Images in Practice: Multifidus Muscle Dysfunction Characterized by Fat Infiltration in a Patient with Chronic Lumbar Back Pain

Quantitative Evaluation of the Lumbar Multifidus Muscle by Shear Wave Dispersion in Healthy Adults: A Preliminary Study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the application value of shear wave dispersion (SWD) in healthy adults with the lumbar multifidus muscle (LMM), to determine the range of normal reference values, and to analyze the influences of factors on the parameter.

METHODS

Ninety-five healthy volunteers participated in the study, from whom 2-dimensional, shear wave elastography (SWE), and SWD images of the bilateral LMM were acquired in three positions (prone, standing, and anterior flexion). Subcutaneous fat thickness (SFH), SWE velocity, and SWD slope were measured accordingly for analyses.

RESULTS

The mean SWD slope of the bilateral LMM in the prone position was as follows: left: 14.8 ± 3.1 (m/second)/kHz (female) and 13.0 ± 2.5 (m/second)/kHz (male); right: 14.8 ± 3.7 (m/second)/kHz (female) and 14.2 ± 3.4 (m/second)/kHz (male). In the prone position, there was a weak negative correlation between the bilateral LMM SWD slope of activity level 2 and level 1 (β = -1.5 (2 versus 1, left), -1.9 (2 versus 1, right), all P < .05), and between the left SWD slope of activity level 3 and level 1 (β = -2.3 [3 versus 1, left], P < .05). The correlation between SWE velocity and SWD slope value changed with the position: there was a weak positive correlation in the prone position (r = 0.3 [left], 0.37 [right], both P < .05), and a moderate positive correlation in the standing and anterior flexed positions (r = 0.49-0.74, both P < .001). SFH was moderately negatively correlated with bilateral SWD slope values in the anterior flexion (left: r = -0.4, P = .01; right: r = -0.7, P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

SWD imaging can be used as an adjunct tool to aid in the assessment of viscosity in LMM. Further, activity level, and position are influencing factors that should be considered in clinical practice.

Back pain in adolescent athletes: a narrative review

Background

Back pain in young athletes is common. Adolescents are at an increased risk for back pain related to several factors including rapid growth. Traditionally, the conversation around back pain in the adolescent age group has been centered around diagnosis and treatment; however, there are emerging studies regarding prevention.

Objective

The purpose of the present investigation is to summarize sport-specific risk factors, to describe the growing emphasis on prevention/screening, and report results on minimally invasive and surgical options.

Methods

The literature search was performed in Mendeley. Search fields were varied until redundant. All articles were screened by title and abstract and a preliminary decision to include an article was made. The full-text screening was performed on the selected articles. Any question regarding the inclusion of an article was discussed by at least 3 authors until an agreement was reached.

Results

Adolescent athletes have a higher risk of developing spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis than their non-athletic counterparts. Participation in athletic activity alone, increased body mass index, varsity status, and nationally/internationally competitive status are identified are demographic risk factors. Weightlifters, gymnasts, football players, and combat athletes may be at higher risks. Increased lumbar lordosis, abdominal muscle weakness, hip flexor tightness, hamstring tightness, thoracolumbar fascia tightness, femoral anteversion, genu recurvatum, and thoracic kyphosis also predispose. Recent cadaveric and kinematic studies have furthered our understanding of pathoanatomic. There is some evidence to suggest that isokinetic testing and electromyographic data may be able to identify at-risk individuals. Perturbation-based exercise interventions can reduce the incidence of adolescent athletic back pain. There is a large body of evidence to support the efficacy of physical therapy. There is some data to support minimally invasive treatments including external bone growth simulators, steroid injections, and chemonucleolysis for specific pathologies. Endoscopic surgery results for a limited subset of patients with certain disease processes are good.

Conclusions

Back pain in adolescent athletes is common and may not lead to appropriate alterations in athletes' level of participation. Athletes with a higher body mass index should be counseled regarding the benefits of losing weight. Isokinetic testing and electromyographic data have the potential as diagnostic and screening tools. Strength deficits and postural control could be used to identify patients requiring early intervention and thus reduce the incidence. External bone growth simulators, steroid injections, and chemonucleolysis could potentially become conservative options in the future. When surgery is indicated, the endoscopic intervention has the potential to decrease operative time, decrease cost, and promote healing.