2026-05-27T04:50:15Zhttps://riuma.uma.es/rest/oai/requestoai:riuma.uma.es:10630/82592026-02-03T12:29:40Zcom_10630_2254col_10630_37959
RIUMA. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Málaga
author
Cuesta-Vargas, Antonio
author
González-Sánchez, Manuel
2014-10-20T10:45:14Z
2014-10-20T10:45:14Z
2014-10-20
http://hdl.handle.net/10630/8259
Purpose: To compare, in healhty subjects and low back pain patients, the erector spinal muscle response in a máximum isometric contraction intensities using simultaneously electromyography and ultrasonography.
Participants: 59 subjects: 33 Healthy persons (45% ♀). 26 LBP patients (39% ♀) with a mean age of 30.39 (±7.785).
Methods: Cross sectional study. Participants, following a maximal strength test as measured by a load cell, perform an isometric contraction of maximum strength. From sitting, each subject develops a maximum isometric lumbar extension, locked at 45 degrees from vertical. The hip and this of the subject were attached by a strap. After preliminary training, each subject performed three repetitions of described gesture resting for a minute and a half between each attempt. Records were taken throughout the maximum contraction, EMG signal and a ultrasonography image, for each ES (right and left). Measured torque, inclination angle, thickness and electromyography activation (MVC).
Analysis: We performed a descriptive analysis of both groups and subsequently made T-Student test for independent data in each of the variables measured.
Results: Mean values for groups of healthy subjects and low back pain patients were, respectively: Torque: 61.652 (±20.137); 70.298 (±25.053). Right Angle: 6.48 (±2.181); 7.15 (±2.53). Left Angle: 5.36 (±2.26); 6.38 (±1.86). Right Thickness: 0.031 (±0.005); 0.033 (±0.008). Left Thickness: 0.032 (±0.006); 0.034 (±0.006). Right MVC: 558.64 (±211.029); 576.15 (±267.69). Left MVC: 589.21 (±257.739); 671.15 (±370.722). No significant differences were found in any variable when comparing the results between healthy subjects and low back pain patients. Torque: −8.65 (±9.02) (p = 0.347). Angle: Right: −0.659 (±0.613) (p = 0.280); Left: −1.021 (±0.549) (p = 0.068). Thick-ness: Right: 0.00 (±0.00) (p=0.259); Left: 0.00 (±0.00) (p=0.069). MVC: Right: -17.52 (±62.29) (p=0.780). Left: −81.84 (±81.91) (p = 0.321).
Conclusions: Knowing how the erector spinal muscle behaves in a isometric back extension test, noting that biomechanically there are not significant differences in the responses with respect to a healthy subject, physical therapists could perform planning treatment which is the biopsychosocial model supported by the biomechanical model.
eng
Lumbalgia
Biomecánica
Differences in the biomechanical response between healthy and low back pain patients from a isometric extension test
conference output
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
URL
https://riuma.uma.es/bitstreams/c4b17398-e4a1-4e2a-83e2-ff3823c3e40f/download
File
MD5
c110da9e68f0e5dbbf8e3c3b82595f81
118535
application/pdf
DIFFERENCES IN THE .pdf
URL
https://riuma.uma.es/bitstreams/bd40030f-4788-4772-81e3-31ddbb2e6fd7/download
File
MD5
89071e753d8418ce49787e8b150a9185
2505
text/plain
DIFFERENCES IN THE .pdf.txt