| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Michaelson, Peter, et al.
(författare)
-
Vertical posture and head stability in patients with chronic neck pain.
- 2003
-
Ingår i: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 1650-1977 .- 1651-2081. ; 35:5, s. 229-235
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To evaluate postural performance and head stabilization of patients with chronic neck pain. DESIGN: A single-blind comparative group study. SUBJECTS: Patients with work-related chronic neck pain (n = 9), with chronic whiplash associated disorders (n = 9) and healthy subjects (n = 16). METHODS: During quiet standing in different conditions (e.g. 1 and 2 feet standing, tandem standing, and open and closed eyes) the sway areas and the ability to maintain the postures were measured. The maximal peak-to-peak displacement of the centre of pressure and the head translation were analysed during predictable and unpredictable postural perturbations. RESULTS: Patients with chronic neck pain, in particular those with whiplash-associated disorders, showed larger sway areas and reduced ability to successfully execute more challenging balance tasks. They also displayed larger sway areas and reduced head stability during perturbations. CONCLUSION: The results show that disturbances of postural control in chronic neck pain are dependent on the aetiology, and that it is possible to quantify characteristic postural disturbances in different neck pain conditions. It is suggested that the dissimilarities in postural performance are a reflection of different degrees of disturbances of the proprioceptive input to the central nervous system and/or of the central processing of such input.
|
|
| 4. |
- Aasa, Björn, et al.
(författare)
-
A characterisation of pain, disability, kinesiophobia and physical capacity in patients with predominantly peripherally mediated mechanical low back pain
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Physiotherapy. - 0031-9406 .- 1873-1465. ; 97:Suppl. 1, s. eS18-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: The specific objectives were to: 1) describe the level of pain intensity, disability, activity limitation, kinesiophobia and physical capacity in patients with predominantly peripherally mediated mechanical back pain, and 2) investigate whether differences between these patients in physical and psychosocial factors can be distinguished when the patients are further sub-grouped.Relevance: To improve assessment among patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) it is important to investigate the prevalence of physical and psychosocial features in homogenous sub-groups.Participants: Seventy-one patients with CLBP, 20-60 years old, with peripherally mediated mechanical pain at the the moment for the study, were included and each patient was sub-classified into one of five sub-groups based on their pain behaviour and functional movement pattern (flexion n=20, flexion/lateral shift, n=11, active extension n=23 , passive extension n=8, and multidirectional pattern n=9).Methods: Data on pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale), disability (the Roland and Morris Questionnaire), activity limitation (the Patient Specific Functional Scale), kinesiophobia (the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia) and physical capacity (lifting capacity and trunk extensor endurance) was collected.Analysis: Mean and standard deviation for parametric and median and interquartile range for non-parametric data were used for descriptive statistics. One-way ANOVA for normally distributed data and Kruskal-Wallis for non-normally distributed data were used for analyses of differences between the sub-groups. The subjects were also divided into two age-groups (20-40 and 41-60 years) and measures of physical capacity were compared to women and men at the ages of 34 and 50, respectively, in the general Swedish population using one sample T-test.Results: The patients reported low to moderate pain intensity (3.1/10±2.4), disability (RMDQ (7.27/24 ±4.2) and kinesiophobia (33.4/68 ±7) and these levels were lower than reported levels in other studies including more heterogenous groups of patients with CLBP. The patiens reported activity limitations (PSFS 13/30±23). Lifting capacity and trunk extensor endurance were significantly lower than in the general population in the youngest age-group. No significant differences in pain intensity, disability, kinesiophobia or physical capacity were found between the sub-groups.Conclusions: This research highlights that patients with predominantly peripherally mediated mechanical back pain may differ from other sub-groups of patients with CLBP (e.g., patients with central sensitization as dominating pain mechanism) regarding physical and psychosocial factors. The individual variation in pain intensity, disability, kinesiophbia and physical capacity among the patients indicates the importance to assess these factors in every patient. Due to the fact that there were few patients in the sub-groups, further research is necessary to explore whether there are differences, that we were not able to disingjish, between patients with different movement patterns.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Aasa, Björn, et al.
(författare)
-
Individualized low-load motor control exercises and education versus a high-load lifting exercise and education to improve activity, pain intensity, and physical performance in patients with low back pain : a randomized controlled trial
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. - : Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT). - 0190-6011 .- 1938-1344. ; 45:2, s. 77-85
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Study Design Randomized controlled trial. Background Low back pain is a common disorder. Patients with low back pain frequently have aberrant and pain-provocative movement patterns that often are addressed with motor control exercises. Objective To compare the effects of low-load motor control (LMC) exercise and those of a high-load lifting (HLL) exercise. Methods Seventy participants with recurrent low back pain, who were diagnosed with nociceptive mechanical pain as their dominating pain pattern, were randomized to either LMC or HLL exercise treatments. Participants were offered 12 treatment sessions over an 8-week period. All participants were also provided with education regarding pain mechanisms. Methods Participants were assessed prior to and following treatment. The primary outcome measures were activity (the Patient-Specific Functional Scale) and average pain intensity over the last 7 days (visual analog scale). The secondary outcome measure was a physical performance test battery that included 1 strength, 3 endurance, and 7 movement control tests for the lumbopelvic region. Results Both interventions resulted in significant within-group improvements in pain intensity, strength, and endurance. The LMC group showed significantly greater improvement on the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (4.2 points) compared with the HLL group (2.5 points) (P<.001). There were no significant between-group differences in pain intensity (P = .505), strength, and 1 of the 3 endurance tests. However, the LMC group showed an increase (from 2.9 to 5.9) on the movement control test subscale, whereas the HLL group showed no change (from 3.9 to 3.1) (P<.001). Conclusion An LMC intervention may result in superior outcomes in activity, movement control, and muscle endurance compared to an HLL intervention, but not in pain intensity, strength, or endurance.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Berglund, Lars, 1986-
(författare)
-
Deadlift training for patients with mechanical low back pain : a comparison of the effects of a high-load lifting exercise and individualized low-load motor control exercises
- 2016
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Disability due to low back pain is common. While evidence exist that exercise is effective in reducing pain and disability, it is still largely undetermined which kind of exercises that are most effective. The overall aim of this thesis was to evaluate and compare the effects of a high-load lifting exercise and individualized low-load motor control exercises for patients with nociceptive mechanical low back pain. A secondary aim was to evaluate which patients benefit from training with a high-load lifting exercise.All four papers in this thesis were based on a randomized controlled trial including 70 participants with nociceptive mechanical low back pain as their dominating pain pattern. Participants were randomized into training with either a high-load lifting exercise (HLL), the deadlift, (n=35) or individualized low-load motor control exercises (LMC) (n=35). Both interventions included aspects of pain education. All participants were offered twelve sessions during an eight week period. The effects of the interventions were evaluated directly after and twelve months after the end of the intervention period. Outcome measures were pain intensity, activity, disability, physical performance, lumbo-pelvic alignment and lumbar multifidus muscle thickness.There was a significant between-group effect in favour of the LMC intervention regarding improvements in activity, movement control tests and some tests of trunk muscle endurance. For pain intensity there were no significant differences between groups. A majority of participants in both intervention groups showed clinically meaningful improvements from baseline to two and twelve month follow-up regarding pain intensity and activity. There were no significant differences between HLL and LMC regarding the effect on lumbo-pelvic alignment or lumbar multifidus thickness. The participants who benefit the most from the HLL intervention were those with a low pain intensity and high performance in the Biering-Sørensen test at baseline.The results of this thesis showed that the HLL intervention was not more effective than the LMC intervention. The LMC was in fact more effective in improving activity, performance in movement control tests and some tests of trunk muscle endurance, compared to the HLL intervention.The results imply that the deadlift, when combined with education, could be considered as an exercise to produce clinically relevant improvements on pain intensity in patients who prefer a high-load exercise. However, before considering deadlift training, the results suggest that pain intensity and performance in the Biering-Sørensen test should be evaluated.
|
|
| 10. |
- Berglund, Lars, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of low-load motor control exercises and a high-load lifting exercise on lumbar multifidus thickness : a randomized controlled trial
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Spine. - : Wolters Kluwer. - 0362-2436 .- 1528-1159. ; 42:15, s. E876-E882
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- STUDY DESIGN:Randomized controlled trial.OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to compare the effects of low-load motor control (LMC) exercises and a high-load lifting (HLL) exercise, on lumbar multifidus (LM) thickness on either side of the spine and whether the effects were affected by pain intensity or change in pain intensity.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:There is evidence that patients with low back pain (LBP) may have a decreased size of the LM muscles with an asymmetry between sides in the lower back. It has also been shown that LMC training can affect this asymmetry. It is, however, not known whether a high-load exercise has the same effect.METHODS:Sixty-five participants diagnosed with nociceptive mechanical LBP were included and randomized into LMC exercises or a HLL exercise, the deadlift. The LM thickness was measured using rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI), at baseline and after a 2-month training period.RESULTS:There were no differences between interventions regarding effect on LM muscle thickness. However, the analysis showed a significant effect for asymmetry. The thickness of the LM muscle on the small side increased significantly compared with the large side in both intervention groups, without influence of pain at baseline, or change in pain intensity.CONCLUSION:At baseline, there was a difference in thickness of the LM muscles between sides. It seems that exercises focusing on spinal alignment may increase the thickness of the LM muscles on the small side, irrespective of exercise load. The increase in LM thickness does not appear to be mediated by either current pain intensity or the magnitude of change in pain intensity.
|
|
