TY - JOUR
T1 - Maintaining lumbar spine stability
T2 - A study of the specific and combined effects of abdominal activation and lumbosacral orthosis on lumbar intrinsic stiffness
AU - Larivière, Christian
AU - Boucher, Jean Alexandre
AU - Mecheri, Hakim
AU - Ludvig, Daniel
N1 - Funding Information:
1Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail, Montreal, Canada. 2Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal, Montreal, Canada. 3School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada. 4Department of Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 5Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago, IL. The ethics committee of the Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal approved the study protocol (registration number CRIR-1071-0415). Dr Boucher has postdoctoral funding from the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (Montreal, Canada). The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the article. Address correspondence to Dr Christian Larivière, Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail, 505 Boulevard de Maisonneuve Ouest, Montréal, QC, Canada H3A 3C2. E-mail: larchr@irsst.qc.ca U Copyright 2019 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy®
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy.
PY - 2019/4
Y1 - 2019/4
N2 - BACKGROUND: Two potential interventions for enhancing lumbar stability are to actively increase abdominal muscle activity, either through the abdominal drawing-in maneuver (ADIM) or bracing, and passively increase lumbar stiffness using a lumbosacral orthosis (LSO). OBJECTIVE: To compare the increase in lumbar stiffness after 2 active interventions (ADIM versus bracing) and 1 passive intervention (LSO), and to evaluate the combined effect of active (abdominal bracing) and passive interventions. METHODS: In this experimental and comparative study, lumbar stiffness, a surrogate measure of lumbar stability, was estimated in 25 healthy individuals during 7 trunk perturbation conditions: (1) control, (2) ADIM, (3) bracing at 5% of right external oblique maximal voluntary activation (5% bracing), (4) bracing at 10% of right external oblique maximal voluntary activation (10% bracing), (5) LSO, (6) LSO plus 5% bracing, and (7) LSO plus 10% bracing. Electromyographic biofeedback of the external oblique was provided on a monitor, while ultrasound was used for the ADIM to ensure a sustained contraction of the transversus abdominis. RESULTS: The ADIM, 5% bracing, and 10% bracing active interventions generated comparable lumbar stiffness. However, considering that bracing can range from 10% to 20%, it may be superior to hollowing, as further estimated with a mixed-effect statistical model. Combining bracing and an LSO resulted in an additive effect on lumbar stiffness. CONCLUSION: Bracing and ADIM produced comparable lumbar stiffness, as they were performed at the same overall abdominal activation levels (5% and 10% maximal voluntary activation). The independent effects of bracing and LSO raises the possibility of combining these interventions in some circumstances.
AB - BACKGROUND: Two potential interventions for enhancing lumbar stability are to actively increase abdominal muscle activity, either through the abdominal drawing-in maneuver (ADIM) or bracing, and passively increase lumbar stiffness using a lumbosacral orthosis (LSO). OBJECTIVE: To compare the increase in lumbar stiffness after 2 active interventions (ADIM versus bracing) and 1 passive intervention (LSO), and to evaluate the combined effect of active (abdominal bracing) and passive interventions. METHODS: In this experimental and comparative study, lumbar stiffness, a surrogate measure of lumbar stability, was estimated in 25 healthy individuals during 7 trunk perturbation conditions: (1) control, (2) ADIM, (3) bracing at 5% of right external oblique maximal voluntary activation (5% bracing), (4) bracing at 10% of right external oblique maximal voluntary activation (10% bracing), (5) LSO, (6) LSO plus 5% bracing, and (7) LSO plus 10% bracing. Electromyographic biofeedback of the external oblique was provided on a monitor, while ultrasound was used for the ADIM to ensure a sustained contraction of the transversus abdominis. RESULTS: The ADIM, 5% bracing, and 10% bracing active interventions generated comparable lumbar stiffness. However, considering that bracing can range from 10% to 20%, it may be superior to hollowing, as further estimated with a mixed-effect statistical model. Combining bracing and an LSO resulted in an additive effect on lumbar stiffness. CONCLUSION: Bracing and ADIM produced comparable lumbar stiffness, as they were performed at the same overall abdominal activation levels (5% and 10% maximal voluntary activation). The independent effects of bracing and LSO raises the possibility of combining these interventions in some circumstances.
KW - Abdominal drawing-in maneuver
KW - Bracing
KW - Hollowing
KW - Lumbosacral orthosis
KW - Surface electromyography
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064002404&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064002404&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2519/jospt.2019.8565
DO - 10.2519/jospt.2019.8565
M3 - Article
C2 - 30658047
AN - SCOPUS:85064002404
SN - 0190-6011
VL - 49
SP - 262
EP - 271
JO - Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
JF - Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
IS - 4
ER -