The Relationship of Transversus Abdominis and Lumbar Multifidus Activation and Prognostic Factors for Clinical Success With a Stabilization Exercise Program: A Cross-Sectional Study
The Relationship of Transversus Abdominis and Lumbar Multifidus Activation and Prognostic Factors for Clinical Success With a Stabilization Exercise Program: A Cross-Sectional Study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.apmr.2009.08.146
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Fritz, Julie M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hebert, Jeffrey J.;Koppenhaver, Shane L.;Fritz, Julie M.
首页--期刊主要分类--期刊细介绍--期刊题录与文摘-期刊详细文摘内容一项横断面研究：腹横肌群与腰椎多裂肌群激活之间的关系以及稳定性训练方案对临床成功的预测因素。Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010；91：78-85.目的：用康复超声成像(RUSI)评估稳定运动方案和腰椎多裂(LM)与腹横肌(TRA)激活的预后因素之间的关系。设计：横断面研究。地点：门诊理疗诊所。参与者：当前患有下腰痛的志愿者(N=40)。干预：不适用。主要观察指标：我们研究了稳定运动方案与临床成功相关的预后因素之间的关系(俯卧位不稳定试验阳性，年龄91度，结果：LM肌的激活与存在的预后因素(皮尔逊相关系数[r]=-.558，P=.001)、俯卧位不稳定试验阳性的个体因素(点双列相关系数[r(PBIS)]=.376，P=.018)和节段性过度活动(r(PBIS)=.358，P=.025)之间存在显著的单变量关系。多变量分析表明，在控制了其他变量后，增加了变量“存在的预后因素的数量”，导致R-2显著增加(P=0.006)。未观察到预后因素与反式肌肉活动之间有显著的单变量或多变量关系。结论：LM肌活性降低，但反式肌肉活性与稳定性运动计划的临床成功预测因素的存在无关。我们的发现为研究人员和临床医生提供了证据，证明了本研究中检查的预后因素的结构有效性，以及作为稳定练习目标的LM肌肉的潜在临床重要性。
Hebert JJ, Koppenhaver SL, Magel JS, Fritz JM. The relationship of transversus abdominis and lumbar multifidus activation and prognostic factors for clinical success with a stabilization exercise program: a cross-sectional study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:78-85.Objective: To examine the relationship between prognostic factors for clinical success with a stabilization exercise program and lumbar multifidus (LM) and transversus abdominis (TrA) muscle activation assessed using rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI).Design: Cross-sectional study.Setting: Outpatient physical therapy clinic.Participants: Volunteers with current low back pain (N=40).Intervention: Not applicable.Main Outcome Measures: We examined the relationship between prognostic factors associated with clinical success with a stabilization exercise program (positive prone instability test, age 91 degrees, presence of lumbar hypermobility) and degree of TrA and LM muscle activation assessed by RUSI.Results: Significant univariate relationships were identified between LM muscle activation and the number of prognostic factors present (Pearson correlation coefficient [r] = -.558, P=.001), as well as the individual factors of a positive prone instability test (point biserial correlation coefficient [r(pbis)]=.376, P=.018) and segmental hypermobility (r(pbis) = .358, P=.025). The multivariate analyses indicated that after controlling for other variables, the addition of the variable "number of prognostic factors present" resulted in a significant increase in R-2 (P=.006). No significant univariate or multivariate relationships were observed between the prognostic factors and TrA muscle activation.Conclusions: Decreased LM muscle activation, but not TrA muscle activation, is associated with the presence of factors predictive of clinical success with a stabilization exercise program. Our findings provide researchers and clinicians with evidence regarding the construct validity of the prognostic factors examined in this study, as well as the potential clinical importance of the LM muscle as a target for stabilization exercises.