Comparison of the reliance of the postural control system on the visual, vestibular and proprioceptive inputs in chronic low back pain patients and asymptomatic participants

Effects of non-specific low back pain on static balance in emerging adults

BACKGROUND

Postural control impairments in middle-aged or older people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) have been extensively documented. However, little is known about changes in postural control early in the disease process which may underlie compensatory movement strategies.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to quantify postural sway and sensory weighting in emerging adults with and without CLBP.

METHODS

Nineteen emerging adults with CLBP (age = 18-26 years (21.11 ± 1.73)) and 19 matched peers without CLBP (18-27 years (22.20 ± 1.97)) participated in a cross-sectional study. Displacement of the center of mass during Quiet stance (QS), Tandem stance (TS), and Unilateral stance (US) on 2 surfaces (stable, unstable) were used to assess postural sway. Sensory Organization Test (SOT) was used to assess sensory weighting.

RESULTS

Emerging adults with CLBP showed large, significant increases in postural sway during unstable TS (p ≤ .020). Participants with CLBP relied more on somatosensory input, as evidenced by lower equilibrium scores during conditions favoring visual (p = .020) or vestibular (p < .001) input during the SOT.

CONCLUSION

Emerging adults with CLBP showed postural control impairments related to altered sensory weighting. These findings provide insights into the development of CLBP and its effects on postural control. This information may aid early identification, monitoring, and treatment of individuals in the initial stages of disease development who may have unrecognized postural impairments.

The associations between lumbar proprioception and postural control during and after calf vibration in people with and without chronic low back pain

The relationships of lumbar proprioception with postural control have not been clarified in people with chronic low back pain. This study aimed to compare the associations between lumbar proprioception and postural control in response to calf vibration in individuals with and without chronic low back pain. In this study, we recruited twenty patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP group) and twenty healthy control subjects (HC group) aged between 18 and 50 years. This study was a cross-sectional study and completed from May 2022 to October 2022. The passive joint repositioning sense (PJRS) test for two positions (15° and 35°) were used to assess lumbar proprioception and expressed as the mean of reposition error (RE). Postural control was tested by adding and removing calf vibration while standing on a stable force plate with eyes closed. The sway velocity in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction of center of pressure (COP) data with a window of 15s epoch at baseline, during and after calf vibration was used to evaluate postural control. Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare the difference of lumbar proprioception between two groups, and the independent t-tests were used to compare the difference of postural control at baseline and during vibration, and a mixed design ANOVA was used to compare the difference of postural control during post-perturbation. In addition, to explore the association between postural control and lumbar proprioception and pain intensity, Spearman's correlations were used for each group. The major results are: (1) significantly higher PJRS on RE of 15° (CLBP: 95% CI [2.03, 3.70]; HC: 95% CI [1.03, 1.93]) and PJRS on RE of 35° (CLBP: 95% CI [2.59, 4.88]; HC: 95% CI [1.07, 3.00]) were found in the CLBP group; (2) AP velocity was not different between the CLBP group and the HC group at baseline and during calf vibration. However, AP velocity was significantly larger in the CLBP group compared with the HC group at epoch 2-14 after calf vibration, and AP velocity for the CLBP group took a longer time (23 epochs) to return to the baseline after calf vibration compared with the HC group (9 epochs); (3) lumbar proprioception represented by PJRS on RE of 15°correlated negatively with AP velocity during and after vibration for the HC group. Within the CLBP group, no significant relationships between PJRS on RE for two positions (15° and 35°) and AP velocity in any postural phases were found. In conclusion, the CLBP group has poorer lumbar proprioception, slower proprioceptive reweighting and impaired postural control after calf vibration compared to the HC group. Lumbar proprioception offers different information on the control strategy of standing control for individuals with and without CLBP in the situations with proprioceptive disturbance. These results highlight the significance of assessing lumbar proprioception and postural control in CLBP patients.

Voluntary postural sway control and mobility in adults with low back pain

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is associated with altered somatosensory perception, which is involved in both involuntary and voluntary control of posture. Currently, there is a lack of methods and tools for assessing somatosensory acuity in patients with LBP. The purpose of this study was (1) to assess the reliability of the sway discrimination apparatus (SwayDA) (2) to evaluate the differences in somatosensory acuity between patients with LBP and pain-free individuals, and (3) to examine relationships between somatosensory acuity, severity of LBP, and mobility in patients with LBP.

Methods

Twenty participants (10 patients with LBP and 10 matched asymptomatic controls) were recruited in a test-retest reliability test. Another 56 participants were recruited for this study with 28 individuals presenting with LBP and a further twenty-eight being asymptomatic. The SwayDA was custom-built to measure somatosensory perception during voluntary anterior-posterior (SwayDA-AP), medial-lateral to the dominant side (SwayDA-ML-D), and non-dominant side (SwayDA-ML-ND) postural sway control. Participants also completed mobility tests, including 10 times and 1-min sit-to-stand tests (10-STS, 1 m-STS). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated to quantify somatosensory acuity in discriminating different voluntary postural sway extents.

Results

The ICC (2.1) for the SwayDA-AP, SwayDA-ML-D, and SwayDA-ML-ND were 0.741, 0.717, and 0.805 with MDC95 0.071, 0.043, and 0.050. Patients with LBP demonstrated significantly lower SwayDA scores (tSwayDA-AP = -2.142, p = 0.037; tSwayDA-ML-D = -2.266, p = 0.027) than asymptomatic controls. The AUC values of the SwayDA-AP test were significantly correlated with ODI (rSwayDA-AP-ODI = -0.391, p = 0.039). Performances on the 1 m-STS and the 10-STS were significantly correlated with the AUC scores from all the SwayDA tests (-0.513 ≤ r ≤ 0.441, all p < 0.05).

Discussion

The SwayDA tests evaluated showed acceptable reliability in assessing somatosensory acuity during voluntary postural sway. Somatosensory acuity was diminished in patients with LBP compared to asymptomatic controls. In patients with LBP, lower somatosensory acuity was associated with increased LBP-related disability. Future research could focus on investigating the factors contributing to the decreased somatosensory perception and mobility in individuals with LBP.

Multifidus dysfunction and restorative neurostimulation: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is multifactorial in nature, with recent research highlighting the role of multifidus dysfunction in a subset of nonspecific CLBP. This review aimed to provide a foundational reference that elucidates the pathophysiological cascade of multifidus dysfunction, how it contrasts with other CLBP etiologies and the role of restorative neurostimulation.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature.

RESULTS

In total, 194 articles were included, and findings were presented to highlight emerging principles related to multifidus dysfunction and restorative neurostimulation. Multifidus dysfunction is diagnosed by a history of mechanical, axial, nociceptive CLBP and exam demonstrating functional lumbar instability, which differs from other structural etiologies. Diagnostic images may be used to grade multifidus atrophy and assess other structural pathologies. While various treatments exist for CLBP, restorative neurostimulation distinguishes itself from traditional neurostimulation in a way that treats a different etiology, targets a different anatomical site, and has a distinctive mechanism of action.

CONCLUSIONS

Multifidus dysfunction has been proposed to result from loss of neuromuscular control, which may manifest clinically as muscle inhibition resulting in altered movement patterns. Over time, this cycle may result in potential atrophy, degeneration and CLBP. Restorative neurostimulation, a novel implantable neurostimulator system, stimulates the efferent lumbar medial branch nerve to elicit repetitive multifidus contractions. This intervention aims to interrupt the cycle of dysfunction and normalize multifidus activity incrementally, potentially restoring neuromuscular control. Restorative neurostimulation has been shown to reduce pain and disability in CLBP, improve quality of life and reduce health care expenditures.

Impaired Lumbar Extensor Force Control Is Associated with Increased Lifting Knee Velocity in People with Chronic Low-Back Pain

The ability of the lumbar extensor muscles to accurately control static and dynamic forces is important during daily activities such as lifting. Lumbar extensor force control is impaired in low-back pain patients and may therefore explain the variances in lifting kinematics. Thirty-three chronic low-back pain participants were instructed to lift weight using a self-selected technique. Participants also performed an isometric lumbar extension task where they increased and decreased their lumbar extensor force output to match a variable target force within 20-50% lumbar extensor maximal voluntary contraction. Lifting trunk and lower limb range of motion and angular velocity variables derived from phase plane analysis in all planes were calculated. Lumbar extensor force control was analyzed by calculating the Root-Mean-Square Error (RMSE) between the participants' force and the target force during the increasing (RMSEA), decreasing (RMSED) force portions and for the overall force error (RMSET) of the test. The relationship between lifting kinematics and RMSE variables was analyzed using multiple linear regression. Knee angular velocity in the sagittal and coronal planes were positively associated with RMSEA (R2 = 0.10, β = 0.35, p = 0.046 and R2 = 0.21, β = 0.48, p = 0.004, respectively). Impaired lumbar extensor force control is associated with increased multiplanar knee movement velocity during lifting. The study findings suggest a potential relationship between lumbar and lower limb neuromuscular function in people with chronic low-back pain.

The effects of proprioceptive weighting changes on posture control in patients with chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional study

Introduction

Patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) exhibit changes in proprioceptive weighting and impaired postural control. This study aimed to investigate proprioceptive weighting changes in patients with CLBP and their influence on posture control.

Methods

Sixteen patients with CLBP and 16 healthy controls were recruited. All participants completed the joint reposition test sense (JRS) and threshold to detect passive motion test (TTDPM). The absolute errors (AE) of the reposition and perception angles were recorded. Proprioceptive postural control was tested by applying vibrations to the triceps surae or lumbar paravertebral muscles while standing on a stable or unstable force plate. Sway length and sway velocity along the anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) directions were assessed. Relative proprioceptive weighting (RPW) was used to evaluate the proprioception reweighting ability. Higher values indicated increased reliance on calf proprioception.

Results

There was no significant difference in age, gender, and BMI between subjects with and without CLBP. The AE and motion perception angle in the CLBP group were significantly higher than those in the control group (JRS of 15°: 2.50 (2.50) vs. 1.50 (1.42), JRS of 35°: 3.83 (3.75) vs. 1.67 (2.00), p_JRS < 0.01; 1.92 (1.18) vs. 0.68 (0.52), p_TTDPM < 0.001). The CLBP group demonstrated a significantly higher RPW value than the healthy controls on an unstable surface (0.58 ± 0.21 vs. 0.41 ± 0.26, p < 0.05). Under the condition of triceps surae vibration, the sway length (p_stable < 0.05; p_unstable < 0.001), AP velocity (p_stable < 0.01; p_unstable < 0.001) and ML velocity (p_unstable < 0.05) had significant group main effects. Moreover, when the triceps surae vibrated under the unstable surface, the differences during vibration and post vibration in sway length and AP velocity between the groups were significantly higher in the CLBP group than in the healthy group (p < 0.05). However, under the condition of lumbar paravertebral muscle vibration, no significant group main effect was observed.

Conclusion

The patients with CLBP exhibited impaired dynamic postural control in response to disturbances, potentially linked to changes in proprioceptive weighting.

Effect of Progressive Postural Control Exercise Versus Core Stability Exercise in Young Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to investigate the effects of progressive postural control exercise (PPCE) vs core stability exercise (CSE) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

A total of 34 young-adult participants with CLBP were randomly assigned to two groups (the PPCE group and the CSE group). They received instructions for two different exercise training regimens persisting over 8 weeks. Before, after, and at 6 months after the intervention, the participants were evaluated on the basis of pain intensity (VAS), degree of dysfunction (ODI and RMDQ), contractility of transversus abdominis (TrA) and lumbar multifidus (MF), as well as the ability to control static posture.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the results of the PPCE group and the CSE group. At the 6-month follow-up after the 8-week treatment, the scores of VAS, ODI, and RMDQ in the two groups decreased significantly compared to before (p < 0.05). The percentage change in thickness of bilateral TrA and left MF (p < 0.05) was elevated and the sway area of center of pressure during static stance tasks with eyes opened (p < 0.05) was decreased in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In the short term, PPCE provides positive effects similar to those of core stability exercise in patients with CLBP. The effective mechanism of PPCE might be the consequence of neuromuscular plasticity and adaptation adjustments. PPCE enriches the choices of treatment for CLBP.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at www.chictr.org.cn , identifier ChiCTR2100043113.

Postural Control of Patients with Low Back Pain Under Dual-Task Conditions

Low back pain is a major global public health problem, but the current intervention effect is not ideal. A large body of previous literature suggests that patients with chronic low back pain may have abnormal postural control, which is more evident in the dual task situation. In recent years, research on postural control in patients with low back pain under dual-task conditions has gradually become a hot topic. However, the results obtained from these studies were not entirely consistent. In this review, we summarized relevant studies on the performance of postural control in patients with low back pain under dual-task conditions, analyze it from the perspective of the theoretical model of dual-task interaction, the specific research paradigm of dual task, the performance of postural control, and the related factors affecting postural control performance, etc. It was reasonable to assume that patients with low back pain might have a certain degree of abnormal postural control, and this abnormality was affected by comprehensive factors such as age, cognitive resource capacity, attention needs, complex sensorimotor integration, external environment, etc. Furthermore, postural control performance in low back pain patients under dual-task conditions was further influenced by the nature and complexity of the different tasks. In general, the more attention resources were needed, the external environmental conditions were worse, and the age-related functions were degenerate, etc., the weaker posture control ability was. In short, a deeper understanding of postural control in patients with low back pain under dual-task conditions may shed light on more references for the rehabilitation and management of low back pain, as well as some new ideas for scientific research on cognition and postural control.

Visual, Vestibular, and Proprioceptive Dependency of the Control of Posture in Chronic Neck Pain Patients

Sensory reweighting of postural control was compared in participants with and without neck pain. Center of pressure variables of 60 volunteers, the same in each group, were calculated under four standing conditions: (a) eyes open, neutral head posture; (b) foam interface, eyes open; (c) cervical extension, eyes open; and (d) cervical extension, eyes closed. All center of pressure variables except anterior posterior range/velocity increased significantly in Condition 2 compared with Conditions 1 and 3 (p < .001) and in Condition 4 compared with Conditions 1 and 3. The mediolateral range/velocity and path length in both groups, anterior posterior range in patients, and center of pressure area in the control group were significantly different between Conditions 2 and 4 (p < .001). No overweighting was observed on the vestibular or visual afferents in patients. Compensatory strategies seem to lie within the proprioceptive system.