Dynamic low back functional motion capacity evaluation
Tóm tắt
Most current functional capacity evaluations focus on range of motion and strength as measures of Wellness. The goal of this study was to evaluate the dynamic functional motion capacity of controls (those without low back pain) and low back pain patients in the three cardinal planes of the body. The hypothesis was that injury would not only affect sagittal motion but also lateral and twisting motion that would load the spine in a different manner. Twenty-six age and gender matched controls and low back pain patients were tested. Trunk motion parameters of range of motion (ROM), velocity, and acceleration were measured in all three planes of the body as subjects performed three separate tasks eliciting motion in each of the three cardinal planes of the body. Controls exhibited significantly higher performance than low back pain patients in all three planes of the body for velocity and acceleration but not ROM. Single parameter discriminant function models indicated that the velocity and acceleration motion parameters distinguished between LBP patients and the control group more effectively than ROM in the cardinal planes. Multiple parameter discriminant function demonstrated that coupled motion models further increased the ability to distinguish between the control and patient groups. These results provide insight into new methods of evaluating functional capacity using velocity, acceleration, and coupling which may provide valuable information in determining the recovery of a patient.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Andersson GBJ. Epdemiological aspects of low-back pain in industry.Spine 1981; 6: 53–60.
Krusen E, Ford D. Compensation factors in low back injures.JAMA 1958; 3: 1128–1133.
Haddod G. Analysis of 2932 worker's comp back injury cases. The impact of the cost to the system.Spine 1987; 12: 765–769.
Bigos S, Spengler D, Martin N, Zeh J, Fisher L, Nachemson A. Back injuries in industry: A retrospective study II. injury factors.Spine 1986; 11: 246–251.
Riihimaki H, Viikari-Juntura E, Moneta G, Kuha J, Videman T, Tola S. Incidence of sciatic pain among men in machine operating, dynamic physical work, and sedentary work.Spine 1994; 19: 138–142.
Nelson R, Nester D. Standardized assessment of industrial low-back injuries: Development of the NIOSH low-back atlas.Topics Acute Care Trauma Rehab 1988; 2: 16–30
Tramposh A. The functional capacity evaluation: Measuring maximal work abilities.Occup Med: State of the Art Review 1988; 7: 113–124.
Mayer T, Gatchel R.Functional restoration for spinal disorders: The sports medicine approach. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1988.
Isernhagen S. Functional capacity evaluation and work hardening perspective. In Mayer T, Mooney V, Gatchel R. eds.Contemporary conservative care for painful spinal disorders. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1991, pp. 328–345.
Battie M, Bigos S, Fisher L, Hansson T, Jones M, Wortley M. Isometric lifting strength as a predictor of industrial back pain reports.Spine 1988; 14: 851–856.
Masset D, Malchaire J, Lemoine M. Static and dynamic characteristics of the trunk and history of low back pain.Int J Ind Ergon 1993; 11: 279–290.
Klein A, Snyder-Machler L, Roy S, Deluca C. Comparison of spinal mobility and isometric trunk extensor forces with electromyographic spectral analysis in identifying low back pain.Phys Ther 1991; 71: 445–454.
Mandell P, Weitz E, Berstein J,et al. Isokinetic trunk strength and lifting measure differences and similarities between low-back-injured and noninjured workers.Spine 1993; 18: 2491–2501.
Marras W, Wongsam P. Flexibility and velocity of the normal and impaired lumbar spine.Arch Phys Med Rehab 1986; 67: 213–217.
Marras W, Parnianpour M, Ferguson S, Kim J, Crowell R, Simon S. Quantification and classification of low back disorders based on trunk motion.Eur J Phys Med Rehab 1993; 3: 214–235.
Marras W, Parnianpour M, Ferguson S,et al. The classification of anatomic and symptom based low back disorders using motion measure models.Spine 1995; 20: 2531–2546.
Panjabi M, Yamanoto I, Oxland T, Crisco J. How does posture affect coupling in the lumbar spine?Spine 1982; 7: 192–203.
Pearcy M, Tibrewal S. Axial rotation and lateral bending in the normal lumbar spine measured by three-dimensional radiography.Spine 1984; 9(6): 582–587.
Oxland T, Crisco J, Panjabi M, Yamamoto I. The Effect of injury on rotational coupling at the lumbosacral joint A biomechanical investigation.Spine 1992; 17(1): 75–80.
Twomey L, Taylor J. Lumbar posture, movement, and mechanics. In: Twomey and Taylor, eds.Physical therapy of the low back, 2nd Ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1994, pp. 57–91.
White A, Panjabi M.Clinical biomechanics of the spine (2nd Ed.). Philadelphia: L.B. Lippincott Company, 1990.
Spitzer W,et al. [Quebec task force on spinal disorders]: Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders. A monograph for clinicians. Report of the Quebec Task for on spinal disorders.Spine 1987; 12: S1-S59.
Marras W, Fathallah F, Miller R, Davis S, Mirka G. Accuracy of a three-dimensional lumbar motion monitor for recording dynamic trunk motion characteristics.Int J Ind Ergon 1992; 9: 75–87.
Kachigan S.Multivariate statistical analysis a conceptual introduction New York: Radium Press, 1991.
SAS Institute Inc.SAS/STAT user's Guide Release 6.03 Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1988, pp. 372.
Chazel J, Tanguy A, Bourges M,et al. Biomechanical properties of spinal ligaments and histological study of the supraspinal ligament in traction.J Biomech 1985; 18: 167–176
Nordin M, Frankel V.Basic biomechanics of the musculoskeletal system (2nd Ed.). Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1989.
Panjabi M, Goel V, Takata K. Physiologic strains in the lumbar spinal ligaments: Anin vitro biomechanical study.Spine 1982; 7: 192–203.
Agur A.Grant's atlas of anatomy (9th Ed.). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1991.
Porterfield J, DeRosa C.Mechanical low back pain perspectives in functional anatomy. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co., 1991.
Marras W, Lavender S, Leurgans S,et al. The role of dynamic three-dimensional trunk motion in occupationally-related low back disorders: The effects of workplace factors, trunk position, trunk motion characteristics on injury.Spine 1993; 18: 617–628.