Comparison of affected lumbar proprioception due to different injuries with healthy controls: An observational study

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ijosm.2023.100662
Sule Simsek , Feyza Altindal , Bilal Kilicarslan
{"title":"Comparison of affected lumbar proprioception due to different injuries with healthy controls: An observational study","authors":"Sule Simsek ,&nbsp;Feyza Altindal ,&nbsp;Bilal Kilicarslan","doi":"10.1016/j.ijosm.2023.100662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>There is limited evidence about spinal proprioception deficiency due to different injuries.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare spinal proprioception in patients with Lumbal Spinal Stenosis (LSS) and healthy controls. Secondary objective is to investigate the effect of pain intensity and Thoracolumbar fascia (TLF) flexibility on spinal proprioception deficiency.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Cross-sectional and healthy controlled study.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>This study was conducted in a state hospital.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Ninety participants (mean age: 46.98 ± 12.94 years) were grouped as: Healthy control (n = 30) (Group I), chronic low back pain due to LSS (n = 30) (Group II) and undergoing surgery due to LSS (n = 30) (Group III). Lumbar repositioning error (RE) was defined as reproducing a target position (neutral lumbo-pelvic posture) after tasks. Tasks were: 30° forward bending and 15° backward bending in sitting and standing.</p></div><div><h3>Primary outcome measures</h3><p>RE, pain intensity and TLF flexibility were assesed with iphone tilt-meter app, VAS and goniometric platform, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>Sixty patients with LSS and 30 healthy controls.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>RE scores of Group II and Group III were significantly higher than Group I (p &lt; 0.001). Group III had lower VAS scores (p &lt; 0.001) than Group II, except during standing with backward bending task. TLF flexibility was not differed between Group II and Group III (p˃0.05). There was no significant association between VAS and RE scores in Group II and Group III (p˃0.05).</p></div><div><h3>Conclussion</h3><p>Individuals with LSS and healthy controls have different lumbar proprioception sense. TLF flexibility did not differ, due to different injury, in patients with LSS compared to healthy controls.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51068,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746068923000068","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

There is limited evidence about spinal proprioception deficiency due to different injuries.

Objective

To compare spinal proprioception in patients with Lumbal Spinal Stenosis (LSS) and healthy controls. Secondary objective is to investigate the effect of pain intensity and Thoracolumbar fascia (TLF) flexibility on spinal proprioception deficiency.

Design

Cross-sectional and healthy controlled study.

Setting

This study was conducted in a state hospital.

Methods

Ninety participants (mean age: 46.98 ± 12.94 years) were grouped as: Healthy control (n = 30) (Group I), chronic low back pain due to LSS (n = 30) (Group II) and undergoing surgery due to LSS (n = 30) (Group III). Lumbar repositioning error (RE) was defined as reproducing a target position (neutral lumbo-pelvic posture) after tasks. Tasks were: 30° forward bending and 15° backward bending in sitting and standing.

Primary outcome measures

RE, pain intensity and TLF flexibility were assesed with iphone tilt-meter app, VAS and goniometric platform, respectively.

Participants

Sixty patients with LSS and 30 healthy controls.

Results

RE scores of Group II and Group III were significantly higher than Group I (p < 0.001). Group III had lower VAS scores (p < 0.001) than Group II, except during standing with backward bending task. TLF flexibility was not differed between Group II and Group III (p˃0.05). There was no significant association between VAS and RE scores in Group II and Group III (p˃0.05).

Conclussion

Individuals with LSS and healthy controls have different lumbar proprioception sense. TLF flexibility did not differ, due to different injury, in patients with LSS compared to healthy controls.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同损伤引起的腰椎本体感觉损伤与健康对照的比较:一项观察性研究
背景关于不同损伤引起的脊髓本体感觉缺陷的证据有限。目的比较腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)患者和健康对照者的脊髓本体感觉。次要目的是研究疼痛强度和胸腰椎筋膜(TLF)灵活性对脊髓本体感觉缺陷的影响。设计横断面健康对照研究。背景本研究在一家州立医院进行。方法90名参与者(平均年龄:46.98±12.94岁)分为:健康对照组(n=30)(第一组)、LSS引起的慢性腰痛(n=30,第二组)和接受LSS手术的患者(n=30(第三组)。腰椎复位误差(RE)被定义为在任务后再现目标位置(中性腰-骨盆姿势)。任务是:坐着和站着分别向前弯曲30°和向后弯曲15°。主要结果测量RE、疼痛强度和TLF灵活性分别使用iphone倾斜仪应用程序、VAS和角度测量平台进行评估。参与者60名LSS患者和30名健康对照。结果第二组和第三组的RE评分均显著高于第一组(p<0.001),第三组VAS评分均低于第二组(p>0.001),但站立后弯除外。TLF柔韧性在II组和III组之间没有差异(p<0.05)。VAS和RE评分在II组与III组之间无显著相关性(p>0.05)。结论LSS患者和健康对照者的腰椎本体感觉不同。与健康对照组相比,由于不同的损伤,LSS患者的TLF灵活性没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
36.80%
发文量
42
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine is a peer-reviewed journal that provides for the publication of high quality research articles and review papers that are as broad as the many disciplines that influence and underpin the principles and practice of osteopathic medicine. Particular emphasis is given to basic science research, clinical epidemiology and health social science in relation to osteopathy and neuromusculoskeletal medicine. The Editorial Board encourages submission of articles based on both quantitative and qualitative research designs. The Editorial Board also aims to provide a forum for discourse and debate on any aspect of osteopathy and neuromusculoskeletal medicine with the aim of critically evaluating existing practices in regard to the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with neuromusculoskeletal disorders and somatic dysfunction. All manuscripts submitted to the IJOM are subject to a blinded review process. The categories currently available for publication include reports of original research, review papers, commentaries and articles related to clinical practice, including case reports. Further details can be found in the IJOM Instructions for Authors. Manuscripts are accepted for publication with the understanding that no substantial part has been, or will be published elsewhere.
期刊最新文献
Is visceral osteopathy therapy effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis Professional skill priorities: Comparison views of osteopathy industry professionals and osteopathy students Perceived benefits and limitations of game-based simulation education by osteopathy students in early clinical training: A preliminary mixed methods study Primary and secondary prevention of musculoskeletal pain and disability in chiropractic, osteopathy, and physiotherapy: A scoping review Chronic pain, complexity and a suggested role for the osteopathic profession
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1