Spinal mobility in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: criterion concurrent validity of classic and novel measurements.

BACKGROUND: Limitations in spinal mobility are a characteristic feature of Axial Spondyloarthritis. Current clinical measurements of spinal mobility have shown low criterion-concurrent validity. This study sought to evaluate criterion-concurrent validity for a clinically feasible measurement method of measuring spine mobility using tri-axial accelerometers. METHODS: Fifteen radiographic-Spondyloarthritis patients were recruited for this study. Two postural reference radiographs, followed by three trials in forward, left and right lateral bending were taken. For all trials, three measurements were collected: tape (Original Schober's, Modified Schober's, Modified-Modified Schober's, Lateral Spinal Flexion Test and Domjan Test), followed immediately by synchronized radiograph and accelerometer measurements at end range of forward and bilateral lateral flexion. The criterion-concurrent validity of all measurement methods was compared to the radiographic measures using Pearson's correlation coefficients. A Bland-Altman analysis was conducted to assess agreement. RESULTS: In forward bending, the accelerometer method (r = 0.590, p = 0.010) had a stronger correlation to the radiographic measures than all tape measures. In lateral bending, the Lateral Spinal Flexion tape measure (r = 0.743, p = 0.001) correlated stronger than the accelerometer method (r = 0.556, p = 0.016). The Domjan test of bilateral bending (r = 0.708, p = 0.002) had a stronger correlation to the radiographic measure than the accelerometer method. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometer measures demonstrated superior criterion-concurrent validity compared to current tape measures of spinal mobility in forward bending. While a moderate correlation exists between accelerometer and radiographs in lateral bending, the Lateral Spinal Flexion Test and Domjan Test were found to have the best criterion-concurrent validity of all tests examined in this study.

Transient perceived back pain induced by prolonged sitting in a backless office chair: are biomechanical factors involved?

It is not currently known if biomechanical factors contribute to low back pain (LBP) during prolonged sitting. Thus, this study recruited 90 participants (61 with no history of LBP, and 29 with) to sit for 1 hour where back electromyography, spine posture, and perceived pain ratings (PPR) were collected. Participants were classified as Pain Developers (PD) or Non-Pain Developers (NPD) based on their maximum PPR. PDs had significantly higher PPR (p = 0.000) and lower number of spine fidgets (p = 0.004) than NPDs. There was a significant interaction between clinical health history and pain group (p = 0.037) for PPR. Besides fidget frequency, there were no biomechanical differences between pain groups. Therefore, sitting-induced back pain does not appear to be due to posture or muscle activity; however, it may be related to micro-movement strategies. Future work should explore fidgeting further and whether healthy PDs are at risk for clinical LBP in the future. Practitioner summary: We have replicated the differential transient sitting-induced pain response observed in previous studies. Pain developers do not sit differently than non-pain developers, although they do appear to move less. More research is warranted to better understand these groups and the relationship between pain developers and future cases of back pain. Abbreviations: LBP: low back pain; PG: pain group; PD: pain developer; NPD: non-pain developer; +veHx: positive clinical history for low back pain; -veHx: negative clinical history for low back pain; RTS: right thoracic erector spinae; LTS: left thoracic erector spine; RLM: right lumbar multifidus; LLM: left lumbar multifidus; MVC: maximum voluntary contraction; Pelvic N: normalized pelvic angle; ANOVA: analysis of variance; SD: standard deviation.

Excessive sedentary time during in-patient stroke rehabilitation.

Background and Purpose Previous research suggests that patients receiving inpatient stroke rehabilitation are sedentary although there is little data to confirm this supposition within the Canadian healthcare system. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to observe two weeks of inpatient rehabilitation in a tertiary stroke center to determine patients' activity levels and sedentary time. Methods Heart rate (HR) and accelerometer data were measured using an Actiheart monitor for seven consecutive days, 24 h/day, on the second week and the last week of admission. Participants or their proxies completed a daily logbook. Metabolic equivalent (MET) values were calculated and time with MET < 1.5 was considered sedentary. The relationship between patient factors (disability, mood, and social support) and activity levels and sedentary time were analyzed. Results Participants (n = 19; 12 males) spent 10 h sleeping and 4 h resting each day, with 86.9% of their waking hours sedentary. They received on average 8.5 task-specific therapy sessions; substantially lower than the 15 h/week recommended in best practice guidelines. During therapy, 61.6% of physical therapy and 76.8% of occupational therapy was spent sedentary. Participants increased their HR about 15 beats from baseline during physical therapy and 8 beats during occupational therapy. There was no relationship between sedentary time or activity levels and patient factors. Discussion Despite calls for highly intensive stroke rehabilitation, there was excessive sedentary time and therapy sessions were less frequent and of lower intensity than recommended levels. Conclusions In this sample of people attending inpatient stroke rehabilitation, institutional structure of rehabilitation rather than patient-related factors contributed to sedentary time.