Search

Study Design: Repeated measures design., Objective: To describe male spine movement and posture characteristics during coitus and compare these characteristics across 5 common coital positions., Summary of Background Data: Exacerbation of pain during coitus due to coital movements and positions is a prevalent issue reported by low back pain patients. A biomechanical analysis of spine movements and postures during coitus has never been conducted., Methods: Ten healthy males and females engaged in coitus in the following preselected positions and variations: QUADRUPED, MISSIONARY, and SIDELYING. An optoelectronic motion capture system was used to measure 3-dimensional lumbar spine angles that were normalized to upright standing. To determine whether each coital position had distinct spine kinematic profiles, separate univariate general linear models, followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference post hoc analysis were used. The presentation of coital positions was randomized., Results: Both variations of QUADRUPED, mQUAD1 and mQUAD2, were found to have a significantly higher cycle speed than mSIDE (P = 0.043 and P = 0.034, respectively), mMISS1 (P = 0.003 and P = 0.002, respectively), and mMISS2 (P = 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Male lumbar spine movement varied depending on the coital position; however, across all positions, the majority of the range of motion used was in flexion. Based on range of motion, the least-to-most recommended positions for a male flexion-intolerant patient are mSIDE, mMISS2, mQUAD2, mMISS1, and mQUAD1., Conclusion: Initial recommendations-which include specific coital positions to avoid, movement strategies, and role of the partner-were developed for male patients whose low back pain is exacerbated by specific motions and postures., Level of Evidence: N/A.

This study investigates the consequences of carrying load in one hand versus both hands. Six participants walked carrying buckets containing various weights. The weight was either carried in one hand or distributed evenly between both hands. Electromyography, force plate and body kinematic data were input to a three-dimensional anatomically detailed model of the spine to calculate spine loading. Carrying loads in one hand resulted in more load on the low back than when the load was split between both hands. When carrying 30 kg in one hand, the low back compression exceeded 2800 N; however, splitting the load between hands reduced low back compression to 1570 N (reduction of 44%). Doubling the total load by carrying 30 kg in each hand actually produced lower spine compression than when carrying 30 kg in one hand. Balancing the load between both hands when carrying material has merit and should be considered when designing work., Practitioner Summary: Carrying a load in one hand (30 kg) resulted in more spine load than splitting the same load between both hands (15 kg). When carrying double the load in both hands (30 kg in each hand vs. 30 kg in one hand), spine load decreased, suggesting merit in balancing load when designing work.

Study Design: A quantitative biomechanical analysis of mechanism of pain alteration in 4 cases of low back pain., Objective: To investigate the contributions of a number of biomechanical factors associated with pain alteration., Summary of Background Data: Some clinicians use mechanically based manual interventions in attempt to reduce low back pain. However, the mechanism of pain alteration remains unknown., Methods: A sample was formed with 4 patients with low back pain seeking consults for pain relief. All could produce "catches" of pain with movement. Manual interventions involving coached changes in motion and muscle activation attempted to reduce pain. Electromyographic and kinematic data were collected before and after intervention. These data were input to an anatomically detailed spine model that calculated muscle force, joint compression and shear, and spine stability., Results: Using a clinically significant criterion of pain reduction of 2 or more, 3 of 4 subjects reduced pain immediately upon the intervention. Using a change of 10% as a criterion for biological significance for kinematic and kinetic variables, each subject demonstrated a different reaction. For example, subject 1 demonstrated increased stability, subject 2 increased mediolateral shear, subject 3 increased mediolateral shear and decreased spine flexion, and subject 4 increased stability. The pain-reducing interventions required to obtain these results were also different for each individual., Conclusion: Immediate pain reduction can be achieved by altering muscle-activation and movement patterns. However, the combination for optimal success seems to be different for every individual. Pain provocation tests help to "tune" the intervention. This also suggests that patient-classification schemes may need more refinement to address this heterogeneity.

Prolonged sitting with spine flexion has been linked to low back disorders. A variety of mechanisms account for this based on biomechanical and neurological variables. Airline seats typically cause pronounced lumbar flexion due to their hollowed seat back design. A pneumatic support, placed between the seat back and the lumbar spine, was tested to see if lumbar flexion was reduced. Results showed that when the seats were positioned in the upright position, 15 of 20 participants experienced reduced lumbar flexion (by 15 degrees on average) with the support. The study was repeated on the five non-responders with the seatback set in the reclined position. This resulted in another four experiencing less lumbar flexion. Since seated flexion is associated with disc stress, reducing flexion with the support reduced lumbar stress. Spine flexion that results from prolonged sitting is associated with disc stress and pain. The pneumatic support tested here reduced spine flexion. While it is not known why airline seats are designed with no lumbar support, which causes excessive lumbar flexion while seated, the pneumatic support corrected this deficit. Reclining the seatback enhanced this effect.

The purpose of this study was to document the muscle activity, spine motion, spine load, and stiffness during several movement-based or "functional" exercises and to assess the effect of technique change. Eight subjects, all healthy men from a university population, were instrumented to obtain surface electromyography of selected trunk and hip muscles, together with video analysis and electromagnetic lumbar spine position sensor to track spine posture. Exercises included a walkout in the sagittal plane that compared an upright form against a wall with those performed on the floor, overhead cable pushes, lateral cable walkouts, the good morning exercise, and the bowler's squat. Generally, muscle activation levels were quite modest even though the tasks were quite strenuous in many cases. Even though similar joint moments were required in different exercises, the pattern of activity between muscles was different. Abdominal bracing increased spine stiffness at the expense of more spine load. Thus, muscle activity seems to be constrained in "functional" exercises. There are several possible reasons for this. Single muscles cannot be activated to 100% of the maximum voluntary contraction in functional exercises because this would upset the balance of moments about the 3 orthopedic axes of the spine, or it would upset the balance of stiffening muscles around the spine required to ensure stability of the spinal column. The one exception was the floor walkout, which resulted in full activation of the rectus abdominis; however, this was a sagittal plane task without the joint moment constraints of multiplanar exercise. Therefore, maximal muscle activity is observed during single-plane tasks, but muscle activation levels were constrained during functional tasks. Thus, strength training muscles may not help in "functional multiplanar" tasks. These data can be used to assist decisions regarding the selection of exercises, specifically choices regarding the starting challenge, progression, exercise form, and possibly corrective technique for those who have spine concerns, or those simply looking for performance enhancement.

Objective: To determine if spine stability would be affected by the competing demands of simultaneous challenged ventilation and supporting a hand-held load., Design: Subjects were their own controls in a repeated measures design where a single task was repeated, once in a different condition, in a random order., Background: Muscle stiffness influences spine stability. The same muscles that contribute to spine stability assist in challenged breathing. We hypothesized that a challenged ventilation task would place low back pain (LBP) sufferers at risk of spine instability., Methods: Subjects (14 normal; 14 with low back pain) performed two trials with a 22kg hand-held weight and the trunk angled forward at 30 degrees . One trial was of 60s duration while breathing ambient air, the other of 70s duration, while breathing 10% carbon dioxide. Spine stability and compression were quantified, using an EMG assisted optimization model in both trials., Findings: Contrary to expectation, spine stability increased during the challenged breathing trials compared to the ambient air condition for subjects with a history of low back pain when abdominal muscle activity was accounted for as a covariate., Interpretation: Subjects with a history of low back pain had higher stability in challenged breathing trials, indicating that some active mechanism protects the spine for the LBP groups in challenging situations. This may be to provide some margin of safety for damaged passive tissues but could be adversely affected by fatigue in the longer term.

This study compared the standing cable press (SCP) and the traditional bench press (BP) to better understand the biomechanical limitations of pushing from a standing position together with the activation amplitudes of trunk and shoulder muscles. A static biomechanical model (4D Watbak) was used to assess the forces that can be pushed with 2 arms in a standing position. Then, 14 recreationally trained men performed 1 repetition maximum (1RM) BP and 1RM single-arm SP exercises while superficial electromyography (EMG) of various shoulder and torso muscles was measured. The 1RM BP performance resulted in an average load (74.2 +/- 17.6 kg) significantly higher than 1RM single-arm SP (26.0 +/- 4.4 kg). In addition, the model predicted that pushing forces from a standing position under ideal mechanical conditions are limited to 40.8% of the subject's body weight. For the 1RM BP, anterior deltoid and pectoralis major were more activated than most of the trunk muscles. In contrast, for the 1RM single-arm SP, the left internal oblique and left latissimus dorsi activities were similar to those of the anterior deltoid and pectoralis major. The EMG amplitudes of pectoralis major and the erector muscles were larger for 1RM BP. Conversely, the activation levels of left abdominal muscles and left latissimus dorsi were higher for 1RM right-arm SP. The BP emphasizes the activation of the shoulder and chest muscles and challenges the capability to develop great shoulder torques. The SCP performance also relies on the strength of shoulder and chest musculature; however, it is whole-body stability and equilibrium together with joint stability that present the major limitation in force generation. Our EMG findings show that SCP performance is limited by the activation and neuromuscular coordination of torso muscles, not maximal muscle activation of the chest and shoulder muscles. This has implications for the utility of these exercise approaches to achieve different training goals.

Much discussion exists about which is the most effective technique to improve spine stability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of abdominal bracing and abdominal hollowing maneuvers to control spine motion and stability against rapid perturbations. Eleven healthy males were posteriorly loaded in different experimental conditions: resting with no knowledge of the perturbation timing; performing each of the stabilization maneuvers at 10%, 15% and 20% of internal oblique maximum voluntary contraction with no knowledge of the perturbation timing; and naturally coactivating the trunk muscles when perturbation timing was known. An EMG biofeedback system was used to control the pattern and intensity of abdominal coactivation. The muscular preactivation of seven trunk muscles (bilaterally registered), the applied force, and the torso muscular and kinematic responses to loading were measured; and the spine stability and compression were modeled. The hollowing maneuver was not effective for reducing the kinematic response to sudden perturbation. On the contrary, the bracing maneuver fostered torso cocontraction, reduced lumbar displacement, and increased trunk stability, but at the cost of increasing spinal compression. When the timing of the perturbation was known, the participants were able to stabilize the trunk while imposing smaller spine compressive loads.

Background: Prolonged sitting is recognized as a risk factor for the reporting of low back troubles. Despite the use of exercise balls in replacement of the office chair, little quantitative evidence exists to support this practice and hence motivated this research. Given the potential for several biological effects and mechanisms this study was approached with several layers of instrumentation to quantify differences in muscle activation, spine posture, spine compression and stability while sitting on an exercise ball versus a stable seat surface. Also, differences in the pressure distribution at the seat-user interface were quantified for the different seat surfaces to provide an objective perspective on the mechanism influencing perceived comfort levels., Methods: Eight male subjects volunteered to sit for 30 min on an exercise ball and on a wooden stool. Muscle activity and spine position were used to model spine load and stability. An additional seven sat on an exercise ball and chair to examine pressure distribution over the contact area., Findings: There was no difference in muscle activation profiles of each of the 14 muscles between sitting on the stool and ball. Calculated stability and compression values showed sitting on the ball made no difference in mean response values. The contact area of the seat-user interface was greatest on the exercise ball., Interpretation: The results of this study suggest that prolonged sitting on a dynamic, unstable seat surface does not significantly affect the magnitudes of muscle activation, spine posture, spine loads or overall spine stability. Sitting on a ball appears to spread out the contact area possibly resulting in uncomfortable soft tissue compression perhaps explaining the reported discomfort.

Recognizing that the transfer of bedridden patients is associated with a high rate of low back injuries, various devices have been developed to assist with sparing the patient handlers. The purpose of this study was to quantify the friction-reducing ability of three different 'sliding' patient transfer devices together with the subsequent consequences on the low back loads of people performing the transfers. Coefficients of friction of the devices were determined by 'transferring' a standard object and a 'patient' over several surfaces common to a hospital setting. Then three participants performed controlled transfers with the various devices. Electromyography to measure muscle activation levels together with external forces and kinematic positional data were collected during push, pull and twist transfers. Spine loads were estimated with a three-dimensional biomechanical static link-segment model of the human body. Simply sliding a patient on a cotton sheet (control condition) produced a coefficient of friction of 0.45. The assistive devices substantially reduced friction by well over one-half (coefficients of 0.18 - 0.21). However, when using the devices the subjects adopted a variety of postures and techniques, such that there were no consistent influences on trunk inclination, low back compression or muscle activation profiles. Direct measurement of reduced friction between the bed and the patient with a friction-reducing device together with measurement of the back loads when actually transferring a patient formed a proof of principle. Specifically, while the device lowers friction, the transfer technique adopted by the lifter must be proper to reduce low back loading and any subsequent risks of back troubles associated with patient transfers. The direction of hand forces and torso position remains important.

Background and Purpose: Physical therapists commonly attempt to reduce and prevent low back pain by "improving" individuals' lumbar posture. To investigate the physical therapy clinical practice of attempting to "improve" lumbar posture, measures of passive tissue stiffness and angular deformation during activities of daily living were used., Participants: The lumbar spine posture of 150 university students was measured as the inclinometer angle difference between L1 and S1. Eighteen female participants (6 with hypolordosis, 6 with hyperlordosis, and 6 controls without lumbar spine impairment) were recruited from this lumbar posture database. Hypolordosis and hyperlordosis were clinically classified by physical therapists., Methods: Lumbar passive tissue stiffness was measured during sitting, standing, and walking before and after a 12-week exercise program, and estimates of lumbar passive tissue strain were calculated from those measurements., Results: The neutral zone (NZ), a range of lumbar positions of low passive tissue stiffness, was identified. Prior to training, the subjects with hypolordosis had more passive tissue strain during sitting than the subjects with hyperlordosis, and the subjects with hyperlordosis stood in extension relative to their NZs while the control subjects and subjects with hypolordosis stood within their NZs. Before and after training, subjects in all 3 groups walked with lumbar spine positions within their NZs. After training, the lumbar posture of the subjects with hypolordosis and the subjects with hyperlordosis changed toward a "mean" (mid-range) lumbar posture. After the exercise program, subjects in all 3 groups stood and walked with their lumbar spines in positions within their NZs, and they sat with their lumbar spines flexed relative to their NZs., Discussion and Conclusion: Knowing that tissue failure can be related to passive tissue strain, the results of this study support the clinical practice of attempting to change individuals' posture-related lumbar spine positions during activities of daily living. Lumbar passive tissue strain, as estimated from the NZ and angular deformation during activities of daily living, can be decreased, but can also be increased, by an exercise program.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of posture and loading history on the compressive strength and site of failure in the spine., Design: An in vitro experiment was performed using a porcine cervical model that provided a homogeneous population of young healthy spines., Background: The distribution of stresses amongst the many load bearing tissues of the spine is altered throughout the day by posture and the history of loading, but it is not clear how this modulates tissue damage or the risk of injury., Methods: 48 porcine cervical spines were harvested and dissected into motion segments containing two vertebrae and the intervening disc (C3/4 and C5/6). Compressive loads and rotational torques (flexion/extension) were applied so that the effects of four loading histories (hydrated, neutral dehydration, flexed dehydration, superhydrated) and two failure postures (neutral, flexed) could be examined. Levels of dehydration were based on those reported over the course of a day. Dissection techniques and X-rays were used to document tissue damage. RESULTS. Specimens had a lower yield point (43--63%) and ultimate compressive strength (23--47%) when in a flexed posture than when in a neutral posture. When injured in a neutral posture, superhydrated specimens had a lower strength (22--29%) than dehydrated specimens. Loading history also modulated the site of failure., Conclusions: The spine may be more prone to injury early in the morning when the discs are at their greatest level of hydration and/or when they are in a fully flexed posture.

The aim was to examine lumbar spine kinematics, spinal joint loads and trunk muscle activation patterns during a prolonged (2 h) period of sitting. This information is necessary to assist the ergonomist in designing work where posture variation is possible -- particularly between standing and various styles of sitting. Joint loads were predicted with a highly detailed anatomical biomechanical model (that incorporated 104 muscles, passive ligaments and intervertebral discs), which utilized biological signals of spine posture and muscle electromyograms (EMG) from each trial of each subject. Sitting resulted in significantly higher (p<0.001) low back compressive loads (mean +/- SD 1698 +/- 467 N) than those experienced by the lumbar spine during standing (1076 +/- 243 N). Subjects were equally divided into adopting one of two sitting strategies: a single 'static' or a 'dynamic' multiple posture approach. Within each individual, standing produced a distinctly different spine posture compared with sitting, and standing spine postures did not overlap with flexion postures adopted in sitting when spine postures were averaged across all eight subjects. A rest component (as noted in an amplitude probability distribution function from the EMG) was present for all muscles monitored in both sitting and standing tasks. The upper and lower erector spinae muscle groups exhibited a shifting to higher levels of activation during sitting. There were no clear muscle activation level differences in the individuals who adopted different sitting strategies. Standing appears to be a good rest from sitting given the reduction in passive tissue forces. However, the constant loading with little dynamic movement which characterizes both standing and sitting would provide little rest/change for muscular activation levels or low back loading.

Many studies have reported the geometry of the trunk muscles for use in models to predict spine loads. However, all have reported data collected from subjects positioned in a prone or supine posture which is required by CT or MRI scan techniques. This study compared the abdominal and extensor muscle moment arms obtained with muscles relaxed and activated and in both supine and upright postures. Both internal ultrasound measurements and external anthropometer measurements were collected. The anterior abdominal wall increased its flexor moment arm by approximately 30% when in a standing posture compared to the supine posture. The effect of an upright posture on the moment arm of erector spinae at the level of L3 was much smaller (3% increase in males and 12% increase in females). There was no moment arm change due to activating the muscles when compared to the relaxed condition for either posture. Modelers should be aware of the need to scale muscle moment arms obtained from MRI/CT scans in order to more accurately predict spine loads in upright postures.

Many studies have examined the mechanics of the lumbar spine in various planes, but only a limited number of three-dimensional investigations have been reported. Analysis of the low back during complex, dynamic postures demands rigorous representation of the trunk musculature. The data of this study demonstrated the force and torque contributions of approximately 50 laminas of various trunk muscles to flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial twisting torque at the L4-L5 joint. This analysis was conducted with the spine in an upright standing posture and when fully flexed (60 degrees), laterally bent (25 degrees), and axially twisted (10 degrees) together with two examples of combined postures. Maximum moment potential, muscle length excursions, and the resultant compressive, anteroposterior shear, and lateral shear forces on the joint were also computed. The results indicate that the position of the vertebrae and their orthopaedic axes, which are a function of spinal posture, are an important factor in the reasonable determination of joint compressive, lateral shear, and anteroposterior shear loads. Muscle length changes that exceeded 20% of their respective length during upright standing were not observed during a full axial twist, but were observed in portions of the abdominal obliques during lateral bending, and in some extensors during full flexion. Extreme postures tended to change the torque potential of some muscles and influence joint load. Various portions of erector spinae were observed to have appreciable potential to generate torque about all three orthopaedic axes. This observation supports the notion held by some therapists that conditioning of the erector spinae is of utmost importance.

Study of the mechanics of trunk twisting is of special interest given epidemiological evidence linking occupational twisting to increased incidence of low back pain. An anatomically detailed, three-dimensional model of the trunk (rib cage, pelvis, five lumbar vertebrae and 50 muscles), was used to predict maximum axial trunk torque. Predicted axial torques were compared with measured torques. Thirty-one (10 male and 21 female) subjects performed maximum effort isometric twisting exertions, at 0 degrees of twist and +/- 30 degrees of twist together with dynamic exertions, at 30 degrees s-1 and 60 degrees s-1. Females were able to generate approximately two-thirds of the torque of males (males, 97Nm; females 60Nm, isometric at 0 degrees). When the trunk was prerotated to 30 degrees, subjects were able to generate greater torque when the effort was toward the 0 degree position (approximately 105Nm by males and 68Nm by females). Experimental data indicated that velocity of rotation and amount of twist are important modulators of axial torque. Changes in muscle length were demonstrated to be minimal from model output as most muscle length changes during a twist from 0 degrees to 30 degrees, measured between the pelvis and the shoulder harness, were less than 1%, although some portions of the abdominal obliques underwent a length excursion of 5%. The small changes in the individual muscle force components that contribute to twist, i.e. the muscle unit vector about the axial twist axis and its moment arm that change as a function of twisted position, do not entirely account for the measured differences in torque, suggesting that additional mechanisms influence axial torque generation.