Clinical Pain

Korean Association of Pain Medicine (대한임상통증학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Immobilization Effect and Abdominal Pressure of Newly-Developed Lumbosacral Spinal Orthosis during Task Performance

새롭게 개발한 요천추 보조기의 과제 수행 중 척추의 고정효과와 복부압력

  • Jeon, Kyung Soo (Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Veterans Health Service Medical Center) ;
  • Yang, Hee Seung (Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Veterans Health Service Medical Center) ;
  • Jang, Soo Woong (Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Veterans Health Service Medical Center) ;
  • Shin, Hee Dong (Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Veterans Health Service Medical Center) ;
  • Lee, Yun kyung (Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Veterans Health Service Medical Center) ;
  • Lee, Young (Veterans Medical Research Institute, Veterans Health Service Medical Center) ;
  • Lee, Seul Bin Na (Veterans Medical Research Institute, Veterans Health Service Medical Center) ;
  • Ahn, Dong Young (Center of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Veterans Health Service Medical Center) ;
  • Sim, Woo Sob (Center of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Veterans Health Service Medical Center) ;
  • Cho, Min (Center of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Veterans Health Service Medical Center) ;
  • Cho, Kyu Jik (Center of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Veterans Health Service Medical Center) ;
  • Park, Dong Beom (Center of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Veterans Health Service Medical Center) ;
  • Park, Kwan Soo (Center of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Veterans Health Service Medical Center)
  • 전경수 (중앙보훈병원 재활의학과) ;
  • 양희승 (중앙보훈병원 재활의학과) ;
  • 장수웅 (중앙보훈병원 재활의학과) ;
  • 신희동 (중앙보훈병원 재활의학과) ;
  • 이윤경 (중앙보훈병원 재활의학과) ;
  • 이영 (중앙보훈병원 보훈의학연구소) ;
  • 이슬빛나 (중앙보훈병원 보훈의학연구소) ;
  • 안동영 (중앙보훈병원 보장구센터) ;
  • 심우섭 (중앙보훈병원 보장구센터) ;
  • 조민 (중앙보훈병원 보장구센터) ;
  • 조규직 (중앙보훈병원 보장구센터) ;
  • 박동범 (중앙보훈병원 보장구센터) ;
  • 박관수 (중앙보훈병원 보장구센터)
  • Received : 2020.07.17
  • Accepted : 2020.08.31
  • Published : 2020.12.31
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of a newly-developed spinal orthoses (V-LSO) by comparing the stabilizing effect, abdominal pressure, and comfort of 3 different semirigid LSOs (classic LSO, V-LSO, and Cybertech®) during various body movements. Method: Thirty healthy volunteers (23~47 years, 24 males, 6 females) were selected. A dual inclinometer measured the range of motion (ROM) while the participants performed flexion/extension and lateral flexion of the lumbar spine with 3 LSOs. The LSO's pressure on the abdominal surface was measured using 9 pressure sensors while lying, sitting, standing, flexion/extension, lateral flexion, axial rotation, and lifting a box. Comfort and subjective immobilization were analyzed by a questionnaire. Results: V-LSO had a statistically significant effect on flexion over Cybertech®. No significant differences were noted during extension and lateral flexion between the 3 LSOs. The abdominal pressure showed no significant differences while supine. While sitting, standing, and lifting a box, the mean abdominal pressure for V-LSO were significantly higher than those for Cybertech®. During lumbar flexion, the mean abdominal pressures for classic LSO and V-LSO were significantly higher than that of Cybertech®. For extension, lateral flexion and axial rotation, the abdominal pressure for V-LSO was significantly higher than those of classic LSO and Cybertech®. In the subjective analysis, V-LSO and Cybertech® scored best for comfort. Conclusion: The V-LSO and Cybertech® were more comfortable than the classic LSO, and hence, may have improved compliance with decreased discomfort. V-LSO may be superior to the other LSOs in restricting lumbar movement and increasing intraabdominal pressure.

Keywords

References

  1. Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, March L, Brooks P, Blyth F, et al. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64: 2028-2037 https://doi.org/10.1002/art.34347
  2. Park CI, Moon JH. Rehabilitation Medicine, 2nd ed. Seoul: Hanmi, 2012, 244
  3. Daggfeldt K, Thorstensson A. The role of intra-abdominal pressure in spinal unloading. J Biomech 1997; 30: 1149-1155 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(97)00096-1
  4. Hsu DJ MW, Fisk RJ. Atlas of orthoses and assistive devices, 4th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Elsevier, 2008, 115-116
  5. Reddell CR, Congleton JJ, Dale Huchingson R, Montgomery JF. An evaluation of a weightlifting belt and back injury prevention training class for airline baggage handlers. Appl Ergon 1992; 23: 319-329 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(92)90293-5
  6. van Poppel MN, Koes BW, van der Ploeg T, Smid T, Bouter LM. Lumbar supports and education for the prevention of low back pain in industry: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998; 279: 1789-1794 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.22.1789
  7. Stokes IA, Bevins TM, Lunn RA. Back surface curvature and measurement of lumbar spinal motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1987; 12: 355-361 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198705000-00009
  8. Young OK, Jin JY, Bog PS, Jung KM. Comparison between Computerized Inclinometer and Manual Inclinometer in Measuring Whole Spinal Range of Motion. Ann Rehabil Med 2002; 26: 456-460
  9. American Medical Association. Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment, 4th ed. Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association, 1994, 112-138
  10. Krusen FH, Kottke FJ, Lehmann JF. Krusen's Handbook of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 4th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1990, 31-32
  11. Krag MH, Fox MJ, Haugh LD. Comparison of three lumbar orthoses using motion assessment during task performance. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28: 2359-2367 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000085328.71345.54
  12. Curfs I, van Rooij W, Senden R, Grimm B, Van Hemert W. Evaluating the Immobilization Effect of Spinal Orthoses Using Sensor-Based Motion Analysis. J Prosthet Orthot 2016; 28: 23-29 https://doi.org/10.1097/JPO.0000000000000085
  13. Jegede KA, Miller CP, Bible JE, Whang PG, Grauer JN. The effects of three different types of orthoses on the range of motion of the lumbar spine during 15 activities of daily living. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36: 2346-2353 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820921a5
  14. Lantz SA, Schultz AB. Lumbar spine orthosis wearing. I. Restriction of gross body motions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1986; 11: 834-837 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198610000-00019
  15. Cresswell AG, Blake PL, Thorstensson A. The effect of an abdominal muscle training program on intra-abdominal pressure. Scand J Rehabil Med 1994; 26: 79-86
  16. Hodges PW, Richardson CA. Feedforward contraction of transversus abdominis is not influenced by the direction of arm movement. Exp Brain Res 1997; 114: 362-370 https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00005644
  17. Grillner S, Nilsson J, Thorstensson A. Intra-abdominal pressure changes during natural movements in man. Acta Physiol Scand 1978; 103: 275-283 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1978.tb06215.x
  18. Hodges PW, Eriksson AE, Shirley D, Gandevia SC. Intra-abdominal pressure increases stiffness of the lumbar spine. J Biomech 2005; 38: 1873-1880 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.08.016
  19. Kienle A, Saidi S, Oberst M. Effect of 2 different thoracolumbar orthoses on the stability of the spine during various body movements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38: E1082-1089 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182983518
  20. Eisinger DB, Kumar R, Woodrow R. Effect of lumbar orthotics on trunk muscle strength. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 75: 194-197 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-199605000-00008
  21. Fayolle-Minon I, Calmels P. Effect of wearing a lumbar orthosis on trunk muscles: study of the muscle strength after 21days of use on healthy subjects. Joint Bone Spine 2008; 75: 58-63 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2007.04.018
  22. Kawchuk GN, Edgecombe TL, Wong AY, Cojocaru A, Prasad N. A non-randomized clinical trial to assess the impact of nonrigid, inelastic corsets on spine function in low back pain participants and asymptomatic controls. Spine J 2015; 15: 2222-2227 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.06.047
  23. Ryoon HT, Ho KJ, Gun CS, Ik SH. The Early Usage Pattern of Spinal Orthosis in Patients with Spinal Metastasis. Ann Rehabil Med 1999; 23: 869-874