Purpose/Hypothesis: To determine if people with low back pain (LBP) who regularly participated in... more Purpose/Hypothesis: To determine if people with low back pain (LBP) who regularly participated in a rotation-related activity displayed more rotation-related impairments than people without LBP who did and did not participate in the activity.
Subjects: A convenience sample of 55 participants with LBP who participated in a rotation-related sport, 26 back healthy controls who participated in a rotation-related sport (BHC+RRS) and 42 back healthy controls who did not participate in a rotation-related sport (BHC-RRS). Participants were matched based on age, gender, and activity level.
Methods and Materials: Participants completed self-report measures and participated in a standardized clinical examination. The number of impairments exhibited during the clinical examination was calculated for each participant. One-way ANOVA tests were used to test for differences among groups in the (1) number and type of rotation-related impairments, i.e., occur during extremity movement test vs. overt trunk movement test, and (2) number of asymmetric rotation-related impairments. Tukey’s HSD statistic was calculated in the instance that an ANOVA test was significant. Chi-square tests were used to test for differences between groups in the prevalence of individual impairments. Eta squared, the phi coefficient, Cohen’s d statistics and standard error were calculated as appropriate to index effect sizes for the different comparisons.
Results: Compared to the BHC-RRS group, both the LBP and BHC+RRS groups displayed significantly more (1) rotation-related impairments (LBP: p<.001; BHC+RRS: p=.015) (2) asymmetric rotation-related impairments (LBP: p=.006; BHC+RRS: p=.020) and (3) rotation-related impairments with trunk movement tests (LBP: p=.002; BHC+RRS: p<.001). The LBP group had significantly more rotation-related impairments with extremity movement tests than both of the back healthy groups (BHC+RRS: p=.011; BHC-RRS: p<.001).
Conclusions: LBP and BHC+RRS groups demonstrated a similar number of total rotation-related impairments and asymmetric rotation-related impairments, and these numbers were greater than those of the BHC-RRS group. Compared to people without LBP, people with LBP displayed more rotation-related impairments when moving an extremity. These findings suggest that impairments associated with extremity movements may be associated with having a LBP condition.
Purpose/Hypothesis: To determine if people with low back pain (LBP) who regularly participated in... more Purpose/Hypothesis: To determine if people with low back pain (LBP) who regularly participated in a rotation-related activity displayed more rotation-related impairments than people without LBP who did and did not participate in the activity.
Subjects: A convenience sample of 55 participants with LBP who participated in a rotation-related sport, 26 back healthy controls who participated in a rotation-related sport (BHC+RRS) and 42 back healthy controls who did not participate in a rotation-related sport (BHC-RRS). Participants were matched based on age, gender, and activity level.
Methods and Materials: Participants completed self-report measures and participated in a standardized clinical examination. The number of impairments exhibited during the clinical examination was calculated for each participant. One-way ANOVA tests were used to test for differences among groups in the (1) number and type of rotation-related impairments, i.e., occur during extremity movement test vs. overt trunk movement test, and (2) number of asymmetric rotation-related impairments. Tukey’s HSD statistic was calculated in the instance that an ANOVA test was significant. Chi-square tests were used to test for differences between groups in the prevalence of individual impairments. Eta squared, the phi coefficient, Cohen’s d statistics and standard error were calculated as appropriate to index effect sizes for the different comparisons.
Results: Compared to the BHC-RRS group, both the LBP and BHC+RRS groups displayed significantly more (1) rotation-related impairments (LBP: p<.001; BHC+RRS: p=.015) (2) asymmetric rotation-related impairments (LBP: p=.006; BHC+RRS: p=.020) and (3) rotation-related impairments with trunk movement tests (LBP: p=.002; BHC+RRS: p<.001). The LBP group had significantly more rotation-related impairments with extremity movement tests than both of the back healthy groups (BHC+RRS: p=.011; BHC-RRS: p<.001).
Conclusions: LBP and BHC+RRS groups demonstrated a similar number of total rotation-related impairments and asymmetric rotation-related impairments, and these numbers were greater than those of the BHC-RRS group. Compared to people without LBP, people with LBP displayed more rotation-related impairments when moving an extremity. These findings suggest that impairments associated with extremity movements may be associated with having a LBP condition.
Uploads
Talks by Sara Bohall
Subjects: A convenience sample of 55 participants with LBP who participated in a rotation-related sport, 26 back healthy controls who participated in a rotation-related sport (BHC+RRS) and 42 back healthy controls who did not participate in a rotation-related sport (BHC-RRS). Participants were matched based on age, gender, and activity level.
Methods and Materials: Participants completed self-report measures and participated in a standardized clinical examination. The number of impairments exhibited during the clinical examination was calculated for each participant. One-way ANOVA tests were used to test for differences among groups in the (1) number and type of rotation-related impairments, i.e., occur during extremity movement test vs. overt trunk movement test, and (2) number of asymmetric rotation-related impairments. Tukey’s HSD statistic was calculated in the instance that an ANOVA test was significant. Chi-square tests were used to test for differences between groups in the prevalence of individual impairments. Eta squared, the phi coefficient, Cohen’s d statistics and standard error were calculated as appropriate to index effect sizes for the different comparisons.
Results: Compared to the BHC-RRS group, both the LBP and BHC+RRS groups displayed significantly more (1) rotation-related impairments (LBP: p<.001; BHC+RRS: p=.015) (2) asymmetric rotation-related impairments (LBP: p=.006; BHC+RRS: p=.020) and (3) rotation-related impairments with trunk movement tests (LBP: p=.002; BHC+RRS: p<.001). The LBP group had significantly more rotation-related impairments with extremity movement tests than both of the back healthy groups (BHC+RRS: p=.011; BHC-RRS: p<.001).
Conclusions: LBP and BHC+RRS groups demonstrated a similar number of total rotation-related impairments and asymmetric rotation-related impairments, and these numbers were greater than those of the BHC-RRS group. Compared to people without LBP, people with LBP displayed more rotation-related impairments when moving an extremity. These findings suggest that impairments associated with extremity movements may be associated with having a LBP condition.
Subjects: A convenience sample of 55 participants with LBP who participated in a rotation-related sport, 26 back healthy controls who participated in a rotation-related sport (BHC+RRS) and 42 back healthy controls who did not participate in a rotation-related sport (BHC-RRS). Participants were matched based on age, gender, and activity level.
Methods and Materials: Participants completed self-report measures and participated in a standardized clinical examination. The number of impairments exhibited during the clinical examination was calculated for each participant. One-way ANOVA tests were used to test for differences among groups in the (1) number and type of rotation-related impairments, i.e., occur during extremity movement test vs. overt trunk movement test, and (2) number of asymmetric rotation-related impairments. Tukey’s HSD statistic was calculated in the instance that an ANOVA test was significant. Chi-square tests were used to test for differences between groups in the prevalence of individual impairments. Eta squared, the phi coefficient, Cohen’s d statistics and standard error were calculated as appropriate to index effect sizes for the different comparisons.
Results: Compared to the BHC-RRS group, both the LBP and BHC+RRS groups displayed significantly more (1) rotation-related impairments (LBP: p<.001; BHC+RRS: p=.015) (2) asymmetric rotation-related impairments (LBP: p=.006; BHC+RRS: p=.020) and (3) rotation-related impairments with trunk movement tests (LBP: p=.002; BHC+RRS: p<.001). The LBP group had significantly more rotation-related impairments with extremity movement tests than both of the back healthy groups (BHC+RRS: p=.011; BHC-RRS: p<.001).
Conclusions: LBP and BHC+RRS groups demonstrated a similar number of total rotation-related impairments and asymmetric rotation-related impairments, and these numbers were greater than those of the BHC-RRS group. Compared to people without LBP, people with LBP displayed more rotation-related impairments when moving an extremity. These findings suggest that impairments associated with extremity movements may be associated with having a LBP condition.