Alterations in trunk bending stiffness following changes in stability and equilibrium demands of a load holding task

Defining and measuring objective and subjective spinal stiffness: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Examine and identify the breadth of definitions and measures of objective and subjective spinal stiffness in the literature, with a focus on clinical implications.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to determine what is known about definitions and measures of the specific term of spinal stiffness. Following the framework by Arksey and O'Malley, eligible peer-reviewed studies identified using PubMed, Ebsco health, and Scopus were included if they reported definitions or measures of spinal stiffness. Using a data abstraction form, the studies were classified into four themes: biomechanical, surgical, pathophysiological, and segmental spinal assessment. To identify similarities and differences between studies, sixteen categories were generated.

RESULTS

In total, 2426 records were identified, and 410 met the eligibility criteria. There were 350 measures (132 subjective; 218 objective measures) and 93 indicators of spinal stiffness. The majority of studies (n = 69%) did not define stiffness.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the breadth of objective and subjective measures that are both clinically and methodologically diverse. There is no consensus regarding a standardised definition of stiffness in the reviewed literature.

In vivo through-range passive stiffness of the lumbar spine: a meta-analysis of measurements and methods

Passive spinal stiffness is an important property thought to play a significant role in controlling spinal position and movement. Measuring through-range passive stiffness in vivo is challenging with several methods offered in the literature. Currently, no synthesis of values or methods exists to which to compare literature to. This study aims to provide a contemporary review and quantitative synthesis of the through-range in vivo passive lumbar spinal stiffness values for each of the cardinal planes of movement. A structured systematic search, following PRISMA guidelines, of 28 electronic databases was conducted in 2022. Articles were restricted to peer-reviewed English language studies investigating in vivo through-range passive stiffness of the lumbar spine. Thirteen studies were included, ten relating to flexion/extension, four to lateral bending and five to axial rotation. Average stiffness values, as weighted means and confidence intervals, for each of the four sections of the moment-movement curves were synthesised for all planes of movement. Lateral bending was found to be the comparatively stiffest movement followed by flexion and then axial rotation. Future research should focus on the validity and reliability of measurement techniques. Axial rotation would also benefit from further study of its latter stages of range.

Graphical abstract

Evaluating stability of human spine in static tasks: a combined in vivo-computational study

Various interpretations and parameters have been proposed to assess spinal stability such as antagonist muscle coactivity, trunk stiffness and spinal buckling load; however, the correlation between these parameters remains unknown. We evaluated spinal stability during different tasks while changing the external moment and load height and investigated likely relationships between different EMG- and model-based parameters (e.g., EMG coactivity ratio, trunk stiffness, force coactivity ratio) and stability margins. EMG and kinematics of 40 young healthy subjects were recorded during various quasi-static tasks. Muscle forces, trunk stiffness and stability margins were calculated by a nonlinear subject-specific EMG-assisted-optimization musculoskeletal model of the trunk. The load elevation and external moment increased muscle activities and trunk stiffness while all stability margins (i.e., buckling loads) decreased. The force coactivity ratio was strongly correlated with the hand-load stability margin (i.e., additional weight in hands to initiate instability; R² = 0.54) demonstrating the stabilizing role of abdominal muscles. The total trunk stiffness (Pearson's r = 0.96) and the sum of EMGs of back muscles (Pearson's r = 0.65) contributed the most to the T1 stability margin (i.e., additional required load at T1 for instability/buckling). Force coactivity ratio and trunk stiffness can be used as alternative spinal stability metrics.

Directional Dependence of Experimental Trunk Stiffness: Role of Muscle-Stiffness Variation of Nonneural Origin

Trunk stiffness is an important parameter for trunk stability analysis and needs to be evaluated accurately. Discrepancies regarding the dependence of trunk stiffness on the direction of movement in the sagittal plane suggest inherent sources of error that require explanation. In contrast to the common assumption that the muscle stiffness remains constant prior to the induction of a reflex during position perturbations, it is postulated that muscle-stiffness changes of nonneural origin occur and alter the experimental trunk stiffness, causing it to depend on the sagittal direction. This is confirmed through reinterpretation of existing test data for a healthy subject, numerical simulation, and sensitivity analysis using a biomechanical model. The trunk stiffness is determined through a static approach (in forward and backward directions) and compared with the model stiffness for assumed scenarios involving deactivated muscles. The difference in stiffness between the opposite directions reaches 17.5% without a preload and decreases when a moderate vertical preload is applied. The increased muscle activation induced by preloads or electrical stimuli explains the apparent discrepancies observed in previous studies. The experimental stiffness invariably remains between low and high model-stiffness estimates based on extreme scenarios of the postulated losses of muscle activation, thereby confirming our hypothesis.

Trunk Muscle Activation Patterns Differ Between Those With Low and High Back Extensor Strength During a Controlled Dynamic Task

It is proposed that reduced function in one of the spinal systems (active, passive, and neural) outlined by Panjabi could increase the risk of experiencing a low back injury (LBI). Also proposed is that reduced function in any one system can be compensated for by adjusting the time-varying recruitment of trunk muscles. This study addressed whether those with reduced active system function (WEAK), measured as back extensor strength, would have different trunk muscle activation patterns than those with higher function (STRONG), and secondly whether this relationship would be modified following recovery from a LBI. Sixty men participated, 30 recently recovered from LBI (rLBI, 4–12 weeks post injury) and 30 who had not had a LBI in the last year (ASYM). ASYM and rLBI participants were separated into STRONG and WEAK sub-groups if their isometric back extensor strength was above or below their group median, respectively. Trunk electromyograms from 24 muscle sites were recorded during a highly controlled horizontal transfer task. Principal component analysis captured key muscle activation patterns (amplitude and temporal); then analysis of variance models tested for strength or group*strength effects on these patterns consistent with the two main objectives. Significant strength, or group by strength effects were found for 3/4 electromyographic comparisons. In general, the WEAK group required higher activation amplitudes of abdominal and back extensor muscles, and greater temporal responsiveness of back extensor muscles only to the changing external moments than those who were STRONG. Group by strength interactions found that participants in the rLBI group had greater differences between WEAK and STRONG participants for overall muscle activation amplitudes in both abdominal and back extensor muscles. This increase in muscle activation was interpreted as compensation for lower maximum force properties whereas the increased temporal responsiveness captured a greater need to modify the agonist back extensors muscle activation patterns only in response to changes in the dynamic moments. Interactions captured that the recent experience of pain (rLBI) modified the magnitude of adjustment in muscle activation patterns potentially adapting to an increased risk of instability (painful flare) events associated with a deficit (lower strength) of the active system.

Revisiting the effect of manipulating lumbar stability with load magnitudes and positions: The effect of sex on trunk muscle activation

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spine stability is regularly studied by positioning different loads at different heights and distance and measuring trunk muscle activation changes. Some of these studies have reported sex differences, but this needs to be revisited while controlling for confounding factors.

METHOD

20 males and 20 females sustained three static standing postures, with various loads (0, 5 and 10% of body weight), to evaluate the effect of height and distance. Activation of 12 trunk muscles was recorded with surface electromyography (EMG).

RESULTS

Females activated their external obliques a little more than males, with increases ranging between 1.5 and 2.3% of maximal voluntary activation (MVA), which corresponds to strong effect sizes (Cohen's d ranging between 0.86 and 1.13). However, the significant Sex × Height, Sex × Distance and Sex × Load interactions observed for different trunk muscles led to small differential effects (≤1% MVA). Increasing load height slightly increased and decreased back and abdominal muscle activation, respectively, generally by less than 1% MVA.

CONCLUSION

The higher activation of the external obliques observed in females might be of clinical value, relative to the required overall trunk muscle activation (5%), to preserve lumbar stability. Other effects were negligible.