慢性腰痛患者和非慢性腰痛患者在提举过程中的疼痛灾难化和躯干共同收缩:一项横断面研究。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY European Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2024-08-24 DOI:10.1002/ejp.4717
Patrick Ippersiel, Richard Preuss, Byungjin Kim, Cristina Giannini, Shawn M Robbins
{"title":"慢性腰痛患者和非慢性腰痛患者在提举过程中的疼痛灾难化和躯干共同收缩:一项横断面研究。","authors":"Patrick Ippersiel, Richard Preuss, Byungjin Kim, Cristina Giannini, Shawn M Robbins","doi":"10.1002/ejp.4717","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Trunk co-contraction during lifting may reflect a guarded motor response to a threatening task. This work estimated the impact of pain catastrophizing on trunk co-contraction during lifting, in people with and without low back pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults with high pain catastrophizing (back pain: n = 29, healthy: n = 7) and low pain catastrophizing (back pain: n = 20, healthy: n = 11), performed 10 repetitions of a lifting task. Electromyography data of rectus abdominis, erector spinae and external oblique muscles were collected, bilaterally. Co-contraction indices were determined for rectus abdominis/erector spinae and external oblique/erector spinae pairings, bilaterally. Pain catastrophizing was measured using the pain catastrophizing scale and task-specific fear using the Photograph series of daily activities scale. Three-way mixed ANOVAs tested the effects of group (back pain vs. healthy), pain catastrophizing (high vs. low), lifting phase (lifting vs. replacing) and their interactions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no main effects of pain catastrophizing, lifting phase, nor any interactions (p > 0.05). Group effects revealed greater co-contraction for bilateral erector spinae/rectus abdominis pairings (but not erector spinae-external oblique pairings) in people with back pain, compared to healthy participants, independent of pain catastrophizing and lifting phase (p < 0.05). Spearman correlations associated greater task-specific fear and greater erector spinae-left external oblique co-contraction, only in people with back pain (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Greater co-contraction in the back pain group occurred independent of pain catastrophizing, as measured with a general questionnaire. A task-specific measure of threat may be more sensitive to detecting relationships between threat and co-contraction.</p><p><strong>Significance statement: </strong>This work contributes evidence that people with back pain commonly exhibit trunk co-contraction when lifting. The lack of a relationship between pain catastrophizing and trunk co-contraction, however, challenges evidence linking psychological factors and guarded motor behaviour in this group. Together, this suggests that other factors may be stronger determinants of co-contraction in people with LBP or that a general construct like pain catastrophizing may not accurately represent this relationship.</p>","PeriodicalId":12021,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pain catastrophizing and trunk co-contraction during lifting in people with and without chronic low back pain: A cross sectional study.\",\"authors\":\"Patrick Ippersiel, Richard Preuss, Byungjin Kim, Cristina Giannini, Shawn M Robbins\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ejp.4717\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Trunk co-contraction during lifting may reflect a guarded motor response to a threatening task. This work estimated the impact of pain catastrophizing on trunk co-contraction during lifting, in people with and without low back pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults with high pain catastrophizing (back pain: n = 29, healthy: n = 7) and low pain catastrophizing (back pain: n = 20, healthy: n = 11), performed 10 repetitions of a lifting task. Electromyography data of rectus abdominis, erector spinae and external oblique muscles were collected, bilaterally. Co-contraction indices were determined for rectus abdominis/erector spinae and external oblique/erector spinae pairings, bilaterally. Pain catastrophizing was measured using the pain catastrophizing scale and task-specific fear using the Photograph series of daily activities scale. Three-way mixed ANOVAs tested the effects of group (back pain vs. healthy), pain catastrophizing (high vs. low), lifting phase (lifting vs. replacing) and their interactions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no main effects of pain catastrophizing, lifting phase, nor any interactions (p > 0.05). Group effects revealed greater co-contraction for bilateral erector spinae/rectus abdominis pairings (but not erector spinae-external oblique pairings) in people with back pain, compared to healthy participants, independent of pain catastrophizing and lifting phase (p < 0.05). Spearman correlations associated greater task-specific fear and greater erector spinae-left external oblique co-contraction, only in people with back pain (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Greater co-contraction in the back pain group occurred independent of pain catastrophizing, as measured with a general questionnaire. A task-specific measure of threat may be more sensitive to detecting relationships between threat and co-contraction.</p><p><strong>Significance statement: </strong>This work contributes evidence that people with back pain commonly exhibit trunk co-contraction when lifting. The lack of a relationship between pain catastrophizing and trunk co-contraction, however, challenges evidence linking psychological factors and guarded motor behaviour in this group. Together, this suggests that other factors may be stronger determinants of co-contraction in people with LBP or that a general construct like pain catastrophizing may not accurately represent this relationship.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.4717\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.4717","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:提举过程中的躯干共同收缩可能反映了对威胁性任务的警惕性运动反应。这项研究估计了疼痛灾难化对腰背痛患者和非腰背痛患者在提举过程中躯干共同收缩的影响:方法:疼痛灾难化程度高(腰痛:29 人,健康:7 人)和疼痛灾难化程度低(腰痛:20 人,健康:11 人)的成年人重复 10 次举重任务。收集了双侧腹直肌、竖脊肌和腹外斜肌的肌电图数据。测定了双侧腹直肌、竖脊肌和外斜肌/竖脊肌的协同收缩指数。疼痛灾难化量表测量疼痛灾难化程度,摄影系列日常活动量表测量任务特定恐惧程度。三方混合方差分析测试了组别(背痛与健康)、疼痛灾难化程度(高与低)、抬起阶段(抬起与替换)及其交互作用的影响:结果:疼痛灾难化、移位阶段和交互作用均无主效应(P > 0.05)。组间效应显示,与健康参与者相比,背痛患者的双侧竖脊肌/腹直肌配对(但不包括竖脊肌-腹外斜肌配对)的共收缩更大,这与疼痛灾难化和抬举阶段无关(P 结论:背痛患者的共收缩更大,这与疼痛灾难化和抬举阶段无关:背痛组患者的共收缩能力更强,这与疼痛灾难化程度无关,疼痛灾难化程度通过普通问卷进行测量。针对特定任务的威胁测量可能对检测威胁与共同收缩之间的关系更为敏感:这项研究提供的证据表明,背痛患者在提举时通常会表现出躯干共同收缩。然而,疼痛灾难化与躯干共同收缩之间缺乏关系,这对该群体中将心理因素与戒备性运动行为联系起来的证据提出了质疑。总之,这表明其他因素可能是腰背痛患者躯干共同收缩的更有力的决定因素,或者像疼痛灾难化这样的一般概念可能并不能准确地代表这种关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Pain catastrophizing and trunk co-contraction during lifting in people with and without chronic low back pain: A cross sectional study.

Background: Trunk co-contraction during lifting may reflect a guarded motor response to a threatening task. This work estimated the impact of pain catastrophizing on trunk co-contraction during lifting, in people with and without low back pain.

Methods: Adults with high pain catastrophizing (back pain: n = 29, healthy: n = 7) and low pain catastrophizing (back pain: n = 20, healthy: n = 11), performed 10 repetitions of a lifting task. Electromyography data of rectus abdominis, erector spinae and external oblique muscles were collected, bilaterally. Co-contraction indices were determined for rectus abdominis/erector spinae and external oblique/erector spinae pairings, bilaterally. Pain catastrophizing was measured using the pain catastrophizing scale and task-specific fear using the Photograph series of daily activities scale. Three-way mixed ANOVAs tested the effects of group (back pain vs. healthy), pain catastrophizing (high vs. low), lifting phase (lifting vs. replacing) and their interactions.

Results: There were no main effects of pain catastrophizing, lifting phase, nor any interactions (p > 0.05). Group effects revealed greater co-contraction for bilateral erector spinae/rectus abdominis pairings (but not erector spinae-external oblique pairings) in people with back pain, compared to healthy participants, independent of pain catastrophizing and lifting phase (p < 0.05). Spearman correlations associated greater task-specific fear and greater erector spinae-left external oblique co-contraction, only in people with back pain (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Greater co-contraction in the back pain group occurred independent of pain catastrophizing, as measured with a general questionnaire. A task-specific measure of threat may be more sensitive to detecting relationships between threat and co-contraction.

Significance statement: This work contributes evidence that people with back pain commonly exhibit trunk co-contraction when lifting. The lack of a relationship between pain catastrophizing and trunk co-contraction, however, challenges evidence linking psychological factors and guarded motor behaviour in this group. Together, this suggests that other factors may be stronger determinants of co-contraction in people with LBP or that a general construct like pain catastrophizing may not accurately represent this relationship.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Pain
European Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: European Journal of Pain (EJP) publishes clinical and basic science research papers relevant to all aspects of pain and its management, including specialties such as anaesthesia, dentistry, neurology and neurosurgery, orthopaedics, palliative care, pharmacology, physiology, psychiatry, psychology and rehabilitation; socio-economic aspects of pain are also covered. Regular sections in the journal are as follows: • Editorials and Commentaries • Position Papers and Guidelines • Reviews • Original Articles • Letters • Bookshelf The journal particularly welcomes clinical trials, which are published on an occasional basis. Research articles are published under the following subject headings: • Neurobiology • Neurology • Experimental Pharmacology • Clinical Pharmacology • Psychology • Behavioural Therapy • Epidemiology • Cancer Pain • Acute Pain • Clinical Trials.
期刊最新文献
Cycling sensitivity across migraine phases: A longitudinal case-control study. Preoperative resting-state electrophysiological signals predict acute but not chronic postoperative pain. Expectation of analgesia increases the inhibitory response of conditioned pain modulation in healthy participants who at baseline have a non-inhibitory profile. Correction to 'Systematic review and co-ordinate based meta-analysis to summarize the utilization of functional brain imaging in conjunction with human models of peripheral and central sensitization'. Exploring signs of central sensitization in adolescents with hypermobility Spectrum disorder or hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.
×
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