Elsevier

Gait & Posture

Volume 41, Issue 1, January 2015, Pages 112-118
Gait & Posture

Low back pain and postural control, effects of task difficulty on centre of pressure and spinal kinematics

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.09.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Postural control in the frontal plane differs between low back pain (LBP) patients and healthy controls.

  • LBP patients use spinal adaptations when standing on a firm surface, feet together blindfold.

  • Spinal adaptations are not represented by centre of pressure (COP) measurements.

  • Additional measurements using e.g. inertial measurement units (IMU) attached to the trunk are needed, to capture these postural control strategies.

Abstract

Association of low back pain and standing postural control (PC) deficits are reported inconsistently. Demands on PC adaptation strategies are increased by restraining the input of visual or somatosensory senses. The objectives of the current study are, to investigate whether PC adaptations of the spine, hip and the centre of pressure (COP) differ between patients reporting non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) and asymptomatic controls. The PC adaption strategies of the thoracic and lumbar spine, the hip and the COP were measured in fifty-seven NSLBP patients and 22 asymptomatic controls. We tested three “feet together” conditions with increasing demands on PC strategies, using inertial measurement units (IMUs) on the spine and a Wii balance board for centre of pressure (COP) parameters. The differences between NSLBP patients and controls were most apparent when the participants were blindfolded, but remaining on a firm surface. While NSLBP patients had larger thoracic and lumbar spine mean absolute deviations of position (MADpos) in the frontal plane, the same parameters decreased in control subjects (relative change (RC): 0.23, 95% confidence interval: 0.03 to 0.45 and 0.03 to 0.48). The Mean absolute deviation of velocity (MADvel) of the thoracic spine in the frontal plane showed a similar and significant effect (RC: 0.12 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.25). Gender, age and pain during the measurements affected some parameters significantly. PC adaptions differ between NSLBP patients and asymptomatic controls. The differences are most apparent for the thoracic and lumbar parameters of MADpos, in the frontal plane and while the visual condition was removed.

Introduction

Postural control (PC) of the trunk when standing is regarded essential to keep or regain one's body position for stability and orientation, within challenging environments [1]. Postural control strategies are described as a feedback mechanism derived by the interaction of sensory input and adapted motor output [1]. Postural control strategies on firm ground with open eyes predominantly use peripheral or ankle strategies for the sagittal plane [2], [3]. In contrast the frontal plane control-mechanisms are described as proximal or hip loading/unloading strategies [3]. In a recent review changes in postural control sway excursions in patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) compared to asymptomatic controls were inconsistently reported in previous studies [4]. Some studies showed impaired postural control in the presence of LBP with increased body sway, sway velocity and loss of balance [5], [6] others did not find any differences in body sway or sway velocity [7], [8]. Possible reasons for these contradictory reports are the differences in tasks and conditions used in those studies [7], [9], [10]. Most studies evaluate centre of pressure (COP) movements using force plate technology [5], [8], [11]. However, range and velocity of segmental adaptations in thoracic, lumbar and hip segments cannot be described by COP variables, as only kinematic models can adequately account for segmental and directional strategies [6], [9], [10], [12], [13], [14], [15]. One recent study used additional kinematic measurements to evaluate hip and trunk control strategies in the sagittal plane while standing [5], [8]. Two electrogoniometers were placed over the first thoracic vertebra and the second sacral vertebra. They assessed sagittal plane kinematics and the mean position of the trunk. They found, that patients with LBP have larger forward trunk inclination during demanding PC tasks. Further kinematic measurements of body segments might even better discern differences in PC strategies of LBP patients and asymptomatic controls.

To date, no research evaluated movements of the thoracic and lumbar spine and the hip in the frontal and sagittal plane parallel with COP measurements during standing PC tasks.

Therefore the aim of this study was to examine the sway of the thoracic and lumbar spine, the hip and COP during three standing tasks conditions with increasing PC requirements in patients with NSLBP and asymptomatic controls. The research questions were (a) does the presence of LBP affects sway and sway velocity and are PC strategies different in asymptomatic controls and those with NSLBP, (b) how does changing the task difficulty in terms of visual and surface condition influences sway and sway velocity of the thoracic and lumbar spine, the hip and COP.

Section snippets

Subjects

Participants between 18 and 65 years were recruited at physiotherapy-practices, the university campus and by newspaper advertisements. Included were patients with NSLBP for longer than 4 weeks with at least moderate disability, defined as an Oswestry-disability-index (ODI) >8% and a low level of having biopsychosocial risk factors defined with less than 4 points in the STarT Back Screening tool [16], [17]. Excluded were subjects with specific LBP, vertigo or disturbance of the equilibrium,

Results

Fifty-seven patients with NSLBP and 22 asymptomatic controls from the local area were included (Table 1).

Subjects completed all tests with the exception of condition 3 (Blind-Foam). Three asymptomatic controls and four patients with NSLBP could not remain in the required position for 60 s.

Due to technical problems with the sensors there were two missing values in the variables of the hip and lumbar spine, respectively (1 patient, 1 control). Technical problems with the balance board led to

Discussion

Different adaptation strategies in postural control between NSLBP patients and asymptomatic controls were found for frontal plane variables of the trunk when the visual condition changed from open eyes to blindfold. This indicates that NSLBP patients need adaptive PC strategies using trunk movements, while in control subjects, hip loading/unloading strategies and a stable trunk suffices. Significant gender and age effects were demonstrated, with less MADpos and slower MADvel in men in six out

Conclusion

The current study states that increasing standing tasks difficulties affect COP, hip and spine control strategies in both sagittal and frontal planes. The frontal plane postural control mechanism measured directly on the spine using inertial movement sensor technology, differ between NSLBP patients and asymptomatic controls, when visual condition changes. These differences could not be detected by COP measurements alone and are valid, if the stance width is small, i.e. feet together. Mean

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Commission of Technology and Innovation of Switzerland, 12413.1. PFES.ES. The authors would like to thank All participating subjects, Valentine L. Marcar for English revision and Hocoma AG, Switzerland, for providing the Valedo Research Software and technical support.
Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors are aware of any financial or personal relationships with other people or organisations that could improperly influence this work.

References (30)

  • D.A. Winter et al.

    Unified theory regarding A/P and M/L balance in quiet stance

    J Neurophysiol

    (1996)
  • S. Brumagne et al.

    Persons with recurrent low back pain exhibit a rigid postural control strategy

    Eur Spine J

    (2008)
  • S. Luoto et al.

    One-footed and externally disturbed two-footed postural control in patients with chronic low back pain and healthy control subjects. A controlled study with follow-up

    Spine (Phila Pa 1976)

    (1998)
  • N.W. Mok et al.

    Hip strategy for balance control in quiet standing is reduced in people with low back pain

    Spine (Phila Pa 1976)

    (2004)
  • N. Paalanne et al.

    Isometric trunk muscle strength and body sway in relation to low back pain in young adults

    Spine (Phila Pa 1976)

    (2008)
  • Cited by (34)

    • Energy spectral density as valid parameter to compare postural control between subjects with nonspecific chronic low back pain vs healthy subjects: A case-control study

      2021, Musculoskeletal Science and Practice
      Citation Excerpt :

      Therefore, there is a need to carry out more studies that establish discriminatory variables with cut-off values to assess postural control, which can be used in clinical practice. Given that postural deficits in subjects with NSCLBP usually appear after prolonged times in standing position (Schelldorfer et al., 2015) and that ESD has been shown to be sensitive to changes in indicators related to postural control for the same position (Caña-Pino et al., 2019; Houdijk et al., 2015), it could be of interest to establish the behavior of this indicator in said population. It was hypothesized that the CoP displacement and ESD variables could be used to detect differences between healthy subjects and subjects with NSCLBP in relation to postural control.

    • Comparison of the reliance of the postural control system on the visual, vestibular and proprioceptive inputs in chronic low back pain patients and asymptomatic participants

      2021, Gait and Posture
      Citation Excerpt :

      Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is becoming a prevailing musculoskeletal problem in general population and is the sixth leading cause of years lived with disability in both developed and developing countries [1]. Patients with CLBP have been demonstrated to have impaired postural control under various conditions [2–6], particularly the challenging ones such as standing on an unstable support surface [3] or with visual deprivation [7,8]. Accurate proprioception inputs are critical for the postural control system by providing sense of position and movement, force, effort and heaviness associated with muscle contractions and perceived timing of muscular contractions [9].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text