MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044521383 · doi:10.34917/18145043

Lumbopelvic Muscle Performance and Morphology Differences: Implications for Low Back Pain in Individuals with Unilateral Above-The-Knee Amputation

2020· article· en· W3044521383 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melissa Damele, Owen A. Ross, Ronauldo Robina

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmputationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyArtificial limbsAnatomySurgeryProsthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose: The number of people living with an amputation in the United States is rising at a rate of almost 200,000 cases a year [1]. The incidence of low back pain (LBP) in individuals with lower limb amputation (LLA) has been shown to be much greater than in the general population at 52%- 72% [2-4]. High amputation level, disuse, and abnormal movement patterns associated with prosthetic gait have been theorized to lead to decreased lower back muscle performance, contributing to the high prevalence of LBP in individuals with LLA [5-7]. However, lumbar muscle morphology and performance have not been examined in those with comorbid LLA and LBP. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the anatomical and functional characteristics of the lumbar muscles in individuals with unilateral LLA with and without LBP, and age-matched non-amputee controls. We compared the lumbar multifidus muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and thickness, and spinal extensor muscle strength and endurance between amputees with and without histories of LBP. Participants: This study included 11 participants, with 3 participants in each of the following groups: LLA without LBP (3 male, age=43.67±7.77 years, height=171.87±5.29 cm, weight=81.04±22.23 kg), LLA with LBP (3 male, age=64±13.08 years, height=180.34±5.08 cm, weight=76.66±8.02 kg), and 5 age-matched participants without LLA or LBP serving as the control group (5 male, age=45.4±7.47 years, height=178.82±8.15 cm, weight=87.82±12.11 kg). Participants were classified into the LBP group if they had experienced at least one episode of activity limiting LBP within the previous 12 months. Methods: On the day of testing, participants were asked to complete the following 5 questionnaires: the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, SF-36, PROMIS-29, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Houghton Scale of Prosthetic Use (Houghton Scale) [8- 13]. In addition to these questionnaires, a visual analogue score (VAS) was used to identify current, best, and worst pain levels. Ultrasound imaging was used to measure multifidus cross-sectional area (MF CSA) and thickness. During imaging, participants assumed a prone position on a table with 0-5° of lumbar lordosis (confirmed with inclinometry). For MF CSA, the imaging transducer was placed in the transverse plane with images captured bilaterally at L3-5 spinous process levels. For MF thickness, the transducer was placed in the longitudinal plane with images captured bilaterally at the level of L4 only. All images were analyzed using Image J software (ImageJ, 1.51m9, National Institutes of Health, USA). Test-retest reliability of the imaging and analysis procedures was established prior to data collection. Participants then completed a maximal effort back extension test using a dynamometer followed by a lumbar paraspinal endurance test following the Biering-Sorensen Protocol. Results: Average test time for the LLA with LBP group (32.66±52.50 sec) was significantly shorter than the LLA without LBP group (102.83±32.49 sec p=0.040). The LLA with LBP group reported significantly higher pain levels according to VAS scores over the previous year than both the control group and the LLA without LBP group (p=0.008 and p=0.006 respectively). Patient reported disability and functioning were significantly different when comparing LLA with LBP to healthy controls for the SF-36 Physical Functioning sub-set (p=0.033), Promis-29 Physical Function sub-set (p=0.036), and WOMAC (p=0.017). Discussion: Our findings suggested that individuals with LLA with LBP exhibited decreased spinal muscle endurance when compared to those with LLA but without LBP and the controls. This could be a contributing factor in the higher incidence of LBP among people with amputation as the MF are important spinal stabilizers during activity [14]. Our results agree with previous studies of in individuals with LBP that the rate of neuromuscular fatigue is significantly higher than those without LBP, leading to shorter Sorensen's times [15]. However, the causality of LBP and decreased lumbopelvic muscle performance could not be determined due to the cross-sectional nature of this study. Taken together we found that the LBP group had significantly more pain, decreased physical function and increased disability compared to the no-LBP and control groups.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno)Same topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207