Precision control of an upright trunk posture in low back pain patients

Trunk postural control during unstable sitting among individuals with and without low back pain: A systematic review with an individual participant data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Sitting on an unstable surface is a common paradigm to investigate trunk postural control among individuals with low back pain (LBP), by minimizing the influence lower extremities on balance control. Outcomes of many small studies are inconsistent (e.g., some find differences between groups while others do not), potentially due to confounding factors such as age, sex, body mass index [BMI], or clinical presentations. We conducted a systematic review with an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to investigate whether trunk postural control differs between those with and without LBP, and whether the difference between groups is impacted by vision and potential confounding factors.

METHODS

We completed this review according to PRISMA-IPD guidelines. The literature was screened (up to 7th September 2023) from five electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. Outcome measures were extracted that describe unstable seat movements, specifically centre of pressure or seat angle. Our main analyses included: 1) a two-stage IPD meta-analysis to assess the difference between groups and their interaction with age, sex, BMI, and vision on trunk postural control; 2) and a two-stage IPD meta-regression to determine the effects of LBP clinical features (pain intensity, disability, pain catastrophizing, and fear-avoidance beliefs) on trunk postural control.

RESULTS

Forty studies (1,821 participants) were included for the descriptive analysis and 24 studies (1,050 participants) were included for the IPD analysis. IPD meta-analyses revealed three main findings: (a) trunk postural control was worse (higher root mean square displacement [RMSdispl], range, and long-term diffusion; lower mean power frequency) among individuals with than without LBP; (b) trunk postural control deteriorated more (higher RMSdispl, short- and long-term diffusion) among individuals with than without LBP when vision was removed; and (c) older age and higher BMI had greater adverse impacts on trunk postural control (higher short-term diffusion; longer time and distance coordinates of the critical point) among individuals with than without LBP. IPD meta-regressions indicated no associations between the limited LBP clinical features that could be considered and trunk postural control.

CONCLUSION

Trunk postural control appears to be inferior among individuals with LBP, which was indicated by increased seat movements and some evidence of trunk stiffening. These findings are likely explained by delayed or less accurate corrective responses.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021124658).

Increased velocity feedback gains in the presence of sensory noise can explain paradoxical changes in trunk motor control related to back pain

Literature reports paradoxical findings regarding effects of low-back pain (LBP) on trunk motor control. Compared to healthy individuals, patients with LBP, especially those with high pain-related anxiety, showed stronger trunk extensor reflexes and more resistance against perturbations. On the other hand, LBP patients and especially those with high pain-related anxiety showed decreased precision in unperturbed trunk movement and posture. These paradoxical effects might be explained by arousal potentially increasing average and variance of muscle spindle firing rates. Increased average firing rates could increase resistance against perturbations, but increased variance could decrease precision. We performed a simulation study to test this hypothesis. We modeled the trunk as a 2D inverted pendulum, stabilized by two antagonistic Hill-type muscles, based on their open-loop muscle activation dependent intrinsic stiffness and damping and through 25 ms-delayed, noisy contractile element length and velocity feedback. Reference feedback gains and sensory noise levels were tuned based on previously reported experimental data. We assessed the effect of increasing feedback gains on precision of trunk orientation at different perturbation magnitudes and assessed sensitivity of the effects to open-loop muscle stimulation and noise levels. At low perturbation magnitudes, increasing reflex gains consistently caused an increase in the variance of trunk orientation. At larger perturbation magnitudes, increasing reflex gains consistently caused a decrease in the variance of trunk orientation. Our results support the notion that LBP and related anxiety may increase reflex gains, resulting in an increase in the average and variance of spindle afference, which in turn increase resistance against perturbations and decrease movement precision.

Reorganized Force Control in Elbow Pain Patients During Isometric Wrist Extension

INTRODUCTION

Reorganized force control may be an important adaptation following painful traumas. In this study, force control adaptations were assessed in elbow pain patients. Increasing the contraction demand may overcome pain interference on the motor control and as such act as an internal control. It was hypothesized that elbow pain patients compared with controls would present greater change in the direction of force when increasing the demand of the motor task.

METHODS

Elbow pain patients (n=19) and asymptomatic participants (n=21) performed isometric wrist extensions at 5% to 70% of maximum voluntary contraction. Pressure pain thresholds were recorded at the lateral epicondyle and tibialis anterior muscle. Contraction force was recorded using a 3-directional force transducer. Participants performed contractions according to visual feedback of the task-related force intensity (main direction of wrist extension) and another set of contractions with feedback of the 3 force directions. Going from the simple to the detailed force feedback will increase the demand of the motor task. Force steadiness in all 3 dimensions and force directions were extracted.

RESULTS

Compared with controls, elbow pain patients presented lower pressure pain thresholds at both sites (P<0.05). Force steadiness was not significantly different between groups or feedback methods. The change in force direction when providing simple visual feedback in contrast with feedback of all force components at all contraction levels was greater for patients compared with controls (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The larger change in force direction in pain patients implies redistribution of loads across the arm as an associated effect of pain.

Motor Control Changes in Low Back Pain: Divergence in Presentations and Mechanisms

Compared to healthy individuals, patients with low back pain demonstrate differences in all aspects of trunk motor control that are most often studied as differences in muscle activity and kinematics. However, differences in these aspects of motor control are largely inconsistent. We propose that this may reflect the existence of 2 phenotypes or possibly the ends of a spectrum, with "tight control" over trunk movement at one end and "loose control" at the other. Both may have beneficial effects, with tight control protecting against large tissue strains from uncontrolled movement and loose control protecting against high muscle forces and resulting spinal compression. Both may also have long-term negative consequences. For example, whereas tight control may cause high compressive loading on the spine and sustained muscle activity, loose control may cause excessive tensile strains of tissues. Moreover, both phenotypes could be the result of either an adaptation process aimed at protecting the low back or direct interference of low back pain and related changes with trunk motor control. The existence of such phenotypes would suggest different motor control exercise interventions. Although some promising data supporting these phenotypes have been reported, it remains to be shown whether these phenotypes are valid, how treatment can be targeted to these phenotypes, and whether this targeting yields superior clinical outcomes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):370-379. Epub 12 Jun 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.7917.

Altered postural timing and abnormally low use of proprioception in lumbar spinal stenosis pre- and post- surgical decompression

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is frequently associated with postural instability. Although several studies evaluated patients’ functional impairments, underlying sensorimotor mechanisms are still poorly understood. We aimed to assess the specific set of postural control deficits associated with LSS during spontaneous and externally perturbed stance and evaluated post-surgical changes in postural behavior.

Methods

We analyzed postural control in eleven LSS patients (age 69 ± 8 years) pre- and post-laminectomy, correlated experimental data with functional tests and patient-reported outcomes, and compared findings to 15 matched, healthy control subjects (age 70 ± 6 years). Postural control was characterized by spontaneous sway measures and measures of perturbed stance. Perturbations were induced by anterior-posterior pseudorandom tilts of the body support surface. We used an established postural control model to extract specific postural control parameters.

Results

Spontaneous sway amplitude, velocity and frequency were abnormally large in LSS patients. Furthermore, patients’ postural reactions to platform tilts, represented by GAIN and PHASE were significantly altered. Based on simple feedback model simulations, we found that patients rely less on proprioceptive cues for stance regulation than healthy subjects. Moreover, their postural reactions’ timing is altered. After surgery, patients’ spontaneous sway amplitude was significantly reduced and their postural timing approximated the behavior of healthy subjects.

Conclusion

The reduction in proprioceptive input for stance control due to stenosis-caused afferent dysfunction is a functional disadvantage for LSS patients – and may be the basis of increased spontaneous sway. This disadvantage may cause the timing of postural reactions to alter, with the intent of preventing rapid changes in stance regulation for safety reasons. After surgery, patients’ postural timing approximated those of healthy subjects, while the abnormally low use of proprioception remained unchanged. We suggest the post-surgery rehabilitation of proprioception, eg through balance exercises on unstable surfaces and reduced visual input.

Sensory contributions to stabilization of trunk posture in the sagittal plane

Trunk stabilization is required to control posture and movement during daily activities. Various sensory modalities, such as muscle spindles, Golgi tendon organs and the vestibular system, might contribute to trunk stabilization and our aim was to assess the contribution of these modalities to trunk stabilization. In 35 healthy subjects, upper-body sway was evoked by continuous unpredictable, force-controlled perturbations to the trunk in the anterior direction. Subjects were instructed to either 'maximally resist the perturbation' or to 'relax but remain upright' with eyes closed. Frequency response functions (FRFs) of admittance, the amount of movement per unit of force applied, and reflexes, the modulation of trunk extensor activity per unit of trunk displacement, were obtained. To these FRFs, we fitted physiological models, to estimate intrinsic trunk stiffness and damping, as well as feedback gains and delays. The different model versions were compared to assess which feedback loops contribute to trunk stabilization. Intrinsic stiffness and damping and muscle spindle (short-delay) feedback alone were sufficient to accurately describe trunk stabilization, but only with unrealistically low reflex delays. Addition of muscle spindle acceleration feedback or inhibitory Golgi tendon organ feedback yielded realistic delays and improved the model fit, with a significantly better model fit with acceleration feedback. Addition of vestibular feedback did not improve the model fit. In conclusion, muscle spindle feedback and intrinsic mechanical properties are sufficient to describe trunk stabilization in the sagittal plane under small mechanical perturbations, provided that muscle spindles encode acceleration in addition to velocity and position information.

Functional contributors to poor movement and balance control in patients with low back pain: A descriptive analysis

BACKGROUND

Automatic and voluntary body position control is essential for postural stability; however, little is known about individual factors that impair the sensorimotor system associated with low back pain (LBP).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate automatic and voluntary motor control impairments causing postural instability in patients with LBP.

METHODS

Motor control impairments associated with poor movement and balance control were analyzed prospectively in 32 patients with LBP. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain assessment, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for disability measurement, and computerized dynamic posturography (CDP) for analysis of postural responses were used to measure outcomes of all patients. Computerized dynamic posturography tests including Sensory organization test (SOT), limits of stability test (movement velocity, directional control, endpoint, and maximum excursion), rhythmic weight shift (rhythmic movement speed and directional control), and adaptation test (toes-up and toes-down tests) were performed and the results compared with NeuroCom normative data.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 40.50 ± 12.28 years. Lower equilibrium scores were observed in SOT (p < 0.05). There was a significant increase in reaction time and decrease in movement velocity, directional control, and endpoint excursion (p < 0.05). Speed of rhythmic movement along the anteroposterior direction decreased, while speed increased along the lateral direction (p < 0.05). Poor directional control was recorded in the anteroposterior direction (p < 0.05). Toes-down test showed an increased COG sway in patients compared with that in the controls (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

LBP causes poor voluntary control of body positioning, a reduction in movement control, delays in movement initiation, and a difficulty to adapt to sudden surface changes.

Is There a Relationship Between Lumbar Proprioception and Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the relationship between lumbar proprioception and low back pain (LBP).

DATA SOURCES

Four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus) and reference lists of relevant articles were searched from inception to March-April 2014.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies compared lumbar proprioception in patients with LBP with controls or prospectively evaluated the relationship between proprioception and LBP. Two reviewers independently screened articles and determined inclusion through consensus.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction and methodologic quality assessment were independently performed using standardized checklists.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-two studies (1203 participants) were included. Studies measured lumbar proprioception via active or passive joint repositioning sense (JRS) or threshold to detection of passive motion (TTDPM). Data from 17 studies were pooled for meta-analyses to compare patients with controls. Otherwise, descriptive syntheses were performed. Data were analyzed according to measurement method and LBP subgroup. Active JRS was worse in patients compared with controls when measured in sitting (standard mean difference, .97; 95% confidence interval [CI], .31-1.64). There were no differences between groups measured via active JRS in standing (standard mean difference, .41; 95% CI, -.07 to .89) or passive JRS in sitting (standard mean difference, .38; 95% CI, -.83 to 1.58). Patients in the O'Sullivan flexion impairment subgroup had worse proprioception than the total LBP cohort. The TTDPM was significantly worse in patients than controls. One prospective study found no link between lumbar proprioception and LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with LBP have impaired lumbar proprioception compared with controls when measured actively in sitting positions (particularly those in the O'Sullivan flexion impairment subgroup) or via TTDPM. Clinicians should consider the relationship between sitting and proprioception in LBP and subgroup patients to guide management. Further studies focusing on subgroups, longitudinal assessment, and improving proprioception measurement are needed.

Low back skin sensitivity has minimal impact on active lumbar spine proprioception and stability in healthy adults

The purpose of the current work was to (1) determine whether low back cutaneous sensitivity could be reduced through the use of a topical lidocaine-prilocaine anesthetic (EMLA(®)) to mirror reductions reported in chronic lower back pain (CLBP) patients, as well as to (2) identify whether reductions in cutaneous sensitivity resulted in decreased lumbar spine proprioception, neuromuscular control and dynamic stability. Twenty-eight healthy participants were divided equally into matched EMLA and PLACEBO treatment groups. Groups completed cutaneous minimum monofilament and two-point discrimination (TPD) threshold tests, as well as tests of sagittal and axial lumbar spine active repositioning error, seated balance and repeated lifting dynamic stability. These tests were administered both before and after the application of an EMLA or PLACEBO treatment. Results show that low back minimum monofilament and TPD thresholds were significantly increased within the EMLA group. Skin sensitivity remained unchanged in the PLACEBO group. In the EMLA group, decreases in low back cutaneous sensitivity had minimal effect on low back proprioception (active sagittal and axial repositioning) and dynamic stability (seated balance and repeated lifting). These findings demonstrate that treating the skin of the low back with an EMLA anesthetic can effectively decrease the cutaneous sensitivity of low back region. Further, these decreases in peripheral cutaneous sensitivity are similar in magnitude to those reported in CLBP patients. Within this healthy population, decreased cutaneous sensitivity of the low back region has minimal influence on active lumbar spine proprioception, neuromuscular control and dynamic stability.

Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinicians commonly examine posture and movement in people with the belief that correcting dysfunctional movement may reduce pain. If dysfunctional movement is to be accurately identified, clinicians should know what constitutes normal movement and how this differs in people with low back pain (LBP). This systematic review examined studies that compared biomechanical aspects of lumbo-pelvic movement in people with and without LBP.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched from inception until January 2014 for relevant studies. Studies had to compare adults with and without LBP using skin surface measurement techniques to measure lumbo-pelvic posture or movement. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, and identified and extracted data. Standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for group differences between people with and without LBP, and where possible, meta-analyses were performed. Within-group variability in all measurements was also compared.

RESULTS

The search identified 43 eligible studies. Compared to people without LBP, on average, people with LBP display: (i) no difference in lordosis angle (8 studies), (ii) reduced lumbar ROM (19 studies), (iii) no difference in lumbar relative to hip contribution to end-range flexion (4 studies), (iv) no difference in standing pelvic tilt angle (3 studies), (v) slower movement (8 studies), and (vi) reduced proprioception (17 studies). Movement variability appeared greater for people with LBP for flexion, lateral flexion and rotation ROM, and movement speed, but not for other movement characteristics. Considerable heterogeneity exists between studies, including a lack of detail or standardization between studies on the criteria used to define participants as people with LBP (cases) or without LBP (controls).

CONCLUSIONS

On average, people with LBP have reduced lumbar ROM and proprioception, and move more slowly compared to people without LBP. Whether these deficits exist prior to LBP onset is unknown.

Interactions of touch feedback with muscle vibration and galvanic vestibular stimulation in the control of trunk posture

This study investigated the effect of touch on trunk sway in a seated position. Two touch conditions were included: touching an object with the index finger of the right hand (hand-touch) and maintaining contact with an object at the level of the spine of T10 on the mid back (back-touch). In both touch conditions, the exerted force stayed below 2N. Furthermore, the interaction of touch with paraspinal muscle vibration and galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) was studied. Thirteen healthy subjects with no history of low-back pain participated in this study. Subjects sat on a stool and trunk sway was measured with a motion capture system tracking a cluster marker on the trunk. Subjects performed a total of 12 trials of 60-s duration in a randomized order, combining the experimental conditions of no-touch, hand-touch or back-touch with no sensory perturbation, paraspinal muscle vibration or GVS. The results showed that touch through hand or back decreased trunk sway and decreased the effects of muscle vibration and GVS. GVS led to a large increase in sway whereas the effect of muscle vibration was only observed as an increase of drift and not of sway. In the current experimental set-up, the stabilizing effect of touch was strong enough to mask any effects of perturbations of vestibular and paraspinal muscle spindle afference. In conclusion, tactile information, whenever available, seems to play a dominant role in seated postural sway and therefore has important implications for studying trunk control.

Movement of the lumbar spine is critical for maintenance of postural recovery following support surface perturbation

Repeated measures design. This study examined recovery of postural equilibrium (centre of pressure (COP) excursion, time to recover balance, and the number of postural adjustments) following unexpected support surface perturbation in healthy participants with and without a rigid lumbar corset to reduce lumbar motion. Lumbar spine movement is thought to aid postural stability, especially when a "hip" (lumbopelvic) strategy is required, such as in response to large and fast perturbations. Delayed onset of lumbar spine movement in association with prolonged postural recovery in chronic low back pain implies reduced spinal motion could underpin balance deficits in this group. However, other explanations such as poor proprioception cannot be excluded, and the relationship between lumbar movement and postural stability remains unclear. We hypothesized restricted lumbar spine movement would impair control of postural recovery following support surface perturbation. Participants regained postural stability following unexpected support surface perturbations in different directions (forward and backward), with different amplitudes (small, medium, and large), with and without restriction of spine motion by a hard lumbar corset. Although the latency of the postural adjustment was unaffected by the corset, the quality of postural recovery was compromised (increased COP range, time taken for postural recovery, and number of postural adjustments) during recovery, especially in response to large perturbation. Restriction of lumbar spine movement adversely affects postural recovery. The results suggest movement of the lumbar spine, although small in amplitude, is critical for efficient recovery of standing balance.