Intervertebral disc status is associated with vertebral marrow adipose tissue and muscular endurance

Is adiposity associated with back and lower limb pain? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Back and lower limb pain have a major impact on physical function and quality of life. While obesity is a modifiable risk factor for musculoskeletal pain, the role of adiposity is less clear. This systematic review aimed to examine the relationship between both adiposity and its distribution and back and lower limb pain.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify studies that examined the association between anthropometric and/or direct measures of adiposity and site specific musculoskeletal pain. Risk of bias was assessed and a best evidence synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 56 studies were identified which examined 4 pain regions, including the lower back (36 studies), hip (two studies), knee (13 studies) and foot (eight studies). 31(55%) studies were assessed as having low to moderate risk of bias. 17(30%) studies were cohort in design. The best evidence synthesis provided evidence of a relationship between central adiposity and low back and knee pain, but not hip or foot pain. There was also evidence of a longitudinal relationship between adiposity and the presence of back, knee and foot pain, as well as incident and increasing foot pain.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides evidence of an association between both body fat and its central distribution and low back and knee pain, and a longitudinal relationship between adiposity and back, knee and foot pain. These results highlight the potential for targeting adiposity in the development of novel treatments at these sites.

Muscular blood oxygen level-dependent MRI is beneficial to evaluate effectiveness of an exercise prescription

Background

To determine the feasibility and validity of using blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate the effects of back extension exercise on core lumbar paraspinal muscle strength.

Methods

In this prospective study, R2* and T2 mapping of paraspinal muscles of 100 healthy volunteers were performed before and after back extension exercises in different recovery sessions (session I, II, III or IV). Volunteers use the Roman chair to complete the back extension exercises. The cross-sectional area (CSA), R2* and T2 values were measured and analyzed in 3 muscles (iliocostalis, longissimus, and multifidus muscles) of the lower back before and after exercise.

Results

The CSA and T2 values of iliocostalis, longissimus, and multifidus muscles at L3 and L4 levels were higher in recovery sessions I and II than in the resting-state (P<0.05); however, compared to that in the resting-state, the R2* value was significantly reduced in session I but increased in sessions II–IV (P<0.05). Furthermore, the CSA and T2 values in recovery session I were higher than those in the resting-state, whereas the R2* value was lower (P<0.05). After exercise, the recovery tendency of R2* and T2 value was consistent in both males and females, but a significant sex difference in R2* value was observed between recovery sessions III and IV (P<0.05).

Conclusions

R2* mapping and T2 mapping are effective and feasible for assessment of the effects of back extension exercises on lumbar paraspinal muscle strength.

Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review

Background

Lumbar multifidus (LM) is regarded as the major stabilizing muscle of the spine. The effects of exercise therapy in low back pain (LBP) are attributed to this muscle. A current literature review is warranted, however, given the complexity of LM morphology and the inconsistency of anatomical descriptions in the literature.

Methods

Scoping review of studies on LM morphology including major anatomy atlases. All relevant studies were searched in PubMed (Medline) and EMBASE until June 2019. Anatomy atlases were retrieved from multiple university libraries and online. All studies and atlases were screened for the following LM parameters: location, imaging methods, spine levels, muscle trajectory, muscle thickness, cross-sectional area, and diameter. The quality of the studies and atlases was also assessed using a five-item evaluation system.

Results

In all, 303 studies and 19 anatomy atlases were included in this review. In most studies, LM morphology was determined by MRI, ultrasound imaging, or drawings – particularly for levels L4–S1. In 153 studies, LM is described as a superficial muscle only, in 72 studies as a deep muscle only, and in 35 studies as both superficial and deep. Anatomy atlases predominantly depict LM as a deep muscle covered by the erector spinae and thoracolumbar fascia. About 42% of the studies had high quality scores, with 39% having moderate scores and 19% having low scores. The quality of figures in anatomy atlases was ranked as high in one atlas, moderate in 15 atlases, and low in 3 atlases.

Discussion

Anatomical studies of LM exhibit inconsistent findings, describing its location as superficial (50%), deep (25%), or both (12%). This is in sharp contrast to anatomy atlases, which depict LM predominantly as deep muscle. Within the limitations of the self-developed quality-assessment tool, high-quality scores were identified in a majority of studies (42%), but in only one anatomy atlas.

Conclusions

We identified a lack of standardization in the depiction and description of LM morphology. This could affect the precise understanding of its role in background and therapy in LBP patients. Standardization of research methodology on LM morphology is recommended. Anatomy atlases should be updated on LM morphology.