Within/between-session reliability and agreement of lumbopelvic kinematics in the sagittal plane during functional movement control tasks in healthy persons

Pain Education and Virtual Reality Improves Pain, Pain-related Fear of Movement, and Trunk Kinematics in Individuals With Persistent Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of combining pain education and virtual reality (VR) exposure therapy using a cognitive-behavioral therapy-informed approach (virtual reality-based cognitive behavioral therapy [VR-CBT]) on pain intensity, fear of movement, and trunk movement in individuals with persistent low back pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-seven participants were recruited in a single cohort repeated measures study, attending 3 sessions 1 week apart. The VR-CBT intervention included standardized pain education (session 1) and virtual reality-based exposure therapy (VRET; session 2) incorporating gameplay with mixed reality video capture and reflective feedback of performance. Outcome measures (pain intensity, pain-related fear of movement (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia), and trunk kinematics during functional movements (maximum amplitude and peak velocity) were collected at baseline (session 1) and 1 week after education (session 2) and VRET (session 3). One-way repeated measures analysis of variances evaluated change in outcomes from baseline to completion. Post hoc contrasts evaluated effect sizes for the education and VR components of VR-CBT.

RESULTS

Thirty-four participants completed all sessions. Significant ( P < 0.001) reductions were observed in mean (SD) pain (baseline 5.9 [1.5]; completion 4.3 [2.1]) and fear of movement (baseline 42.6 [6.4]; completion 34.3 [7.4]). Large effect sizes (Cohen d ) were observed for education (pain intensity: 0.85; fear of movement: 1.28), whereas the addition of VRET demonstrated very small insignificant effect sizes (pain intensity: 0.10; fear of movement: 0.18). Peak trunk velocity, but not amplitude, increased significantly ( P < 0.05) across trunk movement tasks.

CONCLUSION

A VR-CBT intervention improved pain, pain-related fear of movement, and trunk kinematics. Further research should explore increased VR-CBT dosage and mechanisms underlying improvement.

Quantifying lumbar sagittal plane kinematics using a wrist-worn inertial measurement unit

Wearable sensors like inertial measurement units (IMUs), and those available as smartphone or smartwatch applications, are increasingly used to quantify lumbar mobility. Currently, wearable sensors have to be placed on the back to measure lumbar mobility, meaning it cannot be used in unsupervised environments. This study aims to compare lumbar sagittal plane angles quantified from a wrist-worn against that of a lumbar-worn sensor. Twenty healthy participants were recruited. An IMU was placed on the right wrist and the L3 spinal level. Participants had to position their right forearm on their abdomen, parallel to the floor. Three sets of three consecutive repetitions of flexion, and extension were formed. Linear mixed models were performed to quantify the effect of region (lumbar vs. wrist) on six outcomes [minimum, maximum, range of motion (ROM) of flexion and extension]. Only flexion ROM was significantly different between the wrist and lumbar sensors, with a mean of 4.54° (95% CI = 1.82°-7.27°). Across all outcomes, the maximal difference between a wrist-worn and lumbar-worn sensor was <8°. A wrist-worn IMU sensor could be used to measure gross lumbar sagittal plane mobility in place of a lumbar-worn IMU. This may be useful for remote monitoring during rehabilitation.

Feedback on Trunk Movements From an Electronic Game to Improve Postural Balance in People With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Postural balance is compromised in people with low back pain, possibly by changes in motor control of the trunk. Augmenting exercising interventions with sensor-based feedback on trunk posture and movements might improve postural balance in people with low back pain.

Objective

We hypothesized that exercising with feedback on trunk movements reduces sway in anterior-posterior direction during quiet standing in people with low back pain. Secondary outcomes were lumbar spine and hip movement assessed during box lift and waiter bow tasks, as well as participant-reported outcomes. Adherence to the exercising intervention was also examined.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial was conducted with the intervention group receiving unsupervised home exercises with visual feedback using the Valedo Home, an exergame based on 2 inertial measurement units. The control group received no intervention. Outcomes were recorded by blinded staff during 4 visits (T1-T4) at University Hospital Zurich. The intervention group performed 9 sessions of 20 minutes in the 3 weeks between T2 and T3 and were instructed to exercise at their own convenience between T3 and T4. Postural balance was assessed on a force platform. Lumbar spine and hip angles were obtained from 3 inertial measurement units. The assessments included pain intensity, disability, quality of life, and fear of movement questionnaires.

Results

A total of 32 participants with nonspecific low back pain completed the first assessment T1, and 27 (84%) participants were randomized at T2 (n=14, 52% control and n=13, 48% intervention). Intention-to-treat analysis revealed no significant difference in change in anterior-posterior sway direction during the intervention period with a specified schedule (T2-T3) between the groups (W=99; P=.36; r=0.07). None of the outcomes showed significant change in accordance with our hypotheses. The intervention group completed a median of 61% (55/90; range 2%-99%) of the exercises in the predefined training program. Adherence was higher in the first intervention period with a specified schedule.

Conclusions

The intervention had no significant effect on postural balance or other outcomes, but the wide range of adherence and a limited sample size challenged the robustness of these conclusions. Future work should increase focus on improving adherence to digital interventions.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04364243; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04364243

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/26982

Exergaming Using Postural Feedback From Wearable Sensors and Exercise Therapy to Improve Postural Balance in People With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Protocol for a Factorial Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Physical exercise is a common treatment for people with low back pain (LBP). Wearable sensors that provide feedback on body movements and posture during exercise may enhance postural balance and motor control in people with LBP.

Objective

This study aims to investigate whether physical exercising with postural feedback (EPF) improves postural balance, motor control, and patient-reported outcomes in people with LBP.

Methods

The study was an assessor-blinded 2×2 factorial trial. We planned to recruit 80 participants with nonspecific LBP who did not receive treatment for LBP. In addition, we aimed to recruit 40 patients with chronic, nonspecific LBP who were receiving exercise therapy (ET) at the University Hospital Zurich. Both ET patients and participants without treatment were randomized to receive either an additional EPF intervention or no additional intervention. This resulted in four different combinations of interventions: ET+EPF, ET, EPF, and no intervention. The participants underwent outcome assessments at inclusion (T1); 3 weeks later, at randomization (T2); after an intervention period of 3 weeks with a predefined exercise schedule for participants receiving EPF (T3); and after an additional 6 weeks, during which participants assigned to the EPF groups could exercise as much as they wished (T4). Patients receiving ET completed their regularly prescribed therapies during the study period. Balance was assessed during quiet standing on a force platform, and motor control was assessed during a lifting task and a waiter’s bow task. Physical activity was recorded using an activity tracker and the participants’ mobile phones during the study. The predefined EPF schedule consisted of nine sessions of 20 minutes of exercise with a tablet and inertial measurement unit sensors at home. Participants performed a series of trunk and hip movements and received feedback on their movements in a gamified environment displayed on the tablet.

Results

The first participant was recruited in May 2019. Data collection was completed in October 2020, with 3 patients and 32 eligible people without therapy who passed the eligibility check.

Conclusions

Although it will not be possible to investigate differences in patients and people without other therapies, we expect this pilot study to provide insights into the potential of EPF to improve balance in people with LBP and adherence to such interventions.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/26982

Lumbar Spine Kinematics in Asymptomatic People When Changing Body Position From Sitting to Standing

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the lumbar spine kinematics in 3 movement axes in asymptomatic individuals in the sit-to-stand (STS) movement performed in a habitual, flexion, or extension manner.

METHODS

There were 30 participants (16 women, 14 men), aged 23 to 37 years. Each participant performed an STS test. We registered the total time of the STS movement and the maximum acceleration of the lumbar spine in the vertical, anteroposterior, and mediolateral axes. The examination of the movement pattern was performed with the use of a BTS G-sensor device.

RESULTS

The highest movement dynamics in the lumbar spine were observed during the STS performed in a habitual manner in the 3 axes (P < .01). The lowest movement dynamics ere associated with the extension STS pattern. The flexion pattern differed from the habitual one in total performance time in both groups (P < .01). There were no significant differences in kinematic lumbar spine between sexes.

CONCLUSION

The kinematics of the STS movement for asymptomatic individuals were characterized by significant variability in the maximum acceleration in the 3 axes. The highest movement dynamics were observed during the STS performed in a habitual manner, and the lowest dynamics with the extension pattern of STS.

Reliability and minimal detectable change of the 'Imperial Spine' marker set for the evaluation of spinal and lower limb kinematics in adults

Objectives

As a step towards the comprehensive evaluation of movement in patients with low back pain, the aim of this study is to design a marker set (three rigid segment spine, pelvic and lower limb model) and evaluate the reliability and minimal detectable change (MDC) of this marker set in healthy adults during gait and sit to stand (STS) tasks using three dimensional motion capture.

Results

The ‘Imperial Spine’ marker set was used to assess relative peak angles during gait and STS tasks using the minimum recommended sample size (n = 10) for reliability studies with minimum Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.70, optimum ICC 0.90 and 9 trials replicated per subject per task. Intra- and inter-tester reliability between an experienced and inexperienced user was examined. ICC, mean, standard error (SEM), Bland Altman 95% limits of agreement (LOA) and MDC were computed.

ICC values demonstrated excellent intra- and inter-tester reliability in both tasks, particularly in the sagittal plane (majority ICCs > 0.80). SEM measurements were lower in gait (0.8–5.5°) than STS tasks (1°-12.6°) as were MDC values. LOA demonstrated good agreement. The ‘Imperial Spine’ marker set is reliable for use in healthy adults during functional tasks. Future evaluation in patients is required.

Lumbar range of motion in chronic low back pain is predicted by task-specific, but not by general measures of pain-related fear

BACKGROUND

Most studies fail to show an association between higher levels of pain-related fear and protective movement behaviour in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). This may be explained by the fact that only general measures of pain-related fear have been used to examine the association with movement patterns. This study explored whether task-specific, instead of general measures of pain-related fear can predict movement behaviour.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients with CLBP and 54 healthy persons performed a lifting task while kinematic measurements were obtained to assess lumbar range of motion (ROM). Scores on the Photograph Daily Activities Series-Short Electronic Version (PHODA-SeV), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia and its Activity Avoidance and Somatic Focus subscales were used as general measures of pain-related fear. The score on a picture of the PHODA-SeV, showing a person lifting a heavy object with a bent back, was used as task-specific measure of pain-related fear.

RESULTS

Lumbar ROM was predicted by task-specific, but not by general measures of pain-related fear. Only the scores on one other picture of the PHODA-SeV, similar to the task-specific picture regarding threat value and movement characteristics, predicted the lumbar ROM. Compared to healthy persons, patients with CLBP used significantly less ROM, except the subgroup with a low score on the task-specific measure of pain-related fear, who used a similar ROM.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest to use task-specific measures of pain-related fear when assessing the relationship with movement. It would be of interest to investigate whether reducing task-specific fear changes protective movement behaviour.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study shows that lumbar range of motion in CLBP is predicted by task-specific, but not by general measures of pain-related fear. This suggests that both in clinical practice and for research purposes, it might be recommended to use task-specific measures of pain-related fear when assessing the relationship with movement behaviour. This may help to disentangle the complex interactions between pain-related fear, movement and disability in patients with CLBP.

Reliability and Agreement of 3D Trunk and Lower Extremity Movement Analysis by Means of Inertial Sensor Technology for Unipodal and Bipodal Tasks

This study evaluates the reliability and agreement of the 3D range of motion (ROM) of trunk and lower limb joints, measured by inertial measurement units (MVN BIOMECH Awinda, Xsens Technologies), during a single leg squat (SLS) and sit to stand (STS) task. Furthermore, distinction was made between movement phases, to discuss the reliability and agreement for different phases of both movement tasks. Twenty healthy participants were measured on two testing days. On day one, measurements were conducted by two operators to determine the within-session and between-operator reliability and agreement. On day two, measurements were conducted by the same operator, to determine the between-session reliability and agreement. The SLS task had lower within-session reliability and agreement compared with between-session and between-operator reliability and agreement. The reliability and agreement of the hip, knee, and ankle ROM in the sagittal plane were good for both phases of the SLS task. For both phases of STS task, within-session reliability and agreement were good, and between-session and between-operator reliability and agreement were lower in all planes. As both tasks are physically demanding, differences may be explained by inconsistent movement strategies. These results show that inertial sensor systems show promise for use in further research to investigate (mal)adaptive movement strategies.

Sensor-based postural feedback is more effective than conventional feedback to improve lumbopelvic movement control in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial

Background

Improving movement control can be an important treatment goal for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Although external feedback is essential when learning new movement skills, many aspects of feedback provision in patients with CLBP remain currently unexplored. New rehabilitation technologies, such as movement sensors, are able to provide reliable and accurate feedback. As such, they might be more effective than conventional feedback for improving movement control. The aims of this study were (1) to assess whether sensor-based feedback is more effective to improve lumbopelvic movement control compared to feedback from a mirror or no feedback in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and (2) to evaluate whether patients with CLBP are equally capable of improving lumbopelvic movement control compared to healthy persons.

Methods

Fifty-four healthy participants and 54 patients with chronic non-specific LBP were recruited. Both participant groups were randomised into three subgroups. During a single exercise session, subgroups practised a lumbopelvic movement control task while receiving a different type of feedback, i.e. feedback from movement sensors, from a mirror or no feedback (=control group). Kinematic measurements of the lumbar spine and hip were obtained at baseline, during and immediately after the intervention to evaluate the improvements in movement control on the practised task (assessment of performance) and on a transfer task (assessment of motor learning).

Results

Sensor-based feedback was more effective than feedback from a mirror (p < 0.0001) and no feedback (p < 0.0001) to improve lumbopelvic movement control performance (Sensor vs. Mirror estimated difference 9.9° (95% CI 6.1°-13.7°), Sensor vs. Control estimated difference 10.6° (95% CI 6.8°-14.3°)) and motor learning (Sensor vs. Mirror estimated difference 7.2° (95% CI 3.8°-10.6°), Sensor vs. Control estimated difference 6.9° (95% CI 3.5°-10.2°)). Patients with CLBP were equally capable of improving lumbopelvic movement control compared to healthy persons.

Conclusions

Sensor-based feedback is an effective means to improve lumbopelvic movement control in patients with CLBP. Future research should focus on the long-term retention effects of sensor-based feedback.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov NCT02773160, (retrospectively registered on May 16th, 2016).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12984-018-0423-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.