Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2018-5
Difference of the thickness and activation of trunk muscles during static stoop lift at different loads between subjects with and without low back pain
Patients suffering from low back pain (LBP) have been reported to alter muscle contraction strategies.
OBJECTIVE:
To compare activity and thickness of the trunk muscles (external oblique (EO), internal oblique (IO), transversus abdominis (TrA), and lumbar multifidus (LM)) during static stoop lift at different lifting loads between the subjects with and without LBP.
METHODS:
Twenty eight subjects with LBP and twenty eight healthy subjects were recruited. The stoop lifting was performed in three conditions in 0%, 10%, and 20% of body weight.
RESULTS:
The activity of EO ( 9.513) and IO ( 7.781) was significantly increased with increasing lifting loads in subjects with LBP ( 0.05) but not significantly in subjects without LBP. The activity of the LM ( 124.980) was significantly increased in response to lifting loads in both groups ( 0.05). The percent change of TrA ( 8.797) and LM ( 48.170) muscles thickness was significantly increased with increasing lifting loads in both groups ( 0.05). The percent change of TrA ( 3.780) and LM ( 16.314) muscles thickness in subjects without LBP was greater than those in subjects with LBP at all three lifting loads ( 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:
The results of this study suggest that more activation of EO in subjects with LBP may contribute to increase the compressive force on the lumbar spine during stoop lift. Also, less activation of TrA and LM in subjects with LBP may contribute to decrease the lumbar stabilization during stoop lift.
MarrasWSParnianpourMFergusonSAKimJYCrowellRRBoseS, et al. The classification of anatomic- and symptom-based low back disorders using motion measure models. Spine.1995; 20(23): 2531-2546.
2.
CallaghanJPMcGillSM. Intervertebral disc herniation: Studies on a procine model exposed to highly repetitive flexion/extension motion with compressive force. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon).2001; 16(1): 28-37.
3.
RichardsonCAJullGAHodgesPWHidesJA. Therapeutic exercise for lumbopelvic stabilization. In: A motor control approach for the treatment and prevention of low back pain. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2004.
4.
BunceSMHoughADMooreAP. Measurement of abdominal muscle thickness using M-model Utrasound imaging during functional activities. Man Ther.2004; 9(1): 41-44.
5.
CholewickiJJuluruKMcGillSM. Intra-abdominal pressure mechanism for stabilizing the lumbar spine. J Biomech.1999; 32(1): 13-17.
6.
FaberGSKingmaIBakkerAJMvan Dieen̈JH. Low-back loading in lifting two loads beside the body compared to lifting one load in front of the body. J Biomech.2009; 42(1): 35-41.
7.
LarivièreCGagnonDLoiselP. A biomechanical comparison of lifting techniques between subjects with and without chronic low back pain during freestyle lifting and lowering tasks. Clin Biomech.2002; 17(2): 89-98.
8.
GragAHerrinGD. Stoop or squat. A biomechanical and metabolic evaluation. AIIE Trans.1979; 11(4): 293-302.
9.
HagenKBHallenJHarms-RingdahlK. Physiological and subjective responses to maximal repetitive lifting employing stoop and squat technique. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physio.1993; 67(4): 291-297.
10.
DavidsonKLHubley-KozeyC. Trunk muscle responses to demands of an exercise progression to improve dynamic spinal stability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2005; 86(2): 216-223.
11.
UrquhartDMHodgesPWAllenTJStoryIH. Abdominal muscle recruitment during a range of voluntary exercises. Man Ther.2005; 10(2): 144-153.
12.
OlsonMW. Trunk muscle activation during sub-maximal extension efforts. Man Ther.2010; 15(1): 105-110.
13.
TanJCParnianpourMNordinMHoferHWillemsBI. Isometric maximal and submaximal trunk extension at different flexed positions in standing: triaxial torque output and EMG. Spine.1993; 18(16): 2480-2490.
14.
LavenderSATsuangYHAnderssonGBHafeziAShinCC. Trunk muscle co-contraction: the effects of moment direction and moment magnitude. J Orthop Res.1992; 10(5): 691-700.
15.
HodgesPWPengelLHHerbertRDGandeviaSC. Measurement of muscle contraction with ultrasound imaging. Muscle Nerve.2003; 27(6): 682-692.
16.
HodgesPWRichardsonCA. Inefficient muscular stabilization of the lumbar spine associated with low back pain. A motor control evaluation of transversus abdominis. Spine.1996; 21(22): 2640-2650.
17.
HodgesPWRichardsonCA. Delayed postural contraction of transversus abdominis in low back pain associated with movement of the lower limb. J Spinal Disord.1998; 11(1): 46-56.
18.
KieselKBUhlTUnderwoodFBNitzAJ. Rehabilitative ultrasound measurement of select trunk muscle activation during induced pain. Man Ther.2008; 13(2): 132-138.
19.
HodgesPWRichardsonCA. Transversus abdominis and the superficial abdominal muscles are controlled independently in a postural task. Neurosci Lett.1999; 265(2): 91-94.
20.
HidesJAStokesMJSaideMJullGACooperDH. Evidence of lumbar multifidus muscle wasting ipsilateral to symptoms in patients with acute/subacute low back pain. Spine.1994; 19(2): 165-172.
21.
O’SullivanPBBealesDJBeethamJACrippsJGrafFLinIB, et al. Altered motor control strategies in subjects with sacroiliac joint pain during the active straight-leg-raise test. Spine.2002; 27(1): 1-8.
22.
DelittoRSRoseSJ. An electromyographic analysis of two techiques for squat lifting and lowering. Phys Ther.1992; 72(6): 438-448.
23.
HidesJABelavýDLCassarLWilliamsMWilsonSJRichardsonCA. Altered response of the anterolateral abdominal muscles to simulated weight-bearing in subjects with low back pain. Eur Spine J.2009; 18(3): 410-418.
24.
HidesJAWongIWilsonSJBelavýDLRichardsonCA. Assessment of abdominal muscle function during a simulated unilateral weight-bearing task using ultrasound imaging. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.2007; 37(8): 467-471.
25.
KoppenhaverSLHebertJJFritzJMParentECTeyhenDSMagelJS. Reliability of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging of the transversus abdominis and lumbar LMtifidus muscles. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2009; 90(1): 87-94.
26.
SilfiesSPSquillanteD, P,WestcottSKardunaAR. Trunk muscle recruitment patterns in specific chronic low back pain populations. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon).2005; 20(5): 465-473.
27.
O’SullivanPBTwomeyLAllisonGT. Altered abdominal muscle recruitment in patients with chronic back pain following a specific exercise intervention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.1998; 27(2): 114-124.
28.
ParkKNCynnHSKwonOYLeeWHHaSMKimSJ, et al. Effects of the abdominal drawing-in maneuver on muscle activity, pelvic motions, and knee flexion during active prone knee flexion in patients with lumbar extension rotation syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2011; 92(9): 1477-1483.
29.
DankaertsWO’SullivanPBBurnettAFStrakerLMDanneelsLA. Reliability of EMG measurements for trunk muscles during maximal and sub-maximal voluntary isometric contractions in healthy controls and LBP patients. J Electromyogr Kinesiol.2004; 14(3): 333-342.
30.
TeyhenDSWilliamsonJNCarlsonNHSuttlesSTO’LaughlinSJWhittakerJL, et al. Ultrasound characteristics of the deep abdominal muscles during the active straight leg raise test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2009; 90(5): 761-767.
31.
KieselKBUhlTLUnderwoodFBRoddDWNitzAJ. Measurement of lumbar multifidus muscle contraction with rehabilitative ultrasound imaging. Man Ther.2007; 12(2): 161-166.
32.
WhittakerJL. Ultrasound Imaging of the lateral abdominal wall muscles in individuals with lumbopelvic pain and signs of concurrent hypocapnia. Man Ther.2008; 13(5): 404-410.
33.
McMeekenJMBeithIDNewhamDJMilliganPCritchleyDJ. THe relationship between EMG and change in thickness of transversus abdominis. Clin Biomech. 2004; 19(4): 337-342.
34.
FerreiraPHFerreiraMLHodgesPW. Changes in recruitment of the abdominal muscles in people with low back pain: ultrasound measurement of muscle activity. Spine.2004; 29(22): 2560-2566.
35.
HidesJAStantonWRMcMahonSSimsKRichardsonCA. Effect of stabilization training on multifidus muscle cross-sectional area among young elite cricketers with low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.2008; 38(3): 101-108.
36.
SitilertpisanPPirunsanUPuangmaliARatanapinunchaiJKiatwattanacharoenSNeaminH, et al. Comparison of lateral abdominal muscle thickness between weightlifters and matched controls. Phys Ther Sport.2011; 12(4): 171-174.
37.
HodgesPWGanderviaSC. Activation of the human diaphragm during a repetitive postural task. J Physiol.2000; 522(1): 165-175.
38.
TeyhenDSMiltenbergerCEDeitersHMDel ToroYMPulliamJNChildsJD, et al. The use of ultrasound imaging of the abdominal drawing-in maneuver in subjects with low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.2005; 35(6): 346-355.
39.
GranataKPOrishimoKF. Response of trunk muscle coactivation to changes in spinal stability. J Biomech.2001; 34(9): 1117-1123.
40.
PanjabiMM. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part 1. Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement. J Spinal Disord.1992; 5(4): 383-389.
41.
WilkeHJWolfSClaesLEArandMWiesendA. Stability increase of the lumbar spine with different muscle groups. A biomechanical in vitro study. Spine.1995; 20(2): 192-198.
42.
PanjabiMMAbumiKDuranceauJOxlandT. Spinal stability and inter segmental muscle forces. A biomechanacal model. Spine.1989; 14(2): 194-200.
43.
McCookDTVicenzinoBHodgesPW. Activity of deep abdominal muscles increases during submaximal flexion and extension efforts but antagonist co-contraction remains unchanged. J Electromyogr Kinesiol.2009; 19(5): 754-762.
44.
HodgesPWErikssonAEShirleyDGandeviaSC. Intra-abdominal pressure increases stiffness of the lumbar spine. J Biomech.2005; 38(9): 1873-1880.
45.
RichardsonCASnijdersCJHidesJADamenLPasMSStormJ. The relation between the transversus abdominis muscles, sacroiliac joint mechanics, and low back pain. Spine.2002; 27(4): 399-405.
