MRI Compatible Lumbopelvic Movement Measurement System to Validate and Capture Task Performance During Neuroimaging.

Research suggests that structural and functional changes within the brain are associated with chronic low back pain, and these cortical alterations might contribute to impaired sensorimotor control of the trunk and hips in this population. However, linking sensorimotor brain changes with altered movement of the trunk and hips during task-based neuroimaging presents significant challenges. An MRI-safe pressure measurement system was developed to ensure proper task completion during neuroimaging by capturing movement patterns of the trunk (sensors under the lower back) and hips (sensors embedded in the foam roll under the knees). Pressure changes were measured outside of the scanner by digital differential pressure sensors to capture time-series data and analog pressure gauges for real-time determination of task performance occurring within an MRI bore during brain imaging. This study examined the concurrent validity of air pressure changes between the digital and analog sensors. The digital and analog data were compared in 23 participants during the performance of modified bilateral and unilateral right and left hip bridges. Spearman's correlations were calculated for each sensor during the three bridging tasks and showed high positive correlations, indicating that over 87% of pressure change from the analog gauge can be explained by the pressure from the digital sensor. Bland-Altman plots showed no bias and mean differences were under three mmHg. This pressure system improves the rigor of future studies by validating the digital data from the system and increasing the capabilities of capturing lumbopelvic task performance occurring inside the scanner bore.

Effects of combined anodal transcranial direct current stimulation and motor control exercise on cortical topography and muscle activation in individuals with chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Aberrant movement in chronic low back pain (CLBP) is associated with a deficit in the lumbar multifidus (LM) and changes in cortical topography. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) can be used to enhance cortical excitability by priming the neuromuscular system for motor control exercise (MCE), thereby enhancing LM activation and movement control. This study aimed to determine the effects of a 6-week MCE program combined with a-tDCS on cortical topography, LM activation, movement patterns, and clinical outcomes in individuals with CLBP. METHODS: Twenty-two individuals with CLBP were randomly allocated to the a-tDCS group (a-tDCS; n = 12) or sham-tDCS group (s-tDCS; n = 10). Both groups received 20 min of tDCS followed by 30 min of MCE. The LM and erector spinae (ES) cortical topography, LM activation, movement control battery tests, and clinical outcomes (disability and quality of life) were measured pre- and post-intervention. RESULTS: Significant interaction (group × time; p < 0.01) was found in the distance between LM and ES cortical locations. The a-tDCS group demonstrated significantly fewer discrete peaks (p < 0.05) in both ES and LM and significant improvements (p < 0.05) in clinical outcomes post-intervention. The s-tDCS group demonstrated a significant increase (p < 0.05) in the number of discrete peaks in the LM cortical topography. No significant changes (p > 0.05) in LM activation were observed in either group; however, both groups demonstrated improved movement patterns. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that combined a-tDCS with MCE can separate LM and ES locations over time while s-tDCS (MCE alone) reduces the distance. Our study did not find superior benefits of adding a-tDCS before MCE for LM activation, movement patterns, or clinical outcomes.

Test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of knee extensor strength measured by a novel device incorporated into a weight stack machine vs. handheld and isokinetic dynamometry.

BACKGROUND: The current clinical gold standard for assessing isometric quadriceps muscle strength is an isokinetic dynamometer (IKD). However, in clinics without an IKD, clinicians default to using handheld dynamometers (HHD), which are less reliable and accurate than the IKD, particularly for large muscle groups. A novel device (ND) was developed that locks the weight stack of weight machines, and measures forces applied to the machine, turning this equipment into an isometric dynamometer. The objectives of this study were to characterize the test-retest reliability of the ND, determine the within-day and between-days inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity compared with that of the HHD, in healthy volunteers (HV) and individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA) for measuring knee extensors isometric muscle force. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 29 healthy (age = 28.4 ± 7.4 years) and 15 knee OA (age = 37.6 ± 13.4 years) participants completed three maximum force isometric strength testing trials on dominant side knee extensor muscles on three devices (ND, HHD, and IKD) in two separate sessions by two raters. The maximum force (Fmax) produced, and the force-time series were recorded. Reliability and validity were assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman Plots, Pearson's r, and cross-correlations. RESULTS: The ND demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (ICC2,3 = 0.97). The within-day (ICC2,3 = 0.88) and between-day inter-rater reliability (ICC2,3 = 0.87) was good for HHD. The ND showed excellent within-day (ICC2,3 = 0.93) and good between-day (ICC2,3 = 0.89) inter-rater reliability. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed HHD systematic bias and underestimation of force particularly with quadriceps force values exceeding 450 N. Mean differences were found in maximum force between HHD vs. IKD (MDabs = 58 N, p < .001) but not the HHD vs. ND (MDabs = 24 N, p = .267) or ND vs. IKD (MDabs = 34 N, p = .051). The concurrent validity of Fmax (r = 0.81) and force-time curve correlation (0.96 ± 0.05) were the highest between the ND and IKD. CONCLUSIONS: The ND's test-retest reliability and concurrent validity make it a potential strength assessment tool with utility in physical therapy and fitness settings for large muscle groups such as the knee extensors.

Vibration-Induced Alteration in Trunk Extensor Muscle Proprioception as a Model for Impaired Trunk Control in Low Back Pain.

This study examined the impact of personalizing muscle vibration parameters on trunk control. We assessed how altered trunk extensor muscle (TEM) proprioception affects seated trunk control in healthy controls (HCs). To explore the link between altered TEM proprioception and impaired trunk control in chronic low back pain (cLBP), we performed equivalence testing between HCs undergoing TEM vibration and cLBP without vibration. Twenty HCs performed active joint reposition error (AJRE) testing to determine personalized vibration parameters. Each participant maintained balance on an unstable chair with eyes open and closed, with and without TEM vibration. We compared trunk control between HCs and twenty age- and sex-matched cLBP participants, using mean velocity and 95% confidence ellipse area of center-of-pressure changes to quantify trunk postural control. Equivalence was examined by comparing mean difference scores to minimal detectable change values and calculating between-group effect sizes. Personalized vibration parameters led to larger lumbopelvic repositioning errors (d = 0.89) than any single vibration frequency (d = 0.31-0.36). In healthy adults with no back pain, vision had large effects on postural control (ηp2 = 0.604-0.842), but TEM vibration had no significant effects (p > 0.105) or interactions with vision (p > 0.423). Between-group effect sizes (d = 0.32-0.51) exceeded our threshold for performance equivalence (d < 0.2). Muscle vibration altered position sense during AJRE testing, and personalizing parameters amplified this effect. However, TEM vibration had minimal impact on seated trunk postural control in adults with no back pain and did not lead to performance degradation comparable to that in cLBP.

Trunk postural control during unstable sitting among individuals with and without low back pain: A systematic review with an individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Sitting on an unstable surface is a common paradigm to investigate trunk postural control among individuals with low back pain (LBP), by minimizing the influence lower extremities on balance control. Outcomes of many small studies are inconsistent (e.g., some find differences between groups while others do not), potentially due to confounding factors such as age, sex, body mass index [BMI], or clinical presentations. We conducted a systematic review with an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to investigate whether trunk postural control differs between those with and without LBP, and whether the difference between groups is impacted by vision and potential confounding factors. METHODS: We completed this review according to PRISMA-IPD guidelines. The literature was screened (up to 7th September 2023) from five electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. Outcome measures were extracted that describe unstable seat movements, specifically centre of pressure or seat angle. Our main analyses included: 1) a two-stage IPD meta-analysis to assess the difference between groups and their interaction with age, sex, BMI, and vision on trunk postural control; 2) and a two-stage IPD meta-regression to determine the effects of LBP clinical features (pain intensity, disability, pain catastrophizing, and fear-avoidance beliefs) on trunk postural control. RESULTS: Forty studies (1,821 participants) were included for the descriptive analysis and 24 studies (1,050 participants) were included for the IPD analysis. IPD meta-analyses revealed three main findings: (a) trunk postural control was worse (higher root mean square displacement [RMSdispl], range, and long-term diffusion; lower mean power frequency) among individuals with than without LBP; (b) trunk postural control deteriorated more (higher RMSdispl, short- and long-term diffusion) among individuals with than without LBP when vision was removed; and (c) older age and higher BMI had greater adverse impacts on trunk postural control (higher short-term diffusion; longer time and distance coordinates of the critical point) among individuals with than without LBP. IPD meta-regressions indicated no associations between the limited LBP clinical features that could be considered and trunk postural control. CONCLUSION: Trunk postural control appears to be inferior among individuals with LBP, which was indicated by increased seat movements and some evidence of trunk stiffening. These findings are likely explained by delayed or less accurate corrective responses. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021124658).

The evolving role of physical therapists in the long-term management of chronic low back pain: longitudinal care using assisted self-management strategies

ABSTRACT Background Longitudinal studies have shown that the symptoms of chronic low back pain (CLBP) will follow an episodic trajectory characterized by periods of high and low pain intensity that can persist for many years. There is a growing belief that the contemporary approach of limiting physical therapy to short, but intense courses of treatment for (CLBP) may be sub-optimal because these limited “windows” of clinical care are not congruent with the natural history of this condition. Recent research has suggested that people with CLBP undergo substantial, and individualized long-term variations in the neural processing of nociception over time. This has led to the concept of a “unique biosignature of pain” that may explain much of the variation in a person’s clinical picture. These and other findings have led to the reconceptualization of CLBP as an individualized, and continually evolving condition that may be more suitably managed by empowering the patient toward self-management strategies that can be modified as needed over time by the PT. Objectives The purpose of this Master Class Paper is to describe an emerging approach for the treatment of CLBP that emphasizes the formation of a long-term therapeutic alliance between the patient and the PT with an emphasis on individualized, patient-preferred approaches for activity-based self-management as an alternative to the contemporary approach of short, intense episodes of care directed toward pain reduction. Conclusion Longitudinal care using assisted self-management strategies is more congruent with the natural history of CLBP than are traditional approaches for PT intervention. This approach may empower patients to undergo lifestyle changes that will favorably influence long-term outcomes; however additional research is needed.

Critical review of the impact of core stability on upper extremity athletic injury and performance

BACKGROUND: Programs designed to prevent or rehabilitate athletic injuries or improve athletic performance frequently focus on core stability. This approach is based upon the theory that poor core stability increases the risk of poor performance and/or injury. Despite the widespread use of core stability training amongst athletes, the question of whether or not sufficient evidence exists to support this practice remains to be answered.OBJECTIVES: 1) Open a dialogue on the definition and components of core stability. 2) Provide an overview of current science linking core stability to musculoskeletal injuries of the upper extremity. 3) Provide an overview of evidence for the association between core stability and athletic performance.DISCUSSION: Core stability is the ability to control the position and movement of the trunk for optimal production, transfer, and control of forces to and from the upper and lower extremities during functional activities. Muscle capacity and neuromuscular control are critical components of core stability. A limited body of evidence provides some support for a link between core stability and upper extremity injuries amongst athletes who participate in baseball, football, or swimming. Likewise, few studies exist to support a relationship between core stability and athletic performance.CONCLUSIONS: A limited body of evidence exists to support the use of core stability training in injury prevention or performance enhancement programs for athletes. Clearly more research is needed to inform decision making when it comes to inclusion or emphasis of core training when designing injury prevention and rehabilitation programs for athletes.