Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Analysis of relative kinematic index with normalized standing time between subjects with and without recurrent low back pain.

European Spine Journal 2017 Februrary
PURPOSE: Although subjects with recurrent low back pain (LBP) demonstrate altered postural control, their postural steadiness during one leg standing is unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate postural steadiness based on relative kinematic index of the lower limbs and trunk with normalized standing time in subjects with recurrent LBP during dominant and non-dominant leg standing.

METHODS: Sixty individuals participated in the study, including 29 subjects in the control group (18 male, 11 female) and 31 subjects with recurrent LBP (21 male, 10 female). The outcome measures included relative kinematic index of the body regions and normalized standing time during the one leg standing test. The relative kinematic index was the ratio between standstill time and successful standing time. The normalized standing time was defined as a ratio between the successful standing time and the requested standing time.

RESULTS: The control group demonstrated significantly longer normalized standing time on the dominant (t = -2.57, p = 0.013) and non-dominant (t = -2.78, p = 0.007) legs than the LBP group. The relative kinematic index of the core spine model significantly decreased for the dominant (t = -3.01, p = 0.004) and non-dominant (t = -3.06, p = 0.003) legs in the LBP group. In addition, the kinematic index indicated pelvis and non-dominant shank during dominant leg standing (R 2  = 0.97) in the LBP group. In the control group, the pelvis was significantly correlated with the core spine model during standing on the dominant (R 2  = 0.95) and non-dominant (R 2  = 0.97) legs.

CONCLUSIONS: The relative kinematic index of the pelvis was found to be most significant for longer standing durations in both groups. In the LBP group, the shank and foot were significantly higher in addition to the pelvis due to possible compensatory motion. The control group took advantage of pelvic control with the core spine to minimize lower limb movements. Clinicians need to consider the core spine for pelvic control to refine postural adaptations in subjects with recurrent LBP.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app