regarding the relationship between PS in upright bipedal and unipedal standing and PA. Methods: We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, EmBase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database, and PEDro, up to March 2012, with no limit on the starting date. Characteristics and methodological aspects of each article were extracted by two reviewers. We used centre of pressure (CoP) velocity, and variables related to the CoP area, to compare studies. Results: A total of 39 articles were reviewed from an initial yield of 2,058. Of these 39 studies, 37 used a comparative design, one was a cohort study, and one was a randomized controlled trial. Conclusion: The main conclusion was that in general, sport practitioners sway less than controls, and high-level athletes sway less than low-level athletes. Additionally, we identified specific effects dependent on the use of vision, sport-specific postures, and frequency and duration of the (sports) activity. PS in unperturbed bipedal stance appears to have limited sensitivity to detect subtle differences between groups of healthy people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]