Please enter verification code
Comparative Analyses of Effects of Posture Variations on Neuromuscular Efficiency of Para-vertebral Muscles in Patients with Low Back Pain
European Journal of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences
Volume 3, Issue 1, February 2017, Pages: 24-33
Received: Sep. 30, 2016; Accepted: Oct. 15, 2016; Published: Mar. 2, 2017
Views 1933      Downloads 137
Onigbinde Ayodele Teslim, Department of Medical Rehabilitation, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Ayanlade Osuolale Basiru, Department of Physiotherapy, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria
Olaoye Ayoola Olumide, Department of Medical Rehabilitation, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Ibikunle Adeoye Folorunsho, Department of Physiotherapy, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Article Tools
Follow on us
This study investigated the neuromuscular efficiency of patients with Low Back Pain (LBP) at different spinal postures using electromyographic indices [Spinal Muscle Electrical Activities (SMEA) and Root Mean Square (RMS)]. This was with the view to establishing if there would be significant differences between SMEA of patients with Low Back Pain (LBP) and that of apparently healthy participants at different spinal postures. Thirty (30) patients with non – specific low back pain and 32 apparently healthy participants were recruited using purposive sampling technique. The SMEA and RMS at different spinal postures (erect standing, 30°, 45°, 90° spinal flexions and 30° spinal extension) were measured with a portable electromyography machine (MyoTrac infiniti System T 9800). Spinalflexion was measured with universal goniometer while pain intensity was measured using Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Disposable pregelled, tripolar, self-adhesive Ag/Agcl electrodes were placed in pairs with distance of 2cm from each other and parallel to the Longissimusdorsi and multifidus muscle fibers. The Spinal Muscle Electrical Activities were recorded for each participant at each of the postures while maintaining maximum voluntary contraction for 10 seconds. Descriptive statistics, Student t-test and Analysis of Variance were used to analyze the data. The level of significance was set at ≤ 0.05. There were significant differences in SMEA and RMS at different spinal postures among patients with LBP (F = 29.20, p = 0.001; F = 40.55 respectively, p = 0.001). The SMEA of patients with LBP were significantly lower at all postures compared to that of the age matched apparently healthy participants excluding at 30° spinal extension (t = 2.04, p = 0.05; t = -0.20; p = 0.84). Also, there were significant differences between the RMS of patients with LBP and the age matched apparently healthy participants at 30°, 45° and 90°spinal flexion (t = 2-79, p = 0.01; t = 2.61, p = 0.01; t = 5.19; p = 0.001 respectively). It was concluded that different postures affected neuromuscular efficiency of patients with low back pain. Also, neuromuscular efficiency at the para-vertebral muscles of low back pain patients for most spinal postures were significantly lower than that of the apparently healthy participants.
Spinal Muscle Electrical Activities, Root Mean Square, Low Back Pain, Spinal Postures, Neuromuscular Efficiency
To cite this article
Onigbinde Ayodele Teslim, Ayanlade Osuolale Basiru, Olaoye Ayoola Olumide, Ibikunle Adeoye Folorunsho, Comparative Analyses of Effects of Posture Variations on Neuromuscular Efficiency of Para-vertebral Muscles in Patients with Low Back Pain, European Journal of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 1, 2017, pp. 24-33. doi: 10.11648/j.ejcbs.20170301.15
Copyright © 2017 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License ( which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Bernard BP. Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors: A critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and low back Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services; 1997.
Winkel J, Westgaard RH. Ergonomic intervention research for musculoskeletal health–some future trends. In 33rd Nordic Ergonomics Society Conference, University of Tampere; 2001; Tampere. p. 28-32.
Mitchell TOPB, Burnett AF, Straker L, Smith A. Regional differences in lumbar spinal posture and the influence of low back pain. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2008 November 18; 9 (1): p. 1.
Tüzün C, Yorulmaz I, Cindaş A, Vatan S. Low back pain and posture. Clinical rheumatology. 1999 June 1; 18(4): p. 308-312.
Widhe T. Spine: posture, mobility and pain. A longitudinal study from childhood to adolescence. European Spine Journal. 2001 April; 10 (2): p. 118-123.
McKenzie R, May S. The lumbar spine: mechanical diagnosis and therapy. Orthopedic Physical Therapy. 2003 June 1; 1.
O’Sullivan PB, Mitchell T, Bulich P, Waller R, Holte J. The relationship beween posture and back muscle endurance in industrial workers with flexion-related low back pain. Manual therapy. 2006 November 30;: p. 264-271.
Dankaerts W, O'Sullivan P, Burnett A, Straker L. Differences in sitting postures are associated with nonspecific chronic low back pain disorders when patients are subclassified. Spine. 2006 March 15; 31 (6): p. 698-704.
Dankaerts W, O’Sullivan P, Burnett A, Straker L, Davey P, Gupta R. Discriminating healthy controls and two clinical subgroups of nonspecific chronic low back pain patients using trunk muscle activation and lumbosacral kinematics of postures and movements: a statistical classification model. Spine. 2009 July 1; 34 (15): p. 1610-1618.
Bridger RS. Introduction to ergonomics London: Taylor & Fancis; 2003.
Adams M, Bogduk N, Burton K, Dolan P. The Biomechanics of Back Pain. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2006.
Onigbinde AT, Fasuba. Effects of straight leg raising and lumbar rotation techniques in patients with lumbar radiculopathy. Rehab Acta. 2015; 1 (1): p. 17-21.
Pheasant S. Bodyspace anthropometry, ergonomics, and the design of work. 2nd ed. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd; 1998.
Corlett NE. Static muscle loading and the evaluation of posture. In Wilson JR, Corlett EN. Evaluation of Human Work. London: Taylor & Francis; 2005. p. 453-496.
Biedermann HJ, Shanks GL, Inglis J. Median frequency estimates of paraspinal muscles: reliability analysis. Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology. 1989 December; 30 (2): p. 83-88.
Biedermann HJ, Shanks GL, Forrest WJ, Inglis J. Power Spectrum Analyses of Electromyographic Activity: Discriminators in the Differential Assessment of Patients with Chronic Low-Back Pain. Spine. 1991 October 1; 16 (10): p. 1179-1184.
Garcia MC, Vieira TM. Surface electromyography: Why, when and how to use it. 17-28. Revista andaluza de medicina del deporte. 2011; (1): p. 17-28.
Werner C, Ullrich P, Geravand M, Peer A, Hauer K. Evaluation Studies of Robotic Rollators by the User Perspective: A Systematic Review. Gerontology. 2016 March; 24.
Alkan A, Günay M. Identification of EMG signals using discriminant analysis and SVM classifier. Expert Systems with Applications. 2012 January 31; 39 (1): p. 44-47.
German RZ, Crompton AW, Thexton AJ. Variation in EMG activity: a hierarchical approach. Integrative and comparative biology. 2008 August; 48 (2): p. 283-293.
Fukuda TY, Alvarez AS, Nassri LF, Godoy CM. Quantitative electromyographic assessment of facial muscles in cross-bite female children. Rev. bras. eng. biomed. 2008 August; 24(2): p. 121-129.
Daintith J. A dictionary of physics: Oxford reference online. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.
May S, Lomas D. Posture the Lumbar Spine and Back Pain. International Encyclopedia of Rehabilitation. 2010.
Clapis P, Davis SM, Davis RO. Reliability of inclinometer and goniometric measurements of hip extension flexibility using the modified Thomas test. Physiotherapy theory and practice. 2008 January 1; 24 (2): p. 135-141.
Kolber MJ, Hanney WJ. The reliability and concurrent validity of shoulder mobility measurements using a digital inclinometer and goniometer: a technical report. International journal of sports physical therapy. 2012 June; 7 (3): p. 306.
Cram JR, Kasman GS, Holtz J. Introduction to Surface Electromyography Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen Publishers Inc; 1998.
Finneran MT. Physiological imaging of the low back: normative values for large array surface electromyography. J Disability. 2001 August;: p. 15-21.
Kamen G. Electromyographic kinesiology. In Gordon D, Robertson E, Caldwell GE, Hamill J, Kamen G, Whittlesey SN. Research Methods in Biomechanics. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publ; 2004.
Merletti R, De Luca CJ. New techniques in surface electromyography. Computer aided electromyography and expert systems. 1989; 2: p. 115-124.
Bogduk N. Clinical anatomy of the lumbar spine and sacrum. 4th ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2005.
McKenzie R, May S. The lumbar spine: mechanical diagnosis and therapy. Orthopedic Physical Therapy. 2003 June 1; 1.
Dolan P, Mannion AF, Adams MA. Fatigue of the Erector Spinae Muscles: A Quantitative Assessment Using" Frequency Banding" of the Surface Electromyography Signal. Spine. 1995 January 15; 20 (2): p. 149-59.
Allen CEL. Muscle action potentials used in the study of dynamic anatomy. British Journal of Physical Medicine. 1948; 11: p. 66-73.
Fridlund AJ, Cacioppo JJ. Guidelines for human EMG research. Psychophysiology. 1986 September 1; 23 (5): p. 1496-500.
Ervilha UF, Duarte M, Amadio A. Estudosobreprocedimentos de normalização do sinaleletromiográficodurante o movimentohumano. RevistaBrasileira de Fisioterapia. 1998; 3 (1): p. 15-20.
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
Tel: (001)347-983-5186