Dataset Information

Postural Hypervigilance and Perception of Correct Sitting Posture in Individuals With and Without Low Back Pain.

ABSTRACT: Objectives To verify if there is a difference in postural hypervigilance in sitting in individuals with and without low back pain. Additionally, to observe whether there is a difference in the perception of correct sitting posture between individuals with low back pain and without low back pain. Methods The present study has a cross-sectional observational design, as a sample size of 92 individuals, later divided equally into two groups (with low back pain and without low back pain). Two instruments were used: the hypervigilance scale to analyze the frequency that volunteers correct their sitting posture during the day, and posture scans to investigate the perception of volunteers about the correct sitting posture. The data were submitted to the Shapiro-Wilk Normality test. To compare the values of Hypervigilance Scale, the Mann-Whitney, Chi-Square, and Fisher Exact tests were used to assess correct sitting posture. Results There was no significant difference between postural hypervigilance in sitting between individuals with low back pain and without low back pain. There was no significant difference between the choice of correct sitting posture between the group of individuals with and without low back pain. Conclusion There is no difference between the choice of correct sitting posture and the amount of postural hypervigilance in individuals with or without low back pain.

SUBMITTER: de Oliveira EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9757968 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Postural Hypervigilance and Perception of Correct Sitting Posture in Individuals With and Without Low Back Pain.

de Oliveira Eduardo Lima EL Coutinho Paula Fernanda Ferreira PFF Braga Uiara Martins UM Barsante Leonardo Drumond LD

Revista brasileira de ortopedia 20221013 6

<b>Objectives</b> To verify if there is a difference in postural hypervigilance in sitting in individuals with and without low back pain. Additionally, to observe whether there is a difference in the perception of correct sitting posture between individuals with low back pain and without low back pain. <b>Methods</b> The present study has a cross-sectional observational design, as a sample size of 92 individuals, later divided equally into two groups (with low back pain and without low back pa ...[more]

PMID: 36540732

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSitting on an unstable surface is a common paradigm to investigate trunk postural control among individuals with low back pain (LBP), by minimizing the influence lower extremities on balance control. Outcomes of many small studies are inconsistent (e.g., some find differences between groups while others do not), potentially due to confounding factors such as age, sex, body mass index [BMI], or clinical presentations. We conducted a systematic review with an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to investigate whether trunk postural control differs between those with and without LBP, and whether the difference between groups is impacted by vision and potential confounding factors.MethodsWe completed this review according to PRISMA-IPD guidelines. The literature was screened (up to 7th September 2023) from five electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. Outcome measures were extracted that describe unstable seat movements, specifically centre of pressure or seat angle. Our main analyses included: 1) a two-stage IPD meta-analysis to assess the difference between groups and their interaction with age, sex, BMI, and vision on trunk postural control; 2) and a two-stage IPD meta-regression to determine the effects of LBP clinical features (pain intensity, disability, pain catastrophizing, and fear-avoidance beliefs) on trunk postural control.ResultsForty studies (1,821 participants) were included for the descriptive analysis and 24 studies (1,050 participants) were included for the IPD analysis. IPD meta-analyses revealed three main findings: (a) trunk postural control was worse (higher root mean square displacement [RMSdispl], range, and long-term diffusion; lower mean power frequency) among individuals with than without LBP; (b) trunk postural control deteriorated more (higher RMSdispl, short- and long-term diffusion) among individuals with than without LBP when vision was removed; and (c) older age and higher BMI had greater adverse impacts on trunk postural control (higher short-term diffusion; longer time and distance coordinates of the critical point) among individuals with than without LBP. IPD meta-regressions indicated no associations between the limited LBP clinical features that could be considered and trunk postural control.ConclusionTrunk postural control appears to be inferior among individuals with LBP, which was indicated by increased seat movements and some evidence of trunk stiffening. These findings are likely explained by delayed or less accurate corrective responses.Systematic review registrationThis review has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021124658).

Project description:IntroductionNegative pain-related cognitions are associated with persistence of low-back pain (LBP), but the mechanism underlying this association is not well understood. We propose that negative pain-related cognitions determine how threatening a motor task will be perceived, which in turn will affect how lumbar movements are performed, possibly with negative long-term effects on pain.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of postural threat on lumbar movement patterns in people with and without LBP, and to investigate whether this effect is associated with task-specific pain-related cognitions.Methods30 back-healthy participants and 30 participants with LBP performed consecutive two trials of a seated repetitive reaching movement (45 times). During the first trial participants were threatened with mechanical perturbations, during the second trial participants were informed that the trial would be unperturbed. Movement patterns were characterized by temporal variability (CyclSD), local dynamic stability (LDE) and spatial variability (meanSD) of the relative lumbar Euler angles. Pain-related cognition was assessed with the task-specific 'Expected Back Strain'-scale (EBS). A three-way mixed Manova was used to assess the effect of Threat, Group (LBP vs control) and EBS (above vs below median) on lumbar movement patterns.ResultsWe found a main effect of threat on lumbar movement patterns. In the threat-condition, participants showed increased variability (MeanSDflexion-extension, p<0.000, η2 = 0.26; CyclSD, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.14) and decreased stability (LDE, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.14), indicating large effects of postural threat.ConclusionPostural threat increased variability and decreased stability of lumbar movements, regardless of group or EBS. These results suggest that perceived postural threat may underlie changes in motor behavior in patients with LBP. Since LBP is likely to impose such a threat, this could be a driver of changes in motor behavior in patients with LBP, as also supported by the higher spatial variability in the group with LBP and higher EBS in the reference condition.

Project description:The autonomic nervous system (ANS) and pain exhibit a reciprocal relationship, where acute pain triggers ANS responses, whereas resting ANS activity can influence pain perception. Nociceptive signalling can also be altered by 'top-down' processes occurring in the brain, brainstem and spinal cord, known as 'descending modulation'. By employing the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) paradigm, we previously revealed a connection between reduced low-frequency heart rate variability and CPM. Individuals with chronic pain often experience both ANS dysregulation and impaired CPM. Baroreceptors, which contribute to blood pressure and heart rate variability regulation, may play a significant role in this relationship, although their involvement in pain perception and their functioning in chronic pain have not been sufficiently explored. In the present study, we combined artificial 'baroreceptor stimulation' in both pressure pain and CPM paradigms, seeking to explore the role of baroreceptors in pain perception and descending modulation. In total, 22 individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and 29 individuals with no-pain (NP) took part in the present study. We identified a differential modulation of baroreceptor stimulation on pressure pain between the groups of NP and CLBP participants. Specifically, NP participants perceived less pain in response to baroreflex activation, whereas CLBP participants exhibited increased pain sensitivity. CPM scores were associated with baseline measures of baroreflex sensitivity in both CLBP and NP participants. Our data support the importance of the baroreflex in chronic pain and a possible mechanism of dysregulation involving the interaction between the ANS and descending pain modulation. KEY POINTS: Baroreflex stimulation has different effects on pressure pain in participants with chronic pain compared to matched individuals with no-pain. Baroreceptor activation decreases pain in participants with no-pain but increases pain perception in participants with chronic pain. Baroreflex sensitivity is associated with conditioned pain modulation in both groups of chronic pain and no-pain participants. The reactivity of the baroreflex during autonomic stress demonstrated a positive correlation with Pain Trait scores in participants with chronic back pain.

Project description:BackgroundAccording to the American Physical Therapy Association, there is strong evidence to show that vertebral mobilization and manipulation procedures can be used to improve spinal and hip mobility and reduce pain and incapacity in low back pain patients that fit the clinical prediction rule.ObjectivesTo evaluate the immediate effects of high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation on pain and postural control parameters in individuals with nonspecific low back pain.MethodsThis study used a participant-blinded and assessor-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial involving a single session, in which 24 participants were randomly distributed into control (simulated manipulation) and intervention (HVLA lumbar manipulation) groups. The primary (pain: subjective pain intensity and pressure pain threshold) and secondary outcomes (postural control: ellipse area, center of pressure [COP] excursion, COP RMS velocity, and differences between the COP and center of projected gravity) were evaluated before and after the session using a numerical pain scale, algometer, and a force platform. For all outcomes, multiple mixed 2 (group) × 2 (time) ANOVAs were performed.ResultsFor the subjective pain intensity, only time was significant as a main effect, where pre-intervention presented a greater value then post-intervention (F [1.44] = 4.377; p = 0.042; r = 0.30). For the pressure pain threshold no significant effect was found. For the postural control parameters, as a main effect, only the ellipse area was significantly greater in the control group (F [1.44] = 6.760; p = 0.013; effect size = 0.36).ConclusionsThere was a reduction in subjective pain intensity, evaluated using a numerical scale, in both the intervention and control groups immediately after the intervention, suggesting that the spinal manipulation had a similar effect to the placebo procedure. No effect of HVLA lumbar manipulation was identified for postural control variables in either the intervention or control groups.Trial registrationThe study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT02312778, registered at 14 September 2014.

Project description:Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is associated with postural control impairments and is highly prevalent in elderly people. The objective of this study is to verify whether anticipatory postural adjustments (APAs) and compensatory postural adjustments (CPAs) are affected by CLBP in elderly people by assessing their postural control during a self-initiated perturbation paradigm induced by rapid upper arm movement when pointing to a target. The participants' lower limb muscle onset and center of pressure (COP) displacements were assessed prior to perturbation and throughout the entire movement. T0 moment (i.e., the beginning of the movement) was defined as the anterior deltoid (DEL) onset, and all parameters were calculated with respect to it. The rectus femoris (RT), semitendinosus (ST), and soleous (SOL) showed delayed onset in the CLBP group compared with the control group: RF (control: - 0.094 ± 0.017 s; CLBP: - 0.026 ± 0.012 s, t = 12, p < 0.0001); ST (control: - 0.093 ± 0.013 s; CLBP: - 0.018 ± 0.019 s, t = 12, p < 0.0001); and SOL (control: - 0.086 ± 0.018 s; CLBP: - 0.029 ± 0.015 s, t = 8.98, p < 0.0001). In addition, COP displacement was delayed in the CLBP group (control: - 0.035 ± 0.021 s; CLBP: - 0.015 ± 0.009 s, t = 3; p = 0.003) and presented a smaller amplitude during APA COPAPA [control: 0.444 cm (0.187; 0.648); CLBP: 0.228 cm (0.096; 0.310), U = 53, p = 0.012]. The CLBP group required a longer time to reach the maximum displacement after the perturbation (control: 0.211 ± 0.047 s; CLBP 0.296 ± 0.078 s, t = 3.582, p = 0.0013). This indicates that CLBP elderly patients have impairments to recover their postural control and less efficient anticipatory adjustments during the compensatory phase. Our results suggest that people with CLBP have altered feedforward hip and ankle muscle control, as shown from the SOL, ST, and RT muscle onset. This study is the first study in the field of aging that investigates the postural adjustments of an elderly population with CLBP. Clinical assessment of this population should consider postural stability as part of a rehabilitation program.

Project description:(1) Background. High-level spinal cord injury (SCI) disrupts trunk control, leading to an impaired performance of upright postural tasks in sitting and standing. We previously showed that a novel robotic postural stand training with spinal cord epidural stimulation targeted at facilitating standing (Stand-scES) largely improved standing trunk control in individuals with high-level motor complete SCI. Here, we aimed at assessing the effects of robotic postural stand training with Stand-scES on sitting postural control in the same population. (2) Methods. Individuals with cervical (n = 5) or high-thoracic (n = 1) motor complete SCI underwent approximately 80 sessions (1 h/day; 5 days/week) of robotic postural stand training with Stand-scES, which was performed with free hands (i.e., without using handlebars) and included periods of standing with steady trunk control, self-initiated trunk and arm movements, and trunk perturbations. Sitting postural control was assessed on a standard therapy mat, with and without scES targeted at facilitating sitting (Sit-scES), before and after robotic postural stand training. Independent sit time and trunk center of mass (CM) displacement were assessed during a 5 min time window to evaluate steady sitting control. Self-initiated antero-posterior and medial-lateral trunk movements were also attempted from a sitting position, with the goal of covering the largest distance in the respective cardinal directions. Finally, the four Neuromuscular Recovery Scale items focused on sitting trunk control (Sit, Sit-up, Trunk extension in sitting, Reverse sit-up) were assessed. (3) Results. In summary, neither statistically significant differences nor large Effect Size were promoted by robotic postural stand training for the sitting outcomes considered for analysis. (4) Conclusions. The findings of the present study, together with previous observations, may suggest that robotic postural stand training with Stand-scES promoted trunk motor learning that was posture- and/or task-specific and, by itself, was not sufficient to significantly impact sitting postural control.

Project description:IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) is associated with altered somatosensory perception, which is involved in both involuntary and voluntary control of posture. Currently, there is a lack of methods and tools for assessing somatosensory acuity in patients with LBP. The purpose of this study was (1) to assess the reliability of the sway discrimination apparatus (SwayDA) (2) to evaluate the differences in somatosensory acuity between patients with LBP and pain-free individuals, and (3) to examine relationships between somatosensory acuity, severity of LBP, and mobility in patients with LBP.MethodsTwenty participants (10 patients with LBP and 10 matched asymptomatic controls) were recruited in a test-retest reliability test. Another 56 participants were recruited for this study with 28 individuals presenting with LBP and a further twenty-eight being asymptomatic. The SwayDA was custom-built to measure somatosensory perception during voluntary anterior-posterior (SwayDA-AP), medial-lateral to the dominant side (SwayDA-ML-D), and non-dominant side (SwayDA-ML-ND) postural sway control. Participants also completed mobility tests, including 10 times and 1-min sit-to-stand tests (10-STS, 1 m-STS). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated to quantify somatosensory acuity in discriminating different voluntary postural sway extents.ResultsThe ICC (2.1) for the SwayDA-AP, SwayDA-ML-D, and SwayDA-ML-ND were 0.741, 0.717, and 0.805 with MDC95 0.071, 0.043, and 0.050. Patients with LBP demonstrated significantly lower SwayDA scores (tSwayDA-AP = -2.142, p = 0.037; tSwayDA-ML-D = -2.266, p = 0.027) than asymptomatic controls. The AUC values of the SwayDA-AP test were significantly correlated with ODI (rSwayDA-AP-ODI = -0.391, p = 0.039). Performances on the 1 m-STS and the 10-STS were significantly correlated with the AUC scores from all the SwayDA tests (-0.513 ≤ r ≤ 0.441, all p < 0.05).DiscussionThe SwayDA tests evaluated showed acceptable reliability in assessing somatosensory acuity during voluntary postural sway. Somatosensory acuity was diminished in patients with LBP compared to asymptomatic controls. In patients with LBP, lower somatosensory acuity was associated with increased LBP-related disability. Future research could focus on investigating the factors contributing to the decreased somatosensory perception and mobility in individuals with LBP.

Dataset Information

Postural Hypervigilance and Perception of Correct Sitting Posture in Individuals With and Without Low Back Pain.

Publications

Postural Hypervigilance and Perception of Correct Sitting Posture in Individuals With and Without Low Back Pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets