4.3 Article

Investigation of trunk muscle co-contraction and its association with low back pain development during prolonged sitting

期刊

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMYOGRAPHY AND KINESIOLOGY
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 778-786

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.02.001

关键词

Prolonged sitting; Muscle co-contraction; Transient low back pain development

资金

  1. Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada
  2. Dr. J. Drake's NSERC Discovery Grant
  3. York University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous work has shown muscle activation differences between chronic low back pain patients and healthy controls in sitting postures, and between asymptomatic individuals who do (PDs: pain developers) and do not (NPDs: non-pain developers) develop transient back pain during prolonged standing (as determined using a visual analog scale). The current study aimed to investigate differences in trunk muscle co-contraction between PD and NPD individuals over 2 h of prolonged sitting. Ten healthy males sat continuously for 2 h while performing tasks that simulated computer-aided-drafting; four were classified as PDs, and six as NPDs. Co-contraction indices were calculated from EMG data collected from eight trunk muscles bilaterally, and compared between pain groups and over time. PDs exhibited higher levels of co-contraction than NPDs. Additionally, co-contraction tended to increase over time, and was significantly correlated to pain development. The relationship between co-contraction and back pain development may actually be circular, in that it is both causal and adaptive: high co-contraction initially predisposes to pain development, following which co-contraction further increases in an attempt to alleviate the pain, and the cycle perpetuates. Further work will be required to elucidate the exact nature of this relationship, and to confirm the generalizability to other populations. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据