Dataset Information

Sex differences in lumbopelvic movement patterns during hip medial rotation in people with chronic low back pain.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine sex differences in lumbopelvic motion and symptom behavior during hip medial rotation in people with low back pain (LBP). We hypothesized that men would demonstrate greater and earlier lumbopelvic motion and would be more likely to report increased symptoms compared with women.

Design

Cross-sectional observational study.

Setting

University musculoskeletal analysis laboratory.

Participants

Persons with chronic LBP (N=59; 30 men, 29 women) were recruited from the community and a university-based physical therapy clinic.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main outcome measures

Lumbopelvic rotation range of motion, amount of hip rotation completed before the start of lumbopelvic motion, and provocation of LBP symptoms during the test of prone hip medial rotation were measured.

Results

Men demonstrated significantly more lumbopelvic rotation (men, 10.0°±5.1°; women, 4.5°±3.9°; P<.001) and completed less hip rotation before the start of lumbopelvic motion (men, 5.4°±3.8°; women, 16.0°±13.2°; P<.001) compared with women. Additionally, a significantly greater percentage of men (60.0%) than women (34.5%; P=.050) reported increased symptoms with hip medial rotation.

Conclusions

Men could be at greater risk than women for experiencing LBP symptoms related to hip medial rotation as a result of greater and earlier lumbopelvic motion.

SUBMITTER: Hoffman SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3124680 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sex differences in lumbopelvic movement patterns during hip medial rotation in people with chronic low back pain.

Hoffman Shannon L SL Johnson Molly B MB Zou Dequan D Van Dillen Linda R LR

Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 20110701 7

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine sex differences in lumbopelvic motion and symptom behavior during hip medial rotation in people with low back pain (LBP). We hypothesized that men would demonstrate greater and earlier lumbopelvic motion and would be more likely to report increased symptoms compared with women.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional observational study.<h4>Setting</h4>University musculoskeletal analysis laboratory.<h4>Participants</h4>Persons with chronic LBP (N=59; 30 men, 29 women) were rec ...[more]

PMID: 21704784

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInterventions for low back pain (LBP) commonly target 'dysfunctional' or atypical lumbo-pelvic kinematics in the belief that correcting aberrant movement improves patients' pain and activity outcomes. If atypical kinematic parameters and postures have a relationship to LBP, they could be expected to more prevalent in people with LBP compared to people without LBP (NoLBP). This exploratory study measured, defined and compared atypical kinematic parameters in people with and without LBP.MethodsWireless inertial motion and EMG sensors were used to measure lumbo-pelvic kinematics during standing trunk flexion (range of motion (ROM), timing, sequence coordination, and extensor muscle activation) and in sitting (relative sitting position, pelvic tilt range) in a sample of 126 of adults without LBP and 140 chronic LBP subjects. Atypical movement was defined using the 10th/90th centiles of the NoLBP group. Mean differences and prevalence rates for atypical movement were calculated. Dichotomised pain scores for 'high-pain-on-bending' and 'high-pain-on-sitting' were tested for their association with atypical kinematic variables.ResultsFor standing flexion, significant mean differences, after adjusting for age and gender factors, were seen for the LBP group with (i) reduced ROM (trunk flexion (NoLBP 111o, LBP 93o, p < .0001), lumbar flexion (NoLBP 52o, LBP 46o, p < .0001), pelvic flexion (NoLBP 59o, LBP 48o, p < .0001), (ii) greater extensor muscle activation for the LBP group (NoLBP 0.012, LBP 0.25 p < .0001), (iii) a greater delay in pelvic motion at the onset of flexion (NoLBP - 0.21 s; LBP - 0.36 s, p = 0.023), (iv) and longer movement duration for the LBP group (NoLBP 2.28 s; LBP 3.18 s, p < .0001). Atypical movement was significantly more prevalent in the LBP group for small trunk (× 5.4), lumbar (× 3.0) and pelvic ROM (× 3.9), low FRR (× 4.9), delayed pelvic motion at 20o flexion (× 2.9), and longer movement duration (× 4.7). No differences between groups were seen for any sitting parameters. High pain intensity was significantly associated with small lumbar ROM and pelvic ROM.ConclusionSignificant movement differences during flexion were seen in people with LBP, with a higher prevalence of small ROM, slower movement, delayed pelvic movement and greater lumbar extensor muscle activation but without differences for any sitting parameter.

Project description:BackgroundPhysiotherapy for people with low back pain frequently includes assessment and modification of lumbo-pelvic movement. Interventions commonly aim to restore normal movement and thereby reduce pain and improve activity limitation. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate: (i) the effect of movement-based interventions on movement patterns (muscle activation, lumbo-pelvic kinematics or postural patterns) of people with low back pain (LBP), and (ii) the relationship between changes in movement patterns and subsequent changes in pain and activity limitation.MethodsMEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched from inception until January 2012. Randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials of people with LBP were eligible for inclusion. The intervention must have been designed to influence (i) muscle activity patterns, (ii) lumbo-pelvic kinematic patterns or (iii) postural patterns, and included measurement of such deficits before and after treatment, to allow determination of the success of the intervention on the lumbo-pelvic movement. Twelve trials (25% of retrieved studies) met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently identified, assessed and extracted data. The PEDro scale was used to assess method quality. Intervention effects were described using standardised differences between group means and 95% confidence intervals.ResultsThe included trials showed inconsistent, mostly small to moderate intervention effects on targeted movement patterns. There was considerable heterogeneity in trial design, intervention type and outcome measures. A relationship between changes to movement patterns and improvements in pain or activity limitation was observed in one of six studies on muscle activation patterns, one of four studies that examined the flexion relaxation response pattern and in two of three studies that assessed lumbo-pelvic kinematics or postural characteristics.ConclusionsMovement-based interventions were infrequently effective for changing observable movement patterns. A relationship between changes in movement patterns and improvement in pain or activity limitation was also infrequently observed. No independent studies confirm any observed relationships. Challenges for future research include defining best methods for measuring (i) movement aberrations, (ii) improvements in movements, and (iii) the relationship between changes in how people move and associated changes in other health indicators such as activity limitation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Improving movement control can be an important treatment goal for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Although external feedback is essential when learning new movement skills, many aspects of feedback provision in patients with CLBP remain currently unexplored. New rehabilitation technologies, such as movement sensors, are able to provide reliable and accurate feedback. As such, they might be more effective than conventional feedback for improving movement control. The aims of this study were (1) to assess whether sensor-based feedback is more effective to improve lumbopelvic movement control compared to feedback from a mirror or no feedback in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and (2) to evaluate whether patients with CLBP are equally capable of improving lumbopelvic movement control compared to healthy persons. METHODS:Fifty-four healthy participants and 54 patients with chronic non-specific LBP were recruited. Both participant groups were randomised into three subgroups. During a single exercise session, subgroups practised a lumbopelvic movement control task while receiving a different type of feedback, i.e. feedback from movement sensors, from a mirror or no feedback (=control group). Kinematic measurements of the lumbar spine and hip were obtained at baseline, during and immediately after the intervention to evaluate the improvements in movement control on the practised task (assessment of performance) and on a transfer task (assessment of motor learning). RESULTS:Sensor-based feedback was more effective than feedback from a mirror (p?<?0.0001) and no feedback (p?<?0.0001) to improve lumbopelvic movement control performance (Sensor vs. Mirror estimated difference 9.9° (95% CI 6.1°-13.7°), Sensor vs. Control estimated difference 10.6° (95% CI 6.8°-14.3°)) and motor learning (Sensor vs. Mirror estimated difference 7.2° (95% CI 3.8°-10.6°), Sensor vs. Control estimated difference 6.9° (95% CI 3.5°-10.2°)). Patients with CLBP were equally capable of improving lumbopelvic movement control compared to healthy persons. CONCLUSIONS:Sensor-based feedback is an effective means to improve lumbopelvic movement control in patients with CLBP. Future research should focus on the long-term retention effects of sensor-based feedback. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov NCT02773160 , (retrospectively registered on May 16th, 2016).

Dataset Information

Sex differences in lumbopelvic movement patterns during hip medial rotation in people with chronic low back pain.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Sex differences in lumbopelvic movement patterns during hip medial rotation in people with chronic low back pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets