4.6 Article

Muscle activation changes after exercise rehabilitation for chronic low back pain

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.051

关键词

electromyography; exercise; low back pain; muscle relaxation; rehabilitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the changes in 2 electromyographic measures, flexion relaxation (FR) response and feed-forward activation of the deep abdominals, associated with low back pain (LBP) after different rehabilitation interventions. Design: A 2X2 factorial design with subjects' self-selecting treatment with randomization after 4 weeks to either the specific exercise group or exercise advice group for a further 12-week period. Setting: General community practitioners and university training center. Participants: Subjects with chronic nonspecific LBP were recruited for this study. A total of 112 people were initially screened, and 60 were recruited for the study, with 50 being available for long-term follow-up. Intervention: Four weeks of treatment (manipulative or nonmanipulation) and 12 weeks of subsequent exercise (supervised Swiss ball training or exercise advice). Main Outcome Measures: The Oswestry Disability Index, FR response measured at T12-L1 and L4-5, and feed-forward activation of the deep abdominal muscles. Results: More rapid improvements in disability were identified for subjects who received the supervised exercise program. The FR response at L4-5 also increased more for those who received directly supervised exercise. Long-term follow-up showed that there was still a between-group difference in the FR response, despite no difference in self-rated disability. Long-term changes were observed for the feed-forward activation of the deep abdominals; however, no exercise or treatment effects were identified. Conclusions: Supervised exercise rehabilitation leads to more rapid improvements in self-rated disability, which were associated with greater improvement in the low back FR response.

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

4.6
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