Subgroups of lumbo-pelvic flexion kinematics are present in people with and without persistent low back pain

Abstract Background Movement dysfunctions have been associated with persistent low back pain (LBP) but optimal treatment remains unclear. One possibility is that subgroups of persistent LBP patients have differing movement characteristics and therefore different responses to interventions. This stud...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Robert A. Laird, Jennifer L. Keating, Peter Kent
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2018-08-01
Series:BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-018-2233-1
_version_ 1819150557010460672
author Robert A. Laird
Jennifer L. Keating
Peter Kent
author_facet Robert A. Laird
Jennifer L. Keating
Peter Kent
author_sort Robert A. Laird
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background Movement dysfunctions have been associated with persistent low back pain (LBP) but optimal treatment remains unclear. One possibility is that subgroups of persistent LBP patients have differing movement characteristics and therefore different responses to interventions. This study examined if there were patterns of flexion-related lumbo-pelvic kinematic and EMG parameters that might define subgroups of movement. Methods This was a cross-sectional, observational study of 126 people without any history of significant LBP and 140 people with persistent LBP (n = 266). Wireless motion and surface EMG sensors collected lumbo-pelvic data on flexion parameters (range of motion (ROM) of trunk, lumbar, and pelvis), speed, sequence coordination and timing, and EMG extensor muscle activity in forward bending (flexion relaxation)), and sitting parameters (relative position, pelvic tilt range and tilt ratio). Latent class analysis was used to identify patterns in these parameters. Results Four subgroups with high probabilities of membership were found (mean 94.9%, SD10.1%). Subgroup 1 (n = 133 people, 26% LBP) had the greatest range of trunk flexion, fastest movement, full flexion relaxation, and synchronous lumbar versus pelvic movement. Subgroup 2 (n = 73, 71% LBP) had the greatest lumbar ROM, less flexion relaxation, and a 0.9 s lag of pelvic movement. Subgroup 3 (n = 41, 83% LBP) had the smallest lumbar ROM, a 0.6 s delay of lumbar movement (compared to pelvic movement), and less flexion relaxation than subgroup 2. Subgroup 4 (n = 19 people, 100% LBP) had the least flexion relaxation, slowest movement, greatest delay of pelvic movement and the smallest pelvic ROM. These patterns could be described as standard (subgroup 1), lumbar dominant (subgroup 2), pelvic dominant (subgroup 3) and guarded (subgroup 4). Significant post-hoc differences were seen between subgroups for most lumbo-pelvic kinematic and EMG parameters. There was greater direction-specific pain and activity limitation scores for subgroup 4 compared to other groups, and a greater percentage of people with leg pain in subgroups 2 and 4. Conclusion Four subgroups of lumbo-pelvic flexion kinematics were revealed with an unequal distribution among people with and without a history of persistent LBP. Such subgroups may have implications for which patients are likely to respond to movement-based interventions.
first_indexed 2024-12-22T14:19:23Z
format Article
id doaj.art-1cff6a951e6c444f8f68571098a4458c
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1471-2474
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-22T14:19:23Z
publishDate 2018-08-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
spelling doaj.art-1cff6a951e6c444f8f68571098a4458c2022-12-21T18:23:02ZengBMCBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders1471-24742018-08-0119111310.1186/s12891-018-2233-1Subgroups of lumbo-pelvic flexion kinematics are present in people with and without persistent low back painRobert A. Laird0Jennifer L. Keating1Peter Kent2Department of Physiotherapy, Monash UniversityDepartment of Physiotherapy, Monash UniversitySchool of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin UniversityAbstract Background Movement dysfunctions have been associated with persistent low back pain (LBP) but optimal treatment remains unclear. One possibility is that subgroups of persistent LBP patients have differing movement characteristics and therefore different responses to interventions. This study examined if there were patterns of flexion-related lumbo-pelvic kinematic and EMG parameters that might define subgroups of movement. Methods This was a cross-sectional, observational study of 126 people without any history of significant LBP and 140 people with persistent LBP (n = 266). Wireless motion and surface EMG sensors collected lumbo-pelvic data on flexion parameters (range of motion (ROM) of trunk, lumbar, and pelvis), speed, sequence coordination and timing, and EMG extensor muscle activity in forward bending (flexion relaxation)), and sitting parameters (relative position, pelvic tilt range and tilt ratio). Latent class analysis was used to identify patterns in these parameters. Results Four subgroups with high probabilities of membership were found (mean 94.9%, SD10.1%). Subgroup 1 (n = 133 people, 26% LBP) had the greatest range of trunk flexion, fastest movement, full flexion relaxation, and synchronous lumbar versus pelvic movement. Subgroup 2 (n = 73, 71% LBP) had the greatest lumbar ROM, less flexion relaxation, and a 0.9 s lag of pelvic movement. Subgroup 3 (n = 41, 83% LBP) had the smallest lumbar ROM, a 0.6 s delay of lumbar movement (compared to pelvic movement), and less flexion relaxation than subgroup 2. Subgroup 4 (n = 19 people, 100% LBP) had the least flexion relaxation, slowest movement, greatest delay of pelvic movement and the smallest pelvic ROM. These patterns could be described as standard (subgroup 1), lumbar dominant (subgroup 2), pelvic dominant (subgroup 3) and guarded (subgroup 4). Significant post-hoc differences were seen between subgroups for most lumbo-pelvic kinematic and EMG parameters. There was greater direction-specific pain and activity limitation scores for subgroup 4 compared to other groups, and a greater percentage of people with leg pain in subgroups 2 and 4. Conclusion Four subgroups of lumbo-pelvic flexion kinematics were revealed with an unequal distribution among people with and without a history of persistent LBP. Such subgroups may have implications for which patients are likely to respond to movement-based interventions.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-018-2233-1Low back painSubgroupsPatternsMovement disordersRange of movement (ROM)Flexion relaxation
spellingShingle Robert A. Laird
Jennifer L. Keating
Peter Kent
Subgroups of lumbo-pelvic flexion kinematics are present in people with and without persistent low back pain
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Low back pain
Subgroups
Patterns
Movement disorders
Range of movement (ROM)
Flexion relaxation
title Subgroups of lumbo-pelvic flexion kinematics are present in people with and without persistent low back pain
title_full Subgroups of lumbo-pelvic flexion kinematics are present in people with and without persistent low back pain
title_fullStr Subgroups of lumbo-pelvic flexion kinematics are present in people with and without persistent low back pain
title_full_unstemmed Subgroups of lumbo-pelvic flexion kinematics are present in people with and without persistent low back pain
title_short Subgroups of lumbo-pelvic flexion kinematics are present in people with and without persistent low back pain
title_sort subgroups of lumbo pelvic flexion kinematics are present in people with and without persistent low back pain
topic Low back pain
Subgroups
Patterns
Movement disorders
Range of movement (ROM)
Flexion relaxation
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-018-2233-1
work_keys_str_mv AT robertalaird subgroupsoflumbopelvicflexionkinematicsarepresentinpeoplewithandwithoutpersistentlowbackpain
AT jenniferlkeating subgroupsoflumbopelvicflexionkinematicsarepresentinpeoplewithandwithoutpersistentlowbackpain
AT peterkent subgroupsoflumbopelvicflexionkinematicsarepresentinpeoplewithandwithoutpersistentlowbackpain