See the published version of this preprint at BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Chu Huai Wang
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8071-9298
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Pressure biofeedback unit (PBU) is a widely used non-invasive device for the monitoring of transverse abdominals (TA) and multifidus (MF) muscles in patients with low back pain (LBP). There is little research that compared trunk muscle activities with pressure feedback during trunk muscle contraction in a seated position. The aim this study was to compare muscle activities between deep local trunk muscles (TA and MF) and different target pressures (50, 60 and 70mmHg) of PBU in individuals with and without cLBP.
Methods: Twenty-two patients with chronic LBP (cLBP) and 24 age matched healthy individuals were recruited. Electromyography (EMG) signals were recorded from the TA and MF muscles while the TA and MF were contracted to achieve PBU pressure value of 50, 60 and 70mmHg in random order. The average EMG amplitude (AEMG) of 3 replicate trials was used in the analysis after normalization to %MVIC. %MVIC is defined as the mean of the three AEMG divided by the AEMG of MVIC. Two-way ANOVA was performed to assess the effects of groups (Healthy and cLBP) and the three different target pressures of PBU. Spearman’s correlation analysis was performed in the cLBP group to determine potential correlations between EMG activity, NPRS and ODI.
Results: The %MVIC of the TA and MF in the cLBP group were statistically higher than the control group at each pressure value (P＜0.05). The slope of the %MVIC-pressure of the cLBP subjects was significantly steeper than the healthy subjects (TA: P=0.01, MF: P＜0.001). During maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of TA and MF, compared with pain-free group, cLBP subjects showed a decrease in EMG amplitudes (P≤0.001). The MVIC of MF was negatively correlated with Numerical Pain Rating Scale (r = -0.48, P=0.024) and Oswestry Disability Index (r = -0.59, P=0.004).
Conclusions: The study demonstrated the feasibility of using PBU to assess muscle contraction that corresponds with changes of muscle activity as measured by EMG. Clinicians may be able to confer PBU measurements with EMG recordings to estimate the level of muscle activities during MF and TA contraction exercise in patients with cLBP.
Keywords
low back pain, multifidus, pressure biofeedback unit, transverse abdominals
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.
Version 2
Posted 16 Mar, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 22 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 02 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 18 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 18 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 17 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 10 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 09 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 09 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 10 Feb, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 06 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 06 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #8 agreed
On 04 Feb, 2020
Review #6 received
Received 03 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #7 agreed
On 01 Feb, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 01 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #6 agreed
On 30 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 29 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 28 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 27 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 27 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 13 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 06 Jan, 2020
Editor assigned
On 12 Dec, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 11 Dec, 2019
Editor invited
On 11 Dec, 2019
First submitted
On 10 Dec, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Orthopedics
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Chu Huai Wang
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8071-9298
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.
Version 2
Posted 16 Mar, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 22 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 02 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 18 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 18 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 17 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 10 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 09 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 09 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 10 Feb, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 06 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 06 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #8 agreed
On 04 Feb, 2020
Review #6 received
Received 03 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #7 agreed
On 01 Feb, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 01 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #6 agreed
On 30 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 29 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 28 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 27 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 27 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 13 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 06 Jan, 2020
Editor assigned
On 12 Dec, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 11 Dec, 2019
Editor invited
On 11 Dec, 2019
First submitted
On 10 Dec, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Orthopedics
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.
Background: Pressure biofeedback unit (PBU) is a widely used non-invasive device for the monitoring of transverse abdominals (TA) and multifidus (MF) muscles in patients with low back pain (LBP). There is little research that compared trunk muscle activities with pressure feedback during trunk muscle contraction in a seated position. The aim this study was to compare muscle activities between deep local trunk muscles (TA and MF) and different target pressures (50, 60 and 70mmHg) of PBU in individuals with and without cLBP.
Methods: Twenty-two patients with chronic LBP (cLBP) and 24 age matched healthy individuals were recruited. Electromyography (EMG) signals were recorded from the TA and MF muscles while the TA and MF were contracted to achieve PBU pressure value of 50, 60 and 70mmHg in random order. The average EMG amplitude (AEMG) of 3 replicate trials was used in the analysis after normalization to %MVIC. %MVIC is defined as the mean of the three AEMG divided by the AEMG of MVIC. Two-way ANOVA was performed to assess the effects of groups (Healthy and cLBP) and the three different target pressures of PBU. Spearman’s correlation analysis was performed in the cLBP group to determine potential correlations between EMG activity, NPRS and ODI.
Results: The %MVIC of the TA and MF in the cLBP group were statistically higher than the control group at each pressure value (P＜0.05). The slope of the %MVIC-pressure of the cLBP subjects was significantly steeper than the healthy subjects (TA: P=0.01, MF: P＜0.001). During maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of TA and MF, compared with pain-free group, cLBP subjects showed a decrease in EMG amplitudes (P≤0.001). The MVIC of MF was negatively correlated with Numerical Pain Rating Scale (r = -0.48, P=0.024) and Oswestry Disability Index (r = -0.59, P=0.004).
Conclusions: The study demonstrated the feasibility of using PBU to assess muscle contraction that corresponds with changes of muscle activity as measured by EMG. Clinicians may be able to confer PBU measurements with EMG recordings to estimate the level of muscle activities during MF and TA contraction exercise in patients with cLBP.
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...