The association of fear of movement and postural sway in people with low back pain

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.

Impact of lumbar delayed-onset muscle soreness on postural stability in standing postures

BACKGROUND

Similar impact on proprioception has been observed in participants with lumbar delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and chronic low back pain (LBP), raising questions about the relevance of lumbar DOMS as a suitable pain model for LBP when assessing back pain-related postural stability changes.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does lumbar DOMS impact postural stability?

METHODS

Twenty healthy adults participated in this experimental study and underwent a posturographic examination before and 24 to 36 h after a protocol designed to induce lumbar DOMS. Posturographic examination was assessed during quiet standing on both feet with eyes opened (EO), with eyes closed (EC), and on one-leg (OL) standing with eyes opened. Postural stability was assessed through center of pressure (COP) parameters (COP area, velocity, root mean square, mean power frequency) which were compared using repeated measure ANOVA. Moreover, pain, soreness and pressure pain threshold (PPT) on specific muscles were assessed.

RESULTS

There was a significant main effect of the postural condition on all COP variables investigated. More specifically, each COP variable reached a significantly higher value in the OL stance condition than in both EO and EC bipedal conditions (all with p < 0.001). In addition, the COP velocity and the mean power frequency along the anteroposterior direction both reached a significantly higher value in EC than in EO (p < 0.001). In contrast, there was no significant main effect of the DOMS nor significant DOMS X postural condition interaction on any of the COP variables. There was a significant decrease in the PPT value for both the left and right erector spinae muscles, as well as the left biceps femoris.

SIGNIFICANCE

Lumbar DOMS had no impact on postural stability, which contrasts findings in participants with clinical LBP. Although DOMS induces similar trunk sensorimotor adaptations to clinical LBP, it does not appear to trigger similar postural stability adaptations.

The association between pain-related psychological variables and postural control in low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Alterations in postural control have been found in individuals with low back pain (LBP), particularly during challenging postural tasks. Moreover, higher levels of negative pain-related psychological variables are associated with increased trunk muscle activity, reduced spinal movement, and worse maximal physical performance in individuals with LBP.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Are pain-related psychological variables associated with postural control during static bipedal standing tasks in individuals with LBP?

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Pubmed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO were searched until March 2023. Studies were included if they evaluated postural control during static bipedal standing in individuals with LBP by measuring center of pressure (CoP) variables, and reported at least one pain-related psychological variable. Correlation coefficients between pain-related psychological variables and CoP variables were extracted. Study quality was assessed with the "Quality In Prognosis Studies" tool (QUIPS). Random-effect models were used to calculate pooled correlation coefficients for different postural tasks. Sub-analyses were performed for positional or dynamic CoP variables. Certainty of evidence was assessed with an adjusted "Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations" tool (GRADE). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021241739).

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (n = 723 participants) were included. Pain-related fear (16 studies) and pain catastrophizing (three studies) were the only reported pain-related psychological variables. Both pain-related fear (-0.04 < pooled r < 0.14) and pain catastrophizing (0.28 < pooled r < 0.29) were weakly associated with CoP variables during different postural tasks. For all associations, the certainty of evidence was very low.

SIGNIFICANCE

Pain-related fear and pain catastrophizing are only weakly associated with postural control during static bipedal standing in individuals with LBP, regardless of postural task difficulty. Certainty of evidence is very low thus it is conceivable that future studies accounting for current study limitations might reveal different findings.

Postural adaptations within normalized stability between older adults with and without chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Adaptations of dynamic balance performance are related to sway excursions in older adults with chronic low back pain (LBP). However, there is a lack of understanding on postural control within different thresholds of radius from the center of pressure (COP).

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to compare the normalized stability based on the time-in-boundary (TIB) during repeated unilateral limb standing trials between subjects with and without chronic LBP.

METHODS

There were 26 older adults with LBP and 39 control subjects who completed three trials of repeated unilateral limb standing on a force plat.

RESULTS

The TIB based on the seven thresholds was analyzed, and the groups demonstrated a significant interaction on thresholds for TIB (F = 8.76, p = 0.01). The TIB was significantly different in the 10 mm (F = 4.01, p = 0.04), 15 mm (F = 5.21, p = 0.03), and 20 mm (F = 4.48, p = 0.04) radius of thresholds only in the second trial. However, there was no group difference on TIB at the first and third trials due to potential compensatory and/or adaptive reactions to avoid fall risks.

CONCLUSION

The LBP group lacked postural stability within the thresholds less than a 20 mm radius at the second trial of unilateral standing. The significant group interaction with the thresholds indicates an adaptation strategy on sway thresholds. This postural reaction from repeated trials should be considered with sway excursion adjustments and fall prevention in older adults with LB.

Association between functional disability with postural balance among patients with chronic low back pain

Introduction

Postural balance is impaired in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). In addition, the swaying velocity can be affected by low back pain (LBP) dysfunction. However, the extent to which the dysfunction affects postural balance in CLBP patients remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effect of LBP-related disability on postural balance among CLBP patients and determine factors associated with postural balance impairments.

Methods

Participants with CLBP were recruited and instructed to complete the one-leg stance and Y-balance test. Moreover, they were divided into two subgroups (i.e., low and medium to high LBP-related disability groups) to compare the difference in postural balance based on the degree of LBP-related disability measured by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. The relationships between postural balance and negative emotions as well as LBP characteristics were determined using the Spearman correlations.

Results

A total of 49 participants with low LBP-related disabilities and 33 participants with medium to high LBP-related disabilities participated in the study. Compared to the medium to high LBP-related disability group, patients in the low LBP-related disability group performed better in one-leg stance on the left leg (z = -2.081, p = 0.037). For Y-balance test, patients in the low LBP-related disability group also had greater normalized values of left leg reach in posteromedial (t = 2.108, p = 0.038) direction and composite score (t = 2.261, p = 0.026) and of right leg reach in posteromedial (t = 2.185, p = 0.032), and posterolateral (t = 2.137, p = 0.036) directions as well as composite score (t = 2.258, p = 0.027). Factors associated with postural balance impairments were also revealed, such as anxiety, depression, and fear avoidance belief.

Discussion

The greater the dysfunction degree, the worse the CLBP patient's postural balance impairment. Negative emotions could also be considered contributing factors for postural balance impairments.