RESUMEN
Objective To analyze the similarities and differences between four-point hand-knee position and hand-foot kneeling positions in trunk muscle activation and co-contraction, explore the possibility of hand-foot kneeling position as core stabilization exercises, so as to provide suggestions for actual training.Methods Nineteen healthy volunteers randomly performed exercises of four-point hand-knee position (4 motions) and hand-foot kneeling position (3 motions), while surface electromyography (sEMG) signals were collected from bilateral rectus abdominis, external oblique, erector spine, and multifidus muscles. The average sEMG and muscle co-contraction index (CCI) based on the sEMG signals were analyzed and compared.Results Significant differences were found in the sEMG and CCI within and between the two positions. Under four-point hand-knee position with the right hand and left leg lifting, the activation of all muscles was higher than that in the starting position. In four-point hand-knee position with the left leg lifting, the activation of ipsilateral multifidus muscle was significantly higher than that in hand-foot kneeling position. The activation degree of external oblique muscle and rectus abdominis was higher in hand-foot kneeling position with right hand lifting. A total of 28 muscle matching methods were obtained by pair-to-pair matching of 8 muscles. The starting posture in four-point hand-knee position fluctuated the least, indicating that the spine was the most stable, while the index of other exercises fluctuated in a larger range.Conclusions The possibility of hand-foot kneeling position as core stabilization exercises was proved from two aspects, namely, muscle activation and CCI. The hand-foot kneeling position and four-point hand-knee position can be used for strengthening abdominal muscles and back muscles, respectively. The four-point hand-knee position with contralateral upper and lower limbs lift is a more advanced exercise for trunk muscles, but sports injuries should be avoided.
RESUMEN
Objective:To observe the clinical effect of chiropractic on nonspecific low back pain (NLBP). Methods:From July, 2016 to January, 2018, 90 patients with NLBP were randomly divided into control group (n = 45) and observation group (n = 45). Both groups accepted core stabilization exercises (CSE) and routine physical therapy, and the observation group received chiropractic additionally. They were treated for four weeks and followed up for six months. Before, and two and four weeks after treatment, and at six-month follow-up, they were evaluated with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), abdominal and dorsal muscle endurance test (AMET) and waist active range of motion (AROM). Results:Two and four weeks after treatment, the result of VAS, ODI, AMET, and waist AROM improved significantly in both groups (P < 0.05), and they were better in the observation group than in the control group (t > 0.263, P < 0.001). At six-month follow-up, the scores of VAS and ODI improved significantly (P < 0.05), and were better in the observation group than in the control group (t > 5.911, P < 0.001). Conclusion:CSE and routine physical therapy combined with chiropractic could better reduce the pain, improve the dysfunction, and increase the spinal stability for patients with NLBP.
RESUMEN
Objective To investigate the effect of core stabilization exercises( CSE) on knee osteoarthritis. Methods Sixty cases patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomly divided into treatment group (n = 30)and control group(n = 30). Patients in control group were accepted conventional therapy including conventional physiotherapy,acupuncture,and massage,while in treatment group were accepted CSE besides conventional therapy. All patients were assessed with Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale(LKSS)and Visual Analogous Scale(VAS)before and after treatment. Results VAS in treatment group before and after treatment were(8. 31 ± 1. 16)and(3. 37 ± 0. 97),and the difference was statistically significant( t = 16. 30,P = 0. 00). VAS in control group before and after treatment VAS were(8. 26 ± 1. 22)and(5. 06 ± 0. 82),and the difference was statistically significant( t = 12. 19,P = 0. 000. VAS in two groups after treatment was statistically significant (t = - 6. 98,P = 0. 00). LKSS in treatment group before and after treatment were(32. 92 ± 4. 21),(60. 19 ± 4. 42),and the difference was statistically significant(t = - 30. 44,P = 0. 00). LKSS in control group before and after treatment was(34. 82 ± 5. 58),(53. 49 ± 3. 66),and the difference was statistically significance (t = - 14. 82,P = 0. 00). After the treatment,LKSS in the two groups was significant difference(t = 7. 16,P= 0. 00). Conclusion The core stability training can improve the patients with knee osteoarthritis of knee joint function,relieve pain.