7 research outputs found

    Associations between Measures of Structural Morphometry and Sensorimotor Performance in Individuals with Nonspecific Low Back Pain

    Get PDF
    ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To date, most structural brain imaging studies in individuals with nonspecific low back pain have evaluated volumetric changes. These alterations are particularly found in sensorimotor-related areas. Although it is suggested that specific measures, such as cortical surface area and cortical thickness, reflect different underlying neural architectures, the literature regarding these different measures in individuals with nonspecific low back pain is limited. Therefore, the current study was designed to investigate the association between the performance on a sensorimotor task, more specifically the sit-to-stand-to-sit task, and cortical surface area and cortical thickness in individuals with nonspecific low back pain and healthy controls

    Functional Changes in Muscle Afferent Neurones in an Osteoarthritis Model: Implications for Impaired Proprioceptive Performance

    Get PDF
    Impaired proprioceptive performance is a significant clinical issue for many who suffer osteoarthritis (OA) and is a risk factor for falls and other liabilities. This study was designed to evaluate weight-bearing distribution in a rat model of OA and to determine whether changes also occur in muscle afferent neurones.Intracellular recordings were made in functionally identified dorsal root ganglion neurones in acute electrophysiological experiments on the anaesthetized animal following measurements of hind limb weight bearing in the incapacitance test. OA rats but not naΓ―ve control rats stood with less weight on the ipsilateral hind leg (Pβ€Š=β€Š0.02). In the acute electrophysiological experiments that followed weight bearing measurements, action potentials (AP) elicited by electrical stimulation of the dorsal roots differed in OA rats, including longer AP duration (Pβ€Š=β€Š0.006), slower rise time (Pβ€Š=β€Š0.001) and slower maximum rising rate (Pβ€Š=β€Š0.03). Depolarizing intracellular current injection elicited more APs in models than in naΓ―ve muscle afferent neurones (Pβ€Š=β€Š0.01) indicating greater excitability. Axonal conduction velocity in model animals was slower (Pβ€Š=β€Š0.04).The present study demonstrates changes in hind limb stance accompanied by changes in the functional properties of muscle afferent neurones in this derangement model of OA. This may provide a possible avenue to explore mechanisms underlying the impaired proprioceptive performance and perhaps other sensory disorders in people with OA

    The effect of changing movement and posture using motion-sensor biofeedback, versus guidelines-based care, on the clinical outcomes of people with sub-acute or chronic low back pain-a multicentre, cluster-randomised, placebo-controlled, pilot trial

    Get PDF
    Background: The aims of this pilot trial were to (i) test the hypothesis that modifying patterns of painful lumbo-pelvic movement using motion-sensor biofeedback in people with low back pain would lead to reduced pain and activity limitation compared with guidelines-based care, and (ii) facilitate sample size calculations for a fully powered trial. Methods: A multicentre (8 clinics), cluster-randomised, placebo-controlled pilot trial compared two groups of pati ents seeking medical or physiotherapy primary care for sub-acute and chronic back pain. It was powered for longitudinal analysis, but not for adjusted single-time point comparisons. The intervention group (n?=?58) received modification of movement patterns augmented by motion-sensor movement biofeedback (ViMove, dorsaVi.com) plus guidelines-based medical or physiotherapy care. The control group (n?=?54) received a placebo (wearing the motion-sensors without biofeedback) plus guidelines-based medical or physiotherapy care. Primary outcomes were self-reported pain intensity (VAS) and activity limitation (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS)), all on 0-100 scales. Both groups received 6-8 treatment sessions. Outcomes were measured seven times during 10-weeks of treatment and at 12, 26 and 52 week follow-up, with 17.0 % dropout. Patients were not informed of group allocation or the study hypothesis. Results: Across one-year, there were significant between-group differences favouring the intervention group [generalized linear model coefficient (95 % CI): group effect RMDQ -7.1 (95 % CI-12.6;-1.6), PSFS -10.3 (-16.6; -3.9), QVAS -7.7 (-13.0; -2.4); and group by time effect differences (per 100 days) RMDQ -3.5 (-5.2; -2.2), PSFS -4.7 (-7.0; -2.5), QVAS -4.8 (-6.1; -3.5)], all p? < ?0.001. Risk ratios between groups of probability of improving by > 30 % at 12-months?=?RMDQ 2.4 (95 % CI 1.5; 4.1), PSFS 2.5 (1.5; 4.0), QVAS 3.3 (1.8; 5.9). The only device-related side-effects involved transient skin irritation from tape used to mount motion sensors. Conclusions: Individualised movement retraining using motion-sensor biofeedback resulted in significant and sustained improvements in pain and activity limitation that persisted after treatment finished. This pilot trial also refined the procedures and sample size requirements for a fully powered RCT. This trial (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry NCT01572779) was equally funded by dorsaVi P/L and the Victorian State Government
    corecore