Evaluation of the lumbar and abdominal muscles behavior in different sagittal plane angles during maximum voluntary isometric extension

Abstract

Graphical abstract

Physical positions and lumbar movements are directly related to lumbar disorders. It is known that the sagittal plane angle affects the person’s ability to apply extension torque. However, there is no consensus on whether or not muscle activity and co-contractions change at these angles. This paper aimed to investigate the abdominal and lumbar muscles’ behavior at different sagittal plane angles during maximum voluntary isometric extension (MVIE). We have evaluated our findings with the aid of a computational biomechanical model. Fourteen healthy males participated. A total of 16 muscles EMG were recorded during the lumbar MVIE on the Sharif Lumbar Isometric Strength Tester device in 5°, 15°, 30°, and 45° flexion. The torque and muscle activity changes and all co-contraction indexes (CCI) between 120 possible muscle pairs were calculated. Finally, the experimental test conditions were modeled in the AnyBody software, and the MVIE torque, muscle activity, and all CCIs were calculated. Also, muscle torque lever arms were calculated at different angles. Results show that MVIE at four angles is 137.94 ± 36.08, 148.63 ± 47.96, 168.09 ± 50.48, and 171.44 ± 53.95 N · m, respectively. Muscle activity and CCI are similar at all angles. The AnyBody model gives similar findings. Muscles torque lever arms change with angle. In conclusion, to determine the safety mode of lifting in the sagittal plane, it seems that the torque differences are due to changes in the geometrical muscle parameters (including the torque lever arm). Despite the almost constant muscular effort, subjects in the 30°–45° bending positions can apply more MVIE.

Keywords

Computational biomechanical modeling lumbar torque muscles co-contraction safety lifting mode torque lever arm

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Moreira-Silva

Santos

Abreu

, et al. The effect of a physical activity program on decreasing physical disability indicated by musculoskeletal pain and related symptoms among workers: a pilot study. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2014; 20: 55–64.

Daneau

Tétreau

Deroche

, et al. Impact of load expectations on neuromuscular and postural strategies during a freestyle lifting task in individuals with and without chronic low back pain. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0246791.

Ebrahimi-Varkiani

Ordibehesht

Alizadeh

, et al. Incidence of low back injuries among iranian athletes in 12 disciplines of olympic sports. Phys Ther 2021; 11: 25–30.

Mazloumi

Kazemi

AbedZadeh

, et al. Design and fabrication of portable motion recorder: comparing lumbar kinematics in workers with and without low back pain in assembly line of a car manufacturing industry. JHSW 2021; 11: 55–71.

Ross

Parnianpour

Martin

. The effects of resistance level on muscle coordination patterns and movement profile during trunk extension. Spine 1993; 18: 1829–1838.

Talebian

Bagheri

Hosseini

, et al. The investigation of median frequency changes in paraspinal muscles following fatigue. Iran Rehabil J 2009; 7: 31–35.

Talebian

Mousavi

Olyaei

, et al. The effect of exertion level on activation patterns and variability of trunk muscles during multidirectional isometric activities in upright posture. Spine 2010; 35: 443–451.

Sheikhzadeh

Parnianpour

Nordin

. Capability and recruitment patterns of trunk during isometric uniaxial and biaxial upright exertion. Clin Biomech 2008; 23: 527–535.

Sparto

Parnianpour

. Estimation of trunk muscle forces and spinal loads during fatiguing repetitive trunk exertions. Spine 1998; 23: 2563–2573.

10.

Mawston

Holder

O’Sullivan

, et al. Flexed lumbar spine postures are associated with greater strength and efficiency than lordotic postures during a maximal lift in pain-free individuals. Gait Posture 2021; 86: 245–250.

11.

Roy

Keller

Colloca

. Posture-dependent trunk extensor EMG activity during maximum isometrics exertions in normal male and female subjects. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2003; 13: 469–476.

12.

Parnianpour

Campello

Sheikhzadeh

. The effect of posture on triaxial strength in different directions: its biomechanical consideration with respect to incidence of low-back problem in construction industry. Int J Ind Ergon 1991; 8: 279–287.

13.

Tan

Parnianpour

Nordin

, et al. Isometric maximal and submaximal trunk extension at different flexed positions in standing. Triaxial torque output and EMG. Spine 1993; 18: 2480–2490.

14.

Perez

Nussbaum

. Lower torso muscle activation patterns for high-magnitude static exertions: gender differences and the effects of twisting. Spine 2002; 27: 1326–1335.

15.

Marras

King

Joynt

. Measurement of loads on the lumbar spine under isometric and isokinetic conditions. Spine 1984; 9(2): 176–187.

16.

Mawston

Boocock

. Lumbar posture biomechanics and its influence on the functional anatomy of the erector spinae and multifidus. Phys Ther Rev 2015; 20: 178–186.

17.

Daggfeldt

Thorstensson

. The mechanics of back-extensor torque production about the lumbar spine. J Biomech 2003; 36: 815–825.

18.

Mörl

Günther

Riede

, et al. Loads distributed in vivo among vertebrae, muscles, spinal ligaments, and intervertebral discs in a passively flexed lumbar spine. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2020; 19: 2015–2047.

19.

McGill

Norman

. Effects of an anatomically detailed erector spinae model on L4L5 disc compression and shear. J Biomech 1987; 20: 591–600.

20.

Azghani

Farahmand

Meghdari

, et al. Design and evaluation of a novel triaxial isometric trunk muscle strength measurement system. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2009; 223: 755–766.

21.

JKF

Parnianpour

Richardson

, et al. Effect of fatigue on torque output and electromyographic measures of trunk muscles during isometric axial rotation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 374–381.

22.

Imbeau

Farbos

. Percentile values for determining maximum endurance times for static muscular work. Int J Ind Ergon 2006; 36: 99–108.

23.

Silvestri

Schinkel-Ivy

Drake

. Assessment of trunk muscle co-contraction during typical occupational movement tasks. Occup Ergon 2013; 11: 165–176.

24.

Schinkel-Ivy

Nairn

Drake

. Investigation of trunk muscle co-contraction and its association with low back pain development during prolonged sitting. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2013; 23: 778–786.

25.

Johnston

Wanninayake

Drake

. Investigating women’s chest size, trunk muscle co-contraction and back pain during prolonged standing. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2021; 34: 371–380.

26.

Damsgaard

Rasmussen

Christensen

, et al. Analysis of musculoskeletal systems in the AnyBody Modeling System. Simul Model Pract Theory 2006; 14(8): 1100–1111.

27.

Mirakhorlo

Azghani

Kahrizi

. Validation of a musculoskeletal model of lifting and its application for biomechanical evaluation of lifting techniques. J Res Health Sci 2013; 14(1): 23–28.

28.

Kahrizi

Parnianpour

Firoozabadi

, et al. Static study of the effect of the external load and trunk and knee position on the electrical activity pattern of the trunk muscles. Iran J Medical Phys 2003; 1(4–5): 59–68.

29.

Huang

Andersson

Thorstensson

. Intramuscular myoelectric activity and selective coactivation of trunk muscles during lateral flexion with and without load. Spine 2001; 26: 1465–1472.

30.

Tsuang

Novak

Schipplein

, et al. Trunk muscle geometry and centroid location when twisting. J Biomech 1993; 26: 537–546.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB