Dataset Information

Influence of low back pain and its remission on motor abundance in a low-load lifting task.

ABSTRACT: Having an abundance of motor solutions during movement may be advantageous for the health of musculoskeletal tissues, given greater load distribution between tissues. The aim of the present study was to understand whether motor abundance differs between people with and without low back pain (LBP) during a low-load lifting task. Motion capture with electromyography (EMG) assessment of 15 muscles was performed on 48 participants [healthy control (con)?=?16, remission LBP (rLBP)?=?16, current LBP (cLBP)?=?16], during lifting. Non-negative matrix factorization and uncontrolled manifold analysis were performed to decompose inter-repetition variability in the temporal activity of muscle modes into goal equivalent (GEV) and non-goal equivalent (NGEV) variabilities in the control of the pelvis and trunk linear displacements. Motor abundance occurs when the ratio of GEV to NGEV exceeds zero. There were significant group differences in the temporal activity of muscle modes, such that both cLBP and rLBP individuals demonstrated greater activity of muscle modes that reflected lumbopelvic coactivation during the lifting phase compared to controls. For motor abundance, there were no significant differences between groups. Individuals with LBP, including those in remission, had similar overall motor abundance, but use different activation profiles of muscle modes than asymptomatic people during lifting.

SUBMITTER: Liew BXW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7576852 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Influence of low back pain and its remission on motor abundance in a low-load lifting task.

Liew Bernard X W BXW De Nunzio Alessandro Marco AM Srivastava Shraddha S Falla Deborah D

Scientific reports 20201020 1

Having an abundance of motor solutions during movement may be advantageous for the health of musculoskeletal tissues, given greater load distribution between tissues. The aim of the present study was to understand whether motor abundance differs between people with and without low back pain (LBP) during a low-load lifting task. Motion capture with electromyography (EMG) assessment of 15 muscles was performed on 48 participants [healthy control (con) = 16, remission LBP (rLBP) = 16, current LBP ( ...[more]

PMID: 33082380

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMotor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.Search methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.Selection criteriaWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).Main resultsWe included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.Authors' conclusionsWe identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether advice and training on working techniques and lifting equipment prevent back pain in jobs that involve heavy lifting.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane Back Group's specialised register, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT were searched up to September-November 2005.Review methodsThe primary search focused on randomised controlled trials and the secondary search on cohort studies with a concurrent control group. Interventions aimed to modify techniques for lifting and handling heavy objects or patients and including measurements for back pain, consequent disability, or sick leave as the main outcome were considered for the review. Two authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies and methodological quality of those included. For data synthesis, we summarised the results of studies comparing similar interventions. We used odds ratios and effect sizes to combine the results in a meta-analysis. Finally, we compared the conclusions of the primary and secondary analyses.ResultsSix randomised trials and five cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Two randomised trials and all cohort studies were labelled as high quality. Eight studies looked at lifting and moving patients, and three studies were conducted among baggage handlers or postal workers. Those in control groups received no intervention or minimal training, physical exercise, or use of back belts. None of the comparisons in randomised trials (17,720 participants) yielded significant differences. In the secondary analysis, none of the cohort studies (772 participants) had significant results, which supports the results of the randomised trials.ConclusionsThere is no evidence to support use of advice or training in working techniques with or without lifting equipment for preventing back pain or consequent disability. The findings challenge current widespread practice of advising workers on correct lifting technique.

Dataset Information

Influence of low back pain and its remission on motor abundance in a low-load lifting task.

Publications

Influence of low back pain and its remission on motor abundance in a low-load lifting task.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets