Submaximal electromyography-driven musculoskeletal modeling of the human trunk during static tasks: Equilibrium and stability analyses.

Conventional electromyography-driven (EMG) musculoskeletal models are calibrated during maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) tasks, but individuals with low back pain cannot perform unbiased MVCs. To address this issue, EMG-driven models can be calibrated in submaximal tasks. However, the effects of maximal (when data points include the maximum contraction) and submaximal calibration techniques on model outputs (e.g., muscle forces, spinal loads) remain yet unknown. We calibrated a subject-specific EMG-driven model, using maximal/submaximal isometric contractions, and simulated different independent tasks. Both approaches satisfactorily predicted external moments (Pearson's correlation ∼ 0.75; relative error = 44%), and removing calibration tasks under axial torques markedly improved the model performance (Pearson's correlation âˆ¼ 0.92; relative error âˆ¼ 28%). Unlike individual muscle forces, gross (aggregate) model outputs (i.e., spinal loads, stability index, and sum of abdominal/back muscle forces) estimated from maximal and submaximal calibration techniques were highly correlated (r > 0.78). Submaximal calibration method overestimated spinal loads (6% in average) and abdominal muscle forces (11% in average). Individual muscle forces estimated from maximal and submaximal approaches were substantially different; however, gross model outputs (especially internal loads and stability index) remained highly correlated with small to moderate relative differences; therefore, the submaximal calibration technique can be considered as an alternative to the conventional maximal calibration approach.

Evaluating stability of human spine in static tasks: a combined in vivo-computational study.

Various interpretations and parameters have been proposed to assess spinal stability such as antagonist muscle coactivity, trunk stiffness and spinal buckling load; however, the correlation between these parameters remains unknown. We evaluated spinal stability during different tasks while changing the external moment and load height and investigated likely relationships between different EMG- and model-based parameters (e.g., EMG coactivity ratio, trunk stiffness, force coactivity ratio) and stability margins. EMG and kinematics of 40 young healthy subjects were recorded during various quasi-static tasks. Muscle forces, trunk stiffness and stability margins were calculated by a nonlinear subject-specific EMG-assisted-optimization musculoskeletal model of the trunk. The load elevation and external moment increased muscle activities and trunk stiffness while all stability margins (i.e., buckling loads) decreased. The force coactivity ratio was strongly correlated with the hand-load stability margin (i.e., additional weight in hands to initiate instability; R2 = 0.54) demonstrating the stabilizing role of abdominal muscles. The total trunk stiffness (Pearson's r = 0.96) and the sum of EMGs of back muscles (Pearson's r = 0.65) contributed the most to the T1 stability margin (i.e., additional required load at T1 for instability/buckling). Force coactivity ratio and trunk stiffness can be used as alternative spinal stability metrics.

The effect of extensible and non-extensible lumbar belts on trunk postural balance in subjects with low back pain and healthy controls.

BACKGROUND: Previous findings suggest that wearing a lumbar belt may benefit some patients with low back pain; however, the mechanisms of action are not yet fully understood. RESEARCH QUESTION: The effect of wearing two flexible (extensible and non-extensible) lumbar belts on trunk postural control was investigated during an unstable sitting task. METHODS: Healthy subjects and subjects with LBP sat on a wobbling chair, with and without the lumbar belts. Chair rotation was measured in the sagittal and frontal planes, and 10 linear and nonlinear measures of balance were computed to assess the quantity (3 measures) and quality (7 measures) of the movements. RESULTS: Both lumbar belts induced similar changes in specific measures of trunk postural control, for both subject groups, generally indicative of more instability and less controllability, but with low effect sizes (0.14 and 0.40). Subjects with LBP also showed lower entropy (complexity; effect size 0.93) and higher determinism (predictability; effect size 0.56) than healthy controls, under all test conditions. These findings indicate that the subjects with LBP used a less complex, more predictable trunk postural control strategy, suggestive of impaired adaptability and responsiveness to dynamic trunk postural control demands. The findings also suggest other factors related to dynamic adaptability may be impaired by lumbar belt use. SIGNIFICANCE: The effects of the lumbar belts on trunk postural control were small, however, their practical implications for the management of LBP remain to be determined in relation to other effects of lumbar belts (e.g. increased mechanical stiffness).

Revisiting the effect of manipulating lumbar stability with load magnitudes and positions: The effect of sex on trunk muscle activation.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spine stability is regularly studied by positioning different loads at different heights and distance and measuring trunk muscle activation changes. Some of these studies have reported sex differences, but this needs to be revisited while controlling for confounding factors. METHOD: 20 males and 20 females sustained three static standing postures, with various loads (0, 5 and 10% of body weight), to evaluate the effect of height and distance. Activation of 12 trunk muscles was recorded with surface electromyography (EMG). RESULTS: Females activated their external obliques a little more than males, with increases ranging between 1.5 and 2.3% of maximal voluntary activation (MVA), which corresponds to strong effect sizes (Cohen's d ranging between 0.86 and 1.13). However, the significant Sex × Height, Sex × Distance and Sex × Load interactions observed for different trunk muscles led to small differential effects (≤1% MVA). Increasing load height slightly increased and decreased back and abdominal muscle activation, respectively, generally by less than 1% MVA. CONCLUSION: The higher activation of the external obliques observed in females might be of clinical value, relative to the required overall trunk muscle activation (5%), to preserve lumbar stability. Other effects were negligible.

Trunk postural balance and low back pain: Reliability and relationship with clinical changes following a lumbar stabilization exercise program.

Lumbar stabilization programs reduce pain and disability, but the mechanisms of action underlying this treatment are unknown. Trunk postural control during unstable sitting represents a surrogate measure of motor control mechanisms involved to maintain the dynamic stability of the spine. This exploratory study aimed to determine the reliability of trunk postural control measures over an 8-week interval, their sensitivity to low back pain status and treatment and their relationship with clinical outcomes. Trunk postural control measures were determined in patients with low back pain before and after an 8-week lumbar stabilization exercise program. Healthy controls were assessed over the same interval, but without any treatment, to determine the reliability of the measures and act as a control group at baseline. The kinematics of a wobble chair during unstable sitting was summarized using different linear and nonlinear measures quantifying the quantity and quality of movement, respectively. The reliability of the measures was moderate to excellent. The results showed significant reduction in pain and disability following the intervention. While no impairment at baseline scores was found, some linear and nonlinear measures changed over the intervention period among the patient group. However, for nonlinear measures only, significant correlations were detected with the change scores of pain and disability. The change of measures over the intervention period was likely due to learning rather than the intervention as similar alteration was detected in the healthy subjects. The results suggest that only the quality (not the quantity) of movement may have relationship with pain and disability.

The effect of wearing a lumbar belt on biomechanical and psychological outcomes related to maximal flexion-extension motion and manual material handling.

Workers with low back pain (LBP) may benefit from wearing a lumbar belt (LB), but the biomechanical and psychological mechanisms involved are not fully understood. Two types of flexible LB (extensible and non-extensible) were compared to a control condition (no LB) regarding pain-related (pain, fear of pain and catastrophizing) and biomechanical (range of motion - ROM) outcomes related to two tasks: maximal trunk flexion-extension and manual material handling. Healthy controls and participants with LBP were tested. During both tasks, the two LBs reduced the lumbar ROM in participants with LBP in the same way as healthy controls. This was observed even at the beginning of the trunk flexion movement, allowing generalization to many work tasks, that is to say tasks performed with small or deep trunk flexion. The two LBs reduced pain, fear of pain and catastrophizing in subjects with LBP. That may help a gradual re-exposure to physical work activities (disability prevention perspective), or maintaining these activities (secondary prevention perspective), following a LBP episode.

The effect of an 8-week stabilization exercise program on the lumbopelvic rhythm and flexion-relaxation phenomenon.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar stabilization exercise programs should normalize the aberrant movements patterns often observed in patients with low back pain. This study aimed to determine the effect of an 8-week lumbar stabilization program on EMG/kinematics measures of the aberrant movement patterns in such patients. A secondary goal was to assess the 8-week test-retest reliability of these measures. METHODS: The patients followed an 8-week lumbar stabilization program while no intervention was carried out on the controls. Before and after this period, kinematics of the spine along with the EMG of paraspinal muscles were recorded during trunk maximal flexion-extension. ANOVAs tested the effect of the intervention in the patients, relative to the controls. Within the patients, correlation of the EMG/kinematics measures with the change in disability and pain following the intervention was investigated. FINDINGS: A significant reduction in pain (Hedges's g effect size=2.31) and improvement in function (g=1.74) was reported in the patients. While EMG/kinematics measures disclosed impairments in the patients at baseline compared to the controls, no change was observed over the intervention. Nevertheless, the change of lumbar range of motion was positively correlated (r=0.42; P=0.015) with the change in disability. INTERPRETATION: Although pain and disability decreased following the intervention, the EMG/kinematics measures did not change concomitantly suggesting that the patients learned to stiffen the lumbar spine during the treatment, and this technique was applied even if pain and disability unequivocally decreased after the treatment, which would not necessarily be beneficial to the patient.

Computation of trunk stability in forward perturbations: effects of preload, perturbation load, initial flexion and abdominal preactivation.

Spine stability demand influences active-passive coordination of the trunk response, especially during sudden perturbations. The objective of this study was to look at the role of passive, stationary active and reflexive subsystems on spinal stability. Spine stability was evaluated here during pre- and post-perturbation phases by computing the minimum (i.e., critical) muscle stiffness coefficient required to maintain stability. The effects of pre-perturbation conditions (preloading, initial posture and abdominal antagonistic coactivation) as well as perturbation magnitude were studied. Results revealed that higher preload, initially flexed trunk posture and abdominal pre-activation enhanced pre-perturbation stiffness and stability. In contrast to the preload, however, larger sudden load, initial flexion and abdominal preactivation significantly increased post-perturbation stability margin. As a result, much lower critical muscle stiffness coefficient was required post-perturbation. Compared to the pre-perturbation phase, the trunk stiffness and stability substantially increased post-perturbation demanding thus a much lower critical muscle stiffness coefficient. Overall, these findings highlight the crucial role of the ligamentous spine and muscles (in both passive and active states) in augmenting the trunk stiffness and hence stability during pre- and post-perturbation phases; a role much evident in the presence of initial trunk flexion.

Trunk active response and spinal forces in sudden forward loading: analysis of the role of perturbation load and pre-perturbation conditions by a kinematics-driven model.

Understanding the central nervous system (CNS) response strategy to trunk perturbations could help in prevention of back injuries and development of rehabilitation and treatment programs. This study aimed to investigate biomechanical response of the trunk musculoskeletal system under sudden forward loads, accounting for pre-perturbation conditions (preloading, initial posture and abdominal antagonistic coactivation) and perturbation magnitudes. Using a trunk kinematics-driven iterative finite element (FE) model, temporal profiles of measured kinematics and external load along with subjects' weights were prescribed to predict thoracolumbar muscle forces/latencies and spinal loads for twelve healthy subjects when tested in six conditions during pre- and post-perturbation periods. Results demonstrated that preloading the trunk significantly (i.e., p<0.05) increased pre-perturbation back muscle forces but significantly decreased post-perturbation peak muscle active forces and muscle latencies. Initial trunk flexion significantly increased muscle active and passive forces before the perturbation and their peak values after the perturbation, which in turn caused much larger spinal loads. Abdominal muscles antagonistic pre-activation did not alter the internal variables investigated in this study. Increase in sudden applied load increased muscle reflex activities and spinal forces; a 50 N increase in sudden load (i.e., when comparing 50 N to 100 N) increased the L5-S1 compression force by 1327 N under 5 N preload and by 1374 N under 50 N preload. Overall, forces on the spine and hence risk of failure substantially increased in sudden forward loading when the magnitude of sudden load increased and when the trunk was initially in a flexed posture. In contrast, a higher initial preload diminished reflex latencies and compression forces.

Trunk response to sudden forward perturbations - effects of preload and sudden load magnitudes, posture and abdominal antagonistic activation.

Unexpected loading of the spine is a risk factor for low back pain. The trunk neuromuscular and kinematics responses are likely influenced by the perturbation itself as well as initial trunk conditions. The effect of four parameters (preload, sudden load, initial trunk flexed posture, initial abdominal antagonistic activity) on trunk kinematics and back muscles reflex response were evaluated. Twelve asymptomatic subjects participated in sudden forward perturbation tests under six distinct conditions. Preload did not change the reflexive response of back muscles and the trunk displacement; while peak trunk velocity and acceleration as well as the relative load peak decreased. Sudden load increased reflex response of muscles, trunk kinematics and loading variables. When the trunk was initially flexed, back muscles latency was delayed, trunk velocity and acceleration increased; however, reflex amplitude and relative trunk displacement remained unchanged. Abdominal antagonistic preactivation increased reflexive response of muscles but kinematics variables were not affected. Preload, initial flexed posture and abdominal muscles preactivation increased back muscles preactivity. Both velocity and acceleration peaks of the trunk movement decreased with preload despite greater total load. In contrast, they increased in the initial flexed posture and to some extent when abdominal muscles were preactivated demonstrating the distinct effects of pre-perturbation variables on trunk kinematics and risk of injury.

Criterion validity and between-day reliability of an inertial-sensor-based trunk postural stability test during unstable sitting.

INTRODUCTION: Adequate neuromuscular control of the lumbar spine is required to prevent lumbar injuries. A trunk postural stability test has been proposed earlier, using a chair wobbling on a central pivot and four springs with adjustable positions to modulate task difficulty. An inertial sensor is fixed on the chair to measure postural sway. The aim of this study is to assess the criterion validity and between-day reliability of the calibration and testing components. METHODS: Thirty six subjects (with and without low back pain) followed a calibration procedure, four practice trials and three 60-s trials on 2days. The criterion validity of the inertial sensor was tested against an optoelectronic system and a force platform. The reliability of 38 body sway measures obtained from the inertial sensor angular measures was estimated. RESULTS: The inertial sensor led to valid estimates of postural sway. The reliability of the calibration procedure was moderate. Practically no learning effect was detected except for a few body sway measures in patients with CLBP. Three 60-s trials provided acceptable reliability for approximately half of the body sway measures, although this is more difficult to achieve in patients with CLBP. DISCUSSION: The use of an easy to use inertial sensor led to valid measures of postural sway. A number of body sway measures were identified as reliable tools for individual follow-ups but inter-subject comparisons were anticipated as more difficult when patients with CLBP are involved.