Quantification of lumbar stability by using 2 different abdominal activation strategies

被引:154
作者
Grenier, Sylvain G. [1 ]
McGill, Stuart M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Waterloo, Fac Appl Hlth Sci, Dept Kinesiol, Spine Biomech Lab, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
来源
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION | 2007年 / 88卷 / 01期
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
abdominal muscles; back injuries; low back pain; motor skills; rehabilitation; spine;
D O I
10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.014
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
Objective: To determine whether the abdominal hollowing technique is more effective for lumbar spine stabilization than a full abdominal muscle cocontraction. Design: Within-subject, repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to examine the effect of combining each of 4 loading conditions with either the hollow or brace condition on the dependent variables of stability and compression. A simulation was also conducted to assess the outcome of a person activating just the transversus abdominis during the hollow. Setting: Laboratory. Participants: Eight healthy men (age range, 20-33y). Interventions: Electromyography and spine kinematics were recorded during an abdominal brace and a hollow while supporting either a bilateral or asymmetric weight in the hands. Main Outcome Measures: Spine stability index and lumbar compression were calculated. Results: In the simulation "ideal case," the brace technique improved stability by 32%, with a 15% increase in lumbar compression. The transversus abdominis contributed .14% of stability to the brace pattern with a less than 0.1% decrease in compression. Conclusions: Whatever the benefit underlying low-load transversus abdominis activation training, it is unlikely to be mechanical. There seems to be no mechanical rationale for using an abdominal hollow, or the transversus abdominis, to enhance stability. Bracing creates patterns that better enhance stability.
引用
收藏
页码:54 / 62
页数:9
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]   The influence of fatigue on trunk muscle responses to sudden arm movements, a pilot study [J].
Allison, GT ;
Henry, SM .
CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS, 2002, 17 (05) :414-417
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2006, R LANG ENV STAT COMP
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2002, LOW BACK DISORDERS E
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2004, ULTIMATE BACK FITNES
[5]  
Basmajian J. V., 1985, MUSCLES ALIVE THEIR
[6]   PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS AS RISK INDICATORS FOR LOW-BACK TROUBLE OVER A ONE-YEAR PERIOD [J].
BIERINGSORENSEN, F .
SPINE, 1984, 9 (02) :106-119
[7]   Mechanical stability of the in vivo lumbar spine: Implications for injury and chronic low back pain [J].
Cholewicki, J ;
McGill, SM .
CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS, 1996, 11 (01) :1-15
[8]   Relative contribution of trunk muscles to the stability of the lumbar spine during isometric exertions [J].
Cholewicki, J ;
VanVliet, JJ .
CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS, 2002, 17 (02) :99-105
[9]   CHANGES IN INTRAABDOMINAL PRESSURE, TRUNK MUSCLE ACTIVATION AND FORCE DURING ISOKINETIC LIFTING AND LOWERING [J].
CRESSWELL, AG ;
THORSTENSSON, A .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY AND OCCUPATIONAL PHYSIOLOGY, 1994, 68 (04) :315-321
[10]   RESPONSES OF INTRAABDOMINAL PRESSURE AND ABDOMINAL MUSCLE-ACTIVITY DURING DYNAMIC TRUNK LOADING IN MAN [J].
CRESSWELL, AG .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY AND OCCUPATIONAL PHYSIOLOGY, 1993, 66 (04) :315-320