Linear and Non-linear Dynamic Methods Toward Investigating Proprioception Impairment in Non-specific Low Back Pain Patients

Vibration-Induced Alteration in Trunk Extensor Muscle Proprioception as a Model for Impaired Trunk Control in Low Back Pain

This study examined the impact of personalizing muscle vibration parameters on trunk control. We assessed how altered trunk extensor muscle (TEM) proprioception affects seated trunk control in healthy controls (HCs). To explore the link between altered TEM proprioception and impaired trunk control in chronic low back pain (cLBP), we performed equivalence testing between HCs undergoing TEM vibration and cLBP without vibration. Twenty HCs performed active joint reposition error (AJRE) testing to determine personalized vibration parameters. Each participant maintained balance on an unstable chair with eyes open and closed, with and without TEM vibration. We compared trunk control between HCs and twenty age- and sex-matched cLBP participants, using mean velocity and 95% confidence ellipse area of center-of-pressure changes to quantify trunk postural control. Equivalence was examined by comparing mean difference scores to minimal detectable change values and calculating between-group effect sizes. Personalized vibration parameters led to larger lumbopelvic repositioning errors (d = 0.89) than any single vibration frequency (d = 0.31-0.36). In healthy adults with no back pain, vision had large effects on postural control (ηp2 = 0.604-0.842), but TEM vibration had no significant effects (p > 0.105) or interactions with vision (p > 0.423). Between-group effect sizes (d = 0.32-0.51) exceeded our threshold for performance equivalence (d < 0.2). Muscle vibration altered position sense during AJRE testing, and personalizing parameters amplified this effect. However, TEM vibration had minimal impact on seated trunk postural control in adults with no back pain and did not lead to performance degradation comparable to that in cLBP.

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.

Distinction of non-specific low back pain patients with proprioceptive disorders from healthy individuals by linear discriminant analysis

The central nervous system (CNS) dynamically employs a sophisticated weighting strategy of sensory input, including vision, vestibular and proprioception signals, towards attaining optimal postural control during different conditions. Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) patients frequently demonstrate postural control deficiencies which are generally attributed to challenges in proprioceptive reweighting, where they often rely on an ankle strategy regardless of postural conditions. Such impairment could lead to potential loss of balance, increased risk of falling, and Low back pain recurrence. In this study, linear and non-linear indicators were extracted from center-of-pressure (COP) and trunk sagittal angle data based on 4 conditions of vibration positioning (vibration on the back, ankle, none or both), 2 surface conditions (foam or rigid), and 2 different groups (healthy and non-specific low back pain patients). Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) was performed on linear and non-linear indicators to identify the best sensory condition towards accurate distinction of non-specific low back pain patients from healthy controls. Two indicators: Phase Plane Portrait _ML and Entropy _ML with foam surface condition and both ankle and back vibration on, were able to completely differentiate the non-specific low back pain groups. The proposed methodology can help clinicians quantitatively assess the sensory status of non-specific low back pain patients at the initial phase of diagnosis and throughout treatment. Although the results demonstrated the potential effectiveness of our approach in Low back pain patient distinction, a larger and more diverse population is required for comprehensive validation.

Comparison of Postural Control of Females with and without Urinary Incontinence: A Case-Control Study

Background: So far, there is much less information about the effects of urinary incontinence on postural control. Therefore the aim of this study is to investigate the differences in postural control using linear and non-linear analyses of the center of pressure (COP) time-series in anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) directions between females with and without stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Methods: This case-control study included 22 continent females and 22 SUI females. In this study, static postural control during four different postural tasks was evaluated using a force plate. All participants performed separate 60-sec standing trials with eyes open in the empty bladder and full bladder conditions. Mean, range, velocity, area circle of COP displacements, and approximate entropy (ApEn) of COP time-series were calculated from the 60-sec standing trials for all participants. The independent sample t-test was also used to compare COP variables between the two groups and paired sample t-test was used to assess changes between the full bladder and empty bladder conditions within each group. The effect size of Cohen's d was used to assess the magnitude of the differences between the two groups. Results: The findings revealed a significant group × task interaction for the mean of ML displacement and ApEn of COP. SUI females showed more AP displacement range in the full bladder (pvalue= 0.020, effect size=0.74) and a higher velocity (empty bladder: p=0.040, effect size=0.63) (full bladder: p=0.020, effect size=0.75) than the continent group. Generally, the SUI females had lower ApEn than the continent females, although the differences were not significant. While the variables of COP were unaffected by bladder fullness in the continent group, the SUI group in full bladder condition experienced more AP range (p=0.030), and area circle (p=0.007) of COP sway in quiet standing. Conclusion: These results provide more support for the hypothesis that postural control can be impaired following SUI, although future investigations on this topic are recommended.