Lumbar Spine and Hip Kinematics and Muscle Activation Patterns during Coitus: A comparison of common coital positions

Qualitative studies investigating the sexual activity of people with low back pain found a substantial reduction in the frequency of coitus and have shown that pain during coitus due to mechanical factors (i.e., movements and postures) are the primary reason for this decreased frequency. However, a biomechanical analysis of coitus has never been done. The main objective of this study was to describe male and female lumbar spine and hip motion and muscle activation patterns during coitus and compare these motions and muscle activity across five common coital positions. Specifically, lumbar spine and hip motion in the sagittal plane and electromyography signal amplitudes of selected trunk, hip, and thigh muscles were described and compared. A secondary objective was to determine if simulated coitus could be used in place of real coitus for future coitus biomechanics research. Ten healthy males (29.3 ± 6.9 years, 176.5 ± 8.6 centimeters, 84.9 ± 14.5 kilograms) and ten healthy females (29.8 ± 8.0 years, 164.9 ± 3.0 centimeters, 64.2 ± 7.2 kilograms) were included for analysis in this study. These couples had approximately 4.7 ± 3.9 years of sexual experience with each other. This study was a repeated-measures design, where the independent variables, coital position and condition, were varied five (i.e., QUADRUPED1, QUADRUPED2, MISSIONARY1, MISSIONARY2, and SIDELYING) and two (i.e., real and simulated) times, respectively. Recruited participants engaged in coitus in five pre-selected positions (presented in random order) for 20 seconds per position first in a simulated condition, and again in a real condition. Three-dimensional (3D) lumbar spine and hip kinematic data were continuously collected for the duration of each trial by optoelectronic and electromagnetic motion capture systems. Electromyography (EMG) signals were also continuously collected for the duration of each trial. The kinematic data and EMG signals were collected simultaneously for both participants. Five sexual positions were chosen for this study based on the findings of previous literature and a biomechanical rationale. QUADRUPED – rear-entry, female quadruped, male kneeling behind – had two variations; in QUADRUPED1 the female was supporting her upper body with her elbows and in QUADRUPED2 the female was supporting her upper body with her hands. MISSIONARY – front-entry, female supine, male prone on top – also had two variations; in MISSIONARY1 the female was not flexing her hips or knees and the male was supporting his upper body with his hands, but in MISSIONARY2, the female was flexing her hips and knees and the male was supporting his upper body with his elbows. SIDELYING – rear-entry, female side-lying on her left side, male side-lying behind – did not have any variations. To determine if each coital position had distinct spine and hip kinematic and muscle activation profiles, separate univariate general linear models (GLM) (factor: coital position = five levels, α=0.05) followed by Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc analysis were used. To determine if simulated coitus was representative of real coitus across all spine and hip kinematic and muscle activation outcome variables, paired-sample t-tests (α=0.05) were performed on all outcome variables for the real condition and their respective simulated values. In general, the coital positions studied showed that, for both males and females, coitus is mainly a flexion-extension movement of the lumbar spine and hips. Males used a greater range of their spine and hip motion in comparison to females. As expected, differences were found between coital positions for males and females and simulated coitus was not representative of real coitus, in particular the spine and hip kinematic profiles. The results found in this biomechanical analysis of common coital positions may be useful in a clinical context. It is recommended that during the acute stage of a low back injury resulting in flexion-, extension-, or motion-intolerance that coitus be avoided. If the LBP is a more chronic issue, particular common coital positions should be avoided. For the flexion-intolerant male patient, avoid SIDELYING and MISSIONARY2 as they were shown to require the most flexion. Both variations of QUADRUPED are the more spine-sparing of coital positions followed by, MISSIONARY1. Coaching the male patient on proper hip-hinging technique while thrusting – an easy technique to incorporate in both variations of QUADRUPED – will likely decrease spine movement and increase the spine-sparing quality of QUADRUPED. For the flexion-intolerant female patient, avoid both variations of MISSIONARY, especially with hip and knee flexion, as they were shown to elicit the most spine flexion. QUADRUPED2 and SIDELYING are the more spine-sparing coital positions, followed by QUADRUPED1. Subtle posture changes for a coital position should not be considered lightly; seemingly subtle differences in posture can change the spine kinematic profile significantly, resulting in a coital position that was considered spine-sparing becoming a position that should be avoided. Thus, spine-sparing coitus appears to be possible for the flexion-, extension-, and motion-intolerant patient. Health care practitioners may recommend appropriate coital positions and coach coital movement patterns, such as speed control and hip-hinging. With respect to future research in the area of sex biomechanics, using simulated coitus in replace of real coitus is not justifiable according to the data of this study. However, including a simulated condition did prove beneficial for increasing the comfort level of the couples and allowing time to practice the experimental protocol. Future directions may address female-centric positions (e.g., ‘reverse missionary’ with male supine and female seated on top), and back-pained patients with and without an intervention (e.g., movement pattern coaching or aides, such as a lumbar support)

Character, Incidence, and Predictors of Knee Pain and Activity after Infrapatellar Intramedullary Nailing of an Isolated Tibia Fracture

© Copyright 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. Objective: To study the activity and incidence of knee pain after sustaining an isolated tibia fracture treated with an infrapatellar intramedullary nail at 1 year. Design: Retrospective review of prospective cohort. Setting: Multicenter Academic and Community hospitals. Patients: Four hundred thirty-seven patients with an isolated tibia fracture completed a 12-month assessment on pain and self-reported activity. Intervention: Infrapatellar intramedullary nail. Outcomes: Demographic information, comorbid conditions, injury characteristics, and surgical technique were recorded. Knee pain was defined on a 1-7 scale with 1 being no pain and 7 being a very great deal of pain. Knee pain \u3e4 was considered clinically significant. Patients reported if they were able, able with difficulty, or unable to perform the following activities: kneel, run, climb stairs, and walk prolonged. Variables were tested in multilevel multivariable regression analyses. Results: In knee pain, 11% of patients reported a good deal to a very great deal of pain (\u3e4), and 52% of patients reported no or very little pain at 12 months. In activity at 12 months, 26% and 29% of patients were unable to kneel or run, respectively, and 31% and 35% of patients, respectively, stated they were able with difficulty or unable to use stairs or walk. Conclusions: Clinically significant knee pain (\u3e4/7) was present in 11% of patients 1 year after a tibia fracture. Of note, 31%-71% of patients had difficulty performing or were unable to perform routine daily activities of kneeling, running, and stair climbing, or walking prolonged distances

Impact of centre volume, surgeon volume, surgeon experience and geographic location on reoperation after intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures

Background: Tibial shaft fractures are the most common long-bone injury, with a reported annual incidence of more than 75 000 in the United States. This study aimed to determine whether patients with tibial fractures managed with intramedullary nails experience a lower rate of reoperation if treated at higher-volume hospitals, or by higher-volume or more experienced surgeons. Methods: The Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Patients with Tibial Fractures (SPRINT) was a multicentre randomized clinical trial comparing reamed and nonreamed intramedullary nailing on rates of reoperation to promote fracture union, treat infection or preserve the limb in patients with open and closed fractures of the tibial shaft. Using data from SPRINT, we quantified centre and surgeon volumes into quintiles. We performed analyses adjusted for type of fracture (open v. closed), type of injury (isolated v. multitrauma), gender and age for the primary outcome of reoperation using multivariable logistic regression. Results: There were no significant differences in the odds of reoperation between high- and low-volume centres (p = 0.9). Overall, surgeon volume significantly affected the odds of reoperation (p = 0.03). The odds of reoperation among patients treated by moderate-volume surgeons were 50% less than those among patients treated by very-low-volume surgeons (odds ratio [OR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.88), and the odds of reoperation among patients treated by high-volume surgeons were 47% less than those among patients treated by very-low-volume surgeons (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30-0.93). Conclusion: There appears to be no significant additional patient benefit in treatment by a higher-volume centre for intramedullary fixation of tibial shaft fractures. Additional research on the effects of surgical and clinical site volume in tibial shaft fracture management is needed to confirm this finding. The odds of reoperation were higher in patients treated by very-low-volume surgeons; this finding may be used to optimize the results of tibial shaft fracture management

Does Participation in a Randomized Clinical Trial Change Outcomes? An Evaluation of Patients Not Enrolled in the SPRINT Trial

© Copyright 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. Objectives: To determine the extent to which knowledge from clinical trial protocols is transferred to nonparticipating patients. Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a large clinical trial. Setting: Six level-1 international trauma centers. Methods: We compared rates and timing of reoperation in a subset of patients enrolled in the Study to Prospectively evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Patients with Tibial Fractures (SPRINT) to concurrent patients who were eligible but not enrolled. This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected trial data. The records of 6 of the original SPRINT centers were searched for non-SPRINT patients who underwent intramedullary nailing of a closed tibial fracture. The rate and timing of reoperation were compared. A P \u3c 0.05 was considered significant. Results: One hundred fourteen non-SPRINT patients were compared with 328 patients enrolled in SPRINT from those same sites. There were 7 reoperations (6.1%) in non-SPRINT patients versus 18 (5.2%) in SPRINT patients [odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 3.13; P 0.811]. There was no difference in the time to reoperation between the SPRINT and non-SPRINT patients (6.2 vs. 6.8 months, 95% CI of the difference -3.8 to 2.6; P 0.685) or in the proportion of patients who underwent reoperation before 6 months (29% vs. 43%; OR 1.75; 95% CI 0.18 to 15.41; P 0.647). Conclusions: Patients not enrolled in SPRINT had similarly low rates of reoperation for nonunion, and the average time to reoperation for both groups was longer than 6 months. A 6-month waiting period may have allowed slow-to-heal fractures adequate time to heal, thereby reducing the rate of diagnosis of nonunion. As such, this waiting period could contribute to lower-than-expected reoperation rates for nonunion. It is possible that clinical trials may beneficially influence the care of nonenrolled patients