Cross-legged sitting posture effect on lumbar proprioception in young adults: a cross-sectional study

Background The cross-legged sitting posture (CLS) is assumed by young adults’ results in a bent and unbalanced posture. The study purpose was to assess the effect of sitting in a cross-legged position (knee on knee) on lumbar proprioception. Thirty-six participants of both genders aged from 18 to 25 were selected and divided equally into group A who adapt to a cross-legged sitting posture and group B who adapt to erect sitting (not prefer cross-legged sitting). The Biodex System 3 pro isokinetic dynamometer was utilized to assess the lumbar proprioception by testing the lumbar region repositioning accuracy. Results The lumbar repositioning error of group A increased statistically significantly as compared to group B (p < 0.05). Conclusions Cross-legged sitting posture negatively affects lumbar proprioception compared with participants who adapt to erect sitting, and this effect should be considered in the avoidance of sitting in a cross-legged position and in prevention and intervention programs of lumbar proprioception impairment.

Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of neutral and target lumbar positioning tests in subjects with and without non-specific lower back pain

BACKGROUND: Proprioception, one’s sense of movement and position, is a common term used in back rehabilitation. Kinesthetic rehabilitation may be useful in managing lower back pain; however, reliable measures are required to quantify lumbar proprioception sense. OBJECTIVE: To investigate intrarater and interrater reliability of neutral lumbar positioning (NLP) and target lumbar positioning (TLP) tests and compare the position sense errors in subjects with non-specific low back pain and healthy controls. METHODS: Intrarater (between-day) and interrater (within-day) reliability of NLP and TLP tests were assessed in 30 subjects with low back pain and 30 healthy subjects using a digital inclinometer. NLP is evaluated when the subject is repositioned to neutral from flexion, while TLP is evaluated in lumbar flexion, by bending laterally left and right. RESULTS: Intrarater reliability for NLP tests had ICC values of 0.85 and 0.89 and TLP tests had 0.78 and 0.92. Likewise, interrater reliability for NLP had ICC values of 0.75 and 0.85, and for the TLP test, the interrater reliability had 0.78 and 0.93. Subjects with back pain had significantly larger neutral and target lumbar proprioceptive errors compared to healthy controls (p< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Intrarater and interrater reliability showed good agreement for both NLP and TLP tests of lumbar proprioception. Subjects with nonspecific low back pain have impaired lumbar proprioceptive sense.

Short-term effect of kinesiology taping on pain, functional disability and lumbar proprioception in individuals with nonspecific chronic low back pain: a double-blinded, randomized trial

Background This study aimed to evaluate the effect of kinesiology taping (KT) on lumbar proprioception, pain, and functional disability in individuals with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods Thirty individuals with nonspecific CLBP participated in this double-blinded, randomized clinical trial from July 2017 to September 2018. The participants were randomized into two groups: KT (n = 15) and placebo group (n = 15). KT was applied with 15–25% tension for 72 h, and placebo taping was used without tension. Lumbar repositioning error was measured by a bubble inclinometer at three different angles (45° and 60° flexion, and 15° extension) in upright standing. Pain and disability were assessed by the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index, respectively. All measurements were recorded at baseline and 3 days after taping. Results Pain and disability scores reduced 3 days after taping in the KT group with large effect sizes (p < 0.05). Only the total score of pain was significantly different between the groups 3 days after taping and improved more in the KT group with a large effect size (p < 0.05). However, lumbar repositioning errors were similar between the groups after 3 days (p > 0.05). Also, only constant error of 15° extension showed a moderate correlation with disability (r = 0.39, p = 0.02). Conclusion KT can decrease pain and disability scores after 3 days of application. Although placebo taping can reduce pain, the effect of KT is higher than placebo taping. The findings do not support the therapeutic effect of KT and placebo taping as a tool to enhance lumbar proprioception in patients with nonspecific CLBP. Trial registration The study prospectively registered on 21.05.2018 at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials: IRCT20090301001722N20.

Relationship between Low Back Pain and Lumbar Proprioception, Functional Stability, Static Endurance of Trunk Muscles and Balance in Adolescents

Research background. Core management is particularly important for uninterrupted and continuous movement. Proprioceptive information is important to maintain the position of the body and control the centre of gravity. Low back pain ultimately affects motor control and leads to proprioceptive changes in injured structures and also can cause balance disorders. Unfortunately, it is unclear until now how low back pain affects proprioception. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between low back pain and lumbar proprioception, functional stability, static endurance of trunk muscles and balance in adolescents. Methods. 42 adolescents participated in the study: 18 control subjects and 24 subjects with low back pain. We used the following assessment methods: the visual pain intensity scale (VAS) for pain evaluation, “flamingo” test, single leg test and balance error score system for balance assessment, Matthiass functional stability test for functional stability, and Biodex 4 Pro isokinetic dynamometer using trunk extension-flexion modular component and four points kneeling methodology for the evaluation of static endurance of trunk muscles, and proprioception. Results. After the assessment of balance, functional stability and proprioception, the results of the control group were statistically signifcantly better (p < 0.05). There was a moderate correlation between low back pain and Biodex 30 degree target reposition sense (r = 0.55), four points kneeling target position sense (r = 0.66), between low back pain and balance tests – “flamingo” and single leg test (r = 0.68, r = 0.61), between pain and Mathiass test (r = 0.52), also between proprioception and balance tests’ results (r = 0.44, r = 0.44, r = 0.46), proprioception and Mathiass test (r = 0.52). There was a strong correlation between pain and balance error scoring test (r = 0.85), balance error scoring test and four points kneeling test results (r = 0.71). All these correlationswere statistically signifcant. Conclusions. After the assessment of balance, functional stability and proprioception, the results of the control group were statistically signifcantly better (p < α). There was a moderate correlation between pain and proprioception, balance tests, Mathiass test results, also between proprioception and balance tests, Mathiass test. There was a strong correlation between pain and balance error scoring test results, between proprioception and balance error scoring test results.Keywords: Low back pain, proprioception, balance, functional stability.