2. Universidad Cardenal Herrera-CEU

Study design: Double-blind, randomized parallel sham-controlled trial with concealed allocation and intention-to treat analysis. Objective: To investigate the effects of an isolate myofascial release (MFR) protocol on pain, disability, and fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Summary of background data: MFR is a form of manual medicine widely used by physiotherapists in the management of different musculoskeletal pathologies. Up to this moment, no previous studies have reported the effects of an isolated MFR treatment in patients with CLBP. Methods: Fifty-four participants, with nonspecific CLBP, were randomized to MFR group (n = 27) receiving four sessions of myofascial treatment, each lasting 40 minutes, and to control group (n = 27) receiving a sham MFR. Variables studied were pain measured by means Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and visual analog scale (VAS), disability measured with Roland Morris Questionnaire, and fear-avoidance beliefs measured with Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. Results: Subjects receiving MFR displayed significant improvements in pain (SF-MPQ) (mean difference -7.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -14.5 to -1.1, P = 0.023) and sensory SF-MPQ subscale (mean difference -6.1; 95% CI: -10.8 to -1.5, P = 0.011) compared to the sham group, but no differences were found in VAS between groups. Disability and the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire score also displayed a significant decrease in the MFR group (P < 0.05) as compared to sham MFR. Conclusion: MFR therapy produced a significant improvement in both pain and disability. Because the minimal clinically important differences in pain and disability are, however, included in the 95% CI, we cannot know whether this improvement is clinically relevant.

Various stimuli such as the flexibility of lumbopelvic structures influence the neuromuscular responses of the trunk musculature, leading to different load sharing strategies and reflex muscle responses from the afferents of lumbopelvic mechanoreceptors. This link between flexibility and neuromuscular response has been poorly studied. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between lumbopelvic flexibility and neuromuscular responses of the erector spinae, hamstring and abdominal muscles during trunk flexion-extension. Lumbopelvic movement patterns were measured in 29 healthy women, who were separated into two groups according to their flexibility during trunk flexion-extension. The electromyographic responses of erector spinae, rectus abdominis and biceps femoris were also recorded. Subjects with greater lumbar flexibility had significantly less pelvic flexibility and vice versa. Subjects with greater pelvic flexibility had a higher rate of relaxation and lower levels of hamstring activation during maximal trunk flexion. The neuromuscular response patterns of the hamstrings seem partially modulated by pelvic flexibility. Not so with the lumbar erector spinae and lumbar flexibility, despite the assertions of some previous studies. The results of this study improve our knowledge of the relationships between trunk joint flexibility and neuromuscular responses, a relationship which may play a role in low back pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The kinematics of the lumbar region and the activation patterns of the erector spinae muscle have been associated with the genesis of low back pain, which is one of the most common complications associated with pregnancy. Despite the high prevalence of pregnancy-related low back pain, the biomechanical adaptations of the lumbar region during pregnancy remain unknown. PURPOSE: This study analyzes lumbar spine motion and the activation pattern of the lumbar erector spinae muscle in healthy pregnant women. STUDY DESIGN: A case-control study. PATIENT SAMPLE: The study involved 34 nulliparous women (control group) and 34 pregnant women in the third trimester (week 36 § 1). OUTCOME MEASURES: We recorded the parameters of angular displacement of the lumbar spine in the sagittal plane during trunk flexion-extension, and the EMG activity of the erector spinae muscles during flexion, extension, eccentric and concentric contractions, and the myolectrical silence. METHODS: The participants performed several series of trunk flexion-extension movements, which were repeated 2 months postpartum. The position of the lumbar spine was recorded using an electromagnetic motion capture system. EMG activity was recorded by a surface EMG system and expressed as a percentage of a submaximal reference contraction. RESULTS: Antepartum measurements showed a decrease (relative to control and postpartum measurements) in lumbar maximum flexion (52.5 § 10.5° vs 57.3 § 7.7° and 58.7 § 8.6°; p < .01), the percentage of lumbar flexion during forward bending (56.4 § 5.6% vs 59.4 § 6.8% and 59.7 § 5.6%; p < .01), and the time keeping maximum levels of lumbar flexion (35.7 § 6.7% vs 43.8 § 5.3% and 50.1 § 3.7%; p < .01). Higher levels of erector spinae activation were observed in pregnant women during forward bending (10.1 § 4.8% vs 6.3 § 2.4% and 6.6 § 2.7%; p < .01) and eccentric contraction (12.1 § 5.2% vs 9.4 § 3.1% and 9.1 § 2.9%; p < .01), as well as a shortened erector spinae myoelectric silence during flexion. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women show adaptations in their patterns of lumbar motion and erector spinae activity during trunk flexion-extension. These changes could be associated with the genesis of pregnancy-related low back pain, by means of biomechanical protection mechanisms against the increase on abdominal mass and ligamentous laxity.