A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Eapen, Charu
- Association of Pressure-Pain Threshold and Lumbar Lordosis in Subjects with and without Low Back Pain - A Case Control Study
Authors
1 Physiotherapy Programme, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR), Selangor, MY
2 Department of Physiotherapy, Kasturba Medical College (Manipal University), AHS Mangalore Campus, IN
Source
Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy-An International Journal, Vol 7, No 2 (2013), Pagination: 130-134Abstract
Background: Physiotherapists perform movement testing in the assessment of patients with low back pain (LBP), to evaluate spinal mobility and symptom response. The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation between degree of spinal curvature (SC) and pain elicited by posteroanterior (PA) forces in individuals with and without LBP.Methods: The SC and pain response to PA force was measured in 60 age and gender matched subjects. The SC, comprising of lumbar lordotic angle (LLA) and sacral angle (SA), was measured from the sagittal view plain film radiograph. Pain response to PA force, i.e. pressure pain threshold (PPT), was measured at three spinous process levels using a pressure algometer, and statistically analysed.
Results: A statistically insignificant (p >0.5) negative correlation was noted between PPT values and SC at each test level within both the groups. The mean values of PPT tended to be lower (p >0.5) at individual test site in subjects with LBP compared to asymptomatic subjects. However, the mean LLA & SA in the LBP group was significantly lower compared to the other.
Conclusion: Although the degree of spinal curvature was significantly lesser in LBP subjects, the spinal PPT value in individuals with or without LBP may be influenced by factors other than this.
Keywords
Pressure-Pain Threshold, Lumbar Lordosis, Spinal Curvature, Low Back Pain
References
- Jason R, Giesbrecht S, Battie MC: A comparison of pressure pain thresholds in people with chronic low back pain and volunteers without pain. Phys Ther 2005, 85:1085-1092.
- O’Sullivan P B: Clinical Instability of the lumbar spine: its pathological basis, Diagnosis and conservative management. In Grieve’s Modern Manual Therapy-The Vertebral Column. 3rd edition. Edited by Boyling JD, Jull GA, Twomey LT: Churchill Livingstone; 2004: 311-331.
- Downey B, Taylor N, Niere K: Can manipulative Physiotherapists agree on which lumbar level to treat based on palpation? Physiotherapy 2003, 89:74-81.
- Maher CG, Latimer J, Holland MJ: Plinth Padding Confounds Measures of Posteroanterior Spinal Stiffness. Man Ther 1999, 4:145-150.
- Edmondston SJ, Allison GT, Gregg CD, Purden SM, Svansson GR, Watson AE: Effect of position on the posteroanterior stiffness of the lumbar spine. Man Ther 1998, 3:21-26.
- Shirley D: Manual therapy and tissue stiffness. In Grieve’s modern manual therapy-The Vertebral Column. 3rd edition. Edited by Boyling JD, Jull GA, Twomey LT: Churchill Livingstone; 2004: 381-390.
- Basmajian JV, Nyberg R: Rational Manual Therapies. Williams and Wilkins; 1993.
- Keating L, Lubke C, Powell V, Young T, Souvlis T, Jull G: Mid-thoracic tenderness: a comparison of pressure pain threshold between spinal regions, in asymptomatic subjects. Manual Therapy 2001, 6:34-39.
- O’Driscoll SL, Jayson MIV: The clinical significance of pain threshold measurements. Rheumato Rehab 1982, 21:31-35.
- Nussbaum E L, Downes L: Reliability of clinical pressure-pain algometric measurements obtained on consecutive days. Phys Ther 1998, 78:160-9.
- Reeves J L, Jeager B, Graff-Radford S B: Reliability of pressure algometer as a measure of myofascial trigger point sensitivity [abstract]. Pain 1986, 24:s313.
- Andrew B: Algometry validates chiropractic. Dynamic Chiropractic 1994, 12:23-24.
- Fischer AA: Pressure tolerance over muscles and bones in normal subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1986, 67:406-409.
- Farasyn A, Meeusen R: The influence of nonspecific low back pain on pressure pain thresholds and disability [abstract]. Eur J Pain 2005, 9:s351.
- Vanderween L, Oostendorp RAB, Vaes P, Duquet W: Pressure algometry in manual therapy. Man Ther 1996, 1:258-265.
- Kim HJ, Chung S, Kim S, Shin H, Lee J, Kim S, Song MY: Influences of trunk muscles on lumbar lordosis and sacral angle. Eur Spine J 2006, 15: 409-414.
- Polly D W, McHale K A, Mulligan M: Measurement of lumbar lordosis- Evaluation of intraobserver, interobserver, and technique variability. Spine 1996, 21:1530-1536.
- Christie HJ, Kumar S, Warren SA: Postural aberrations in low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995, 76:218-224.
- Youdas JW, Garrett TR, Egan KS, Therneau TM: Lumbar lordosis and pelvic inclination in adults with chronic low back pain. Phys Ther 2000, 80:261-275.
- Evcik D and Yucel A: Lumbar lordosis in acute and chronic low back pain patients [abstract]. Rheumatol Int 2003, 23:s163.
- Norton BJ, Sahrmann SA and Van Dillen LR: Differences in measurements of lumbar curvature related to gender and low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2004, 34:524-34.
- Tsuji T, Matsuyama Y, Sato K, Hasegawa Y, Yimin Y and Iwata H: Epidemiology of low back pain in elderly - correlation with lumbar lordosis. J Orthop Sci 2000, 6:307-11.
- Murrie VL, Dixon AK, Hollingworth W, Wilson H and Doyle TA: Lumbar lordosis: study on patients with and without back pain. Clin Anat 2003, 16:144-7.
- Gregory P Grieve: Common Vertebral joint problems. 2nd edition, Churchill Livingstone; 1998.
- Rene Calliet: Low back pain syndrome. 1st Indian edition. Jaypee Brothers; 1992.
- Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Dynamic Rotator Stability Test —A Cross Sectional Study
Authors
1 College of Physiotherapy, Medical Trust Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, Kerala, IN
2 Kasturba Medical College Hospital, Mangalore, Karnataka, IN
Source
Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy-An International Journal, Vol 6, No 3 (2012), Pagination: 76-81Abstract
Purpose of the Study: To find intra rater and inter rater reliability of Dynamic Rotator Stability Test (DRST) and to find concurrent validity of Dynamic Rotator Stability Test (DRST) with University of Pennsylvania Shoulder Score (PENN) Scale
Material and Method: 40 subjects of either gender between the age group of 18-70 with painful shoulder conditions of musculoskeletal origin was selected through convenient sampling .Tester 1 and tester 2 administered DRST and PENN scale randomly. In a subgroup of 20 subjects DRST was administered by both the testers to find the inter rater reliability. 180° Standard Universal Goniometer was used to take measurements.
Results: For intra-rater reliability, all the test variables were showing highly significant correlation (p=.94 -1). For inter -rater, with tester 2, test variables like position, ROM, force, direction of abnormal translation, pain during the test, compensatory movement during test were found to be significant (p=.71-1).only some variables of DRST showed significant correlation with PENN scale (P=.320-.450)
Conclusion: Dynamic Rotator Stability Test has good intra rater and moderate inter rater reliability. Concurrent validity of Dynamic Rotator Stability Test was found to be poor when compared to PENN Shoulder Score.