61 Medizin und Gesundheit
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2020 (8) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (Fachzeitschriften) (8) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (8)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (8)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (8)
Schlagworte
- Rückenschmerz (3)
- Bewegungsapparat (2)
- Sportler (2)
- Bewegung (1)
- Bewegungsstörung (1)
- Bildgebendes Verfahren (1)
- Chronischer Schmerz (1)
- EMG (1)
- Elektromyographie (1)
- Essenzieller Tremor (1)
Institut
Background: Recent shoulder injury prevention programs have utilized resistance exercises combined with different forms of instability, with the goal of eliciting functional adaptations and thereby reducing the risk of injury. However, it is still unknown how an unstable weight mass (UWM) affects the muscular activity of the shoulder stabilizers. Aim of the study was to assess neuromuscular activity of dynamic shoulder stabilizers under four conditions of stable and UWM during three shoulder exercises. It was hypothesized that a combined condition of weight with UWM would elicit greater activation due to the increased stabilization demand.
Methods: Sixteen participants (7 m/9 f) were included in this cross-sectional study and prepared with an EMG-setup for the: Mm. upper/lower trapezius (U.TA/L.TA), lateral deltoid (DE), latissimus dorsi (LD), serratus anterior (SA) and pectoralis major (PE). A maximal voluntary isometric contraction test (MVIC; 5 s.) was performed on an isokinetic dynamometer. Next, internal/external rotation (In/Ex), abduction/adduction (Ab/Ad) and diagonal flexion/extension (F/E) exercises (5 reps.) were performed with four custom-made-pipes representing different exercise conditions. First, the empty-pipe (P; 0.5 kg) and then, randomly ordered, water-filled-pipe (PW; 1 kg), weight-pipe (PG; 4.5 kg) and weight + water-filled-pipe (PWG; 4.5 kg), while EMG was recorded. Raw root-mean-square values (RMS) were normalized to MVIC (%MVIC). Differences between conditions for RMS%MVIC, scapular stabilizer (SR: U.TA/L.TA; U.TA/SA) and contraction (CR: concentric/eccentric) ratios were analyzed (paired t-test; p ≤ 0.05; Bonferroni adjusted α = 0.008).
Results: PWG showed significantly greater muscle activity for all exercises and all muscles except for PE compared to P and PW. Condition PG elicited muscular activity comparable to PWG (p > 0.008) with significantly lower activation of L.TA and SA in the In/Ex rotation. The SR ratio was significantly higher in PWG compared to P and PW. No significant differences were found for the CR ratio in all exercises and for all muscles.
Conclusion: Higher weight generated greater muscle activation whereas an UWM raised the neuromuscular activity, increasing the stabilization demands. Especially in the In/Ex rotation, an UWM increased the RMS%MVIC and SR ratio. This might improve training effects in shoulder prevention and rehabilitation programs.
Study design: Systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.
Background and objectives: We systematically reviewed and delineated the existing evidence on sustainability effects of motor control exercises on pain intensity and disability in chronic low back pain patients when compared with an inactive or passive control group or with other exercises. Secondary aims were to reveal whether moderating factors like the time after intervention completion, the study quality, and the training characteristics affect the potential sustainability effects.
Methods: Relevant scientific databases (Medline, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane) were screened. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: All RCTs und CTs on chronic (≥ 12/13 weeks) nonspecific low back pain, written in English or German and adopting a longitudinal core-specific/stabilizing sensorimotor control exercise intervention with at least one pain intensity and disability outcome assessment at a follow-up (sustainability) timepoint of ≥ 4 weeks after exercise intervention completion.
Results and conclusions: From the 3,415 studies that were initially retrieved, 10 (2 CTs & 8 RCTs) on N = 1081 patients were included in the review and analyses. Low to moderate quality evidence shows a sustainable positive effect of motor control exercise on pain (SMD = -.46, Z = 2.9, p < .001) and disability (SMD = -.44, Z = 2.5, p < .001) in low back pain patients when compared to any control. The subgroups’ effects are less conclusive and no clear direction of the sustainability effect at short versus mid versus long-term, of the type of the comparator, or of the dose of the training is given. Low quality studies overestimated the effect of motor control exercises.
Background: The Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) has been developed to measure musculoskeletal health status across musculoskeletal conditions and settings. However, the MSK-HQ needs to be further evaluated across settings and different languages.
Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare measurement properties of the MSK-HQ across Danish (DK) and English (UK) cohorts of patients from primary care physiotherapy services with musculoskeletal pain.
Methods: MSK-HQ was translated into Danish according to international guidelines. Measurement invariance was assessed by differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. Test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) were evaluated and compared between DK (n = 153) and UK (n = 166) cohorts.
Results: The Danish version demonstrated acceptable face and construct validity. Out of the 14 MSK-HQ items, three items showed DIF for language (pain/stiffness at night, understanding condition and confidence in managing symptoms) and three items showed DIF for pain location (walking, washing/dressing and physical activity levels). Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for test-retest were 0.86 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.91) for DK cohort and 0.77 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.90) for the UK cohort. The systematic measurement error was 1.6 and 3.9 points for the DK and UK cohorts respectively, with random measurement error being 8.6 and 9.9 points. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the change scores against patients’ own judgment at 12 weeks exceeded 0.70 in both cohorts. Absolute and relative MCIC estimates were 8–10 points and 26% for the DK cohort and 6–8 points and 29% for the UK cohort.
Conclusions: The measurement properties of MSK-HQ were acceptable across countries, but seem more suited for group than individual level evaluation. Researchers and clinicians should be aware that some discrepancy exits and should take the observed measurement error into account when evaluating change in scores over time.
Stratified care for low back pain (LBP) has been shown to be clinically- and cost-effective in the UK, but its transferability to the German healthcare system is unknown. This study explores LBP patients’ perspectives regarding future implementation of stratified care, through in-depth interviews (n = 12). The STarT-Back-Tool was completed by participants prior to interviews. Interview data were analysed using Grounded Theory. The overarching theme identified from the data was ‘treatment-success’, with subthemes of ‘assessment and treatment planning’, ‘acceptance of the questionnaire’ and ‘contextual factors’. Patients identified the underlying cause of pain as being of great importance (whereas STarT-Back allocates treatment based on prognosis). The integration of the STarT-Back-Tool in consultations was considered helpful as long as it does not disrupt the therapeutic relationship, and was acceptable if tool results are handled confidentially. Results indicate that for patients to find STarT-Back acceptable, the shift from a focus on identifying a cause of pain and subsequent diagnosis, to prediction-orientated treatment planning, must be made clear. Patient ‘buy in’ is important for successful uptake of clinical interventions, and findings can help to inform future strategies for implementing STarT-Back in the Germany, as well as having potential implications for transferability to other similar healthcare systems.