Precision of trunk movement in people with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Motor control exercise is commonly applied in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP), but possibly not all people with CLBP have motor control impairments. We suggest movement precision as measure to identify motor control impairments. Movement precision has been operationalized as trunk movement variability (TMV) and as trunk tracking error(s) (TTE). OBJECTIVES: To compare the known-group validity and the responsiveness of TMV and TTE. DESIGN: We used a case-control comparison (Healthy controls (n = 30) vs CLBP (n = 60)) to assess the known-group validity. A cohort study, (measurements in week 3 and week 12 of treatment), was used to assess responsiveness. METHODS: TMV (temporal (CyclSD) and spatial (MeanSD)) was analyzed during standing, repetitive flexion and rotation tasks (35x). TTE was measured during movement target tracking tasks, again in flexion and rotation. Participants with CLBP followed a multidisciplinary intervention and both measures were assessed in week 3 and week 12 of treatment. 2-way MANOVA and 2-way ANOVA were used to assess the effect of Group (CLBP vs healthy controls) and direction (flexion vs rotation) on TMV and TTE. For responsiveness, 2-way MANOVA and 2-way ANOVA were used to assess the effect of treatment and direction on both measures. FINDINGS: At baseline, TMV was not different between groups, while TTE was higher in the people with CLBP (p = 0.005, np2 = 0.09). Treatment strongly decreased temporal TMV (p = 0.025, np2 = 0.33) and TTE (p < 0.001, np2 = 0.844). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that TTE is more sensitive to CLBP and more responsive to treatment than TMV.

Sensor-based intervention to enhance movement control of the spine in low back pain: Protocol for a quasi-randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: Chronic low back pain is a common condition that imposes an enormous burden on individuals and society. Physical exercise with education is the most effective treatment, but generally results in small, albeit significant improvements. However, which type of exercise is most effective remains unknown. Core stability training is often used to improve muscle strength and spinal stability in these patients. The majority of the core stability exercises mentioned in intervention studies involve no spinal movements (static motor control exercises). It is questionable if these exercises would improve controlled movements of the spine. Sensor-based exergames controlled with spinal movements could help improve movement control of the spine. The primary aim of this study is to compare the effects of such sensor-based exergames to static motor control exercises on spinal movement control. Methods and analysis: In this quasi-randomized controlled trial, 60 patients with chronic low back pain who are already enrolled in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme will be recruited. Patients will be randomly allocated into one of two groups: the Sensor-Based Movement Control group (n = 30) or the Static Motor Control group (n = 30). Both groups will receive 8 weeks of two supervised therapy sessions and four home exercises per week in addition to the rehabilitation programme. At baseline (week 1) and after the intervention (week 10), movement control of the spine will be assessed using a tracking task and clinical movement control test battery. Questionnaires on pain, disability, fear avoidance and quality of life will be taken at baseline, after intervention and at 6- and 12 months follow-up. Repeated measures ANOVAs will be used to evaluate if a significant Group x Time interaction effect exists for the movement control evaluations. Discussion: Sensor-based spinal controlled exergames are a novel way to train spinal movement control using meaningful and engaging feedback. The results of this study will inform clinicians and researchers on the efficacy of movement control training for patients with low back pain. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval for this study protocol was obtained from the METC Brabant (protocol number NL76811.028.21). Trial registration: Open Science Framework Registries (https://osf.io/v3mw9/), registration number: 10.17605/OSF.IO/V3MW9, registered on 1 September 2021.

Training potential of visual feedback to improve dynamic postural stability.

BACKGROUND: Deficits in single-limb dynamic postural stability are predictive for reinjuries of the lower extremities, which are very common in sports. The use of force plates has become increasingly common to measure dynamic postural stability. Visual feedback on force-plate based stability outcomes have been shown to improve performance during static tasks. A similar effect might occur in dynamic tasks. Since dynamic tasks are generally more specific for performance during sport, this could have important training implications. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effect of visual feedback on postural stability outcomes during a dynamic stability task? METHODS: Twenty-four healthy participants participated in this study. During measurements, subjects were standing on one leg while mediolateral position-controlled platform perturbations were used to evoke and measure balance responses. All participants were tested under three conditions: with visual Time-to-Stability (TTS) feedback, with visual Center of Pressure speed (COPs) feedback and without visual feedback. TTS and COPs outcomes were calculated over a 5-second time window after each perturbation and were compared between conditions. RESULTS: Visual feedback resulted in significantly better stability outcomes during the dynamic stability task. TTS feedback resulted in a task-specific feedback learning effect, as it resulted in a gradual improvement of TTS scores (from 1.09 s to 0.68 s; -38%) in absence of a significant change in COPs. COPs feedback resulted in a non-specific attention effect, directly improving COPs (without feedback 5.26 cm/s with feedback 4.95 cm/s; -6%) and TTS scores (without feedback 1.47 s with feedback 0.99 s; -39%) in absence of an apparent further improvement over time. SIGNIFICANCE: The ability to improve performance of dynamic stability tasks when visual feedback is added could have substantial impact for rehabilitation. Possibly, the use of visual feedback during stability training could improve the effectiveness of postural stability training.