Comparison of the Dynamic Postural Control During Lifting and Lowering an External Load in Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study

Majid Shahbazi; Javad Sarrafzadeh; Ismail Ebrahimi Takamjani; Saeed Akhlaghi; Hossein Negahban

doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2023.05.002

Comparison of the Dynamic Postural Control During Lifting and Lowering an External Load in Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study

J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2023 Jan;46(1):52-58. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2023.05.002. Epub 2023 Jul 7.

Authors

Majid Shahbazi¹, Javad Sarrafzadeh², Ismail Ebrahimi Takamjani³, Saeed Akhlaghi⁴, Hossein Negahban¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Physical Therapy, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
² Department of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Electronic address: Sarrafzadeh.j@iums.ac.ir.
³ Department of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
⁴ Department of Biostatistics, School of Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

PMID: 37422750
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2023.05.002

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare dynamic postural control between individuals with and without chronic low back pain (LBP) through load lifting and lowering.

Methods: This cross-sectional study included 52 male patients with chronic LBP (age: 33.37 ± 9.23 years) and 20 healthy male individuals (age: 31.75 ± 7.43 years). The postural control parameters were measured using a force plate system. The participants were instructed to stand barefoot (hip-width apart) on the force plate and lift a box (10% of the weight of the participants) from the waist height to overhead and then lower it from overhead to waist height. The interaction between the groups and tasks was determined using a 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance.

Results: There was no significant interaction between the groups and tasks. Regardless of the groups, postural control parameters including amplitude (P = .001) and velocity (P < .001) in anterior-posterior (AP) direction, phase plane in medial-lateral (ML) direction (P = .001), phase plane in AP-ML direction (P = .001), and the mean total velocity (P < .001) were lesser during the lowering compared with lifting. The results indicated that, regardless of the tasks, the postural control parameters including velocity (P = .004) and phase plane in AP direction (P = .004), velocity in ML direction (P < .001), phase plane (AP-ML) (P = .028), and mean total velocity (P = .001) in LBP were lesser compared with the normal group.

Conclusion: Different tasks affected postural control differently in patients with LBP and healthy individuals. Moreover, postural control was more challenged during the load-lowering than the load-lifting task. This may have been a result of a stiffening strategy. It may be that the load-lowering task might be considered as a more influential factor for the postural control strategy. These results may provide a novel understanding of selecting the rehabilitation programs for postural control disorders in patients.

Keywords: Low Back Pain; Postural Balance; Weight Lifting.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Adult
Cross-Sectional Studies
Humans
Lifting*
Low Back Pain*
Male
Postural Balance
Young Adult