Acute, Non-Specific Low Back Pain Does Not Impair Isometric Deadlift Force or Electromyographic Excitation: A Cross-Sectional Study

Physically Active Adults with Low Back Pain do not Demonstrate Altered Deadlift Mechanics: A Novel Application of Myotonometry to Estimate Inter-Muscular Load Sharing

Background

Rehabilitation clinicians that work with physically active populations are challenged with how to safely return patients back to performing deadlift movements following low back injury. Application of reliable and valid tests and measures to quantify impairments related to low back pain (LBP) enhances clinical decision making and may affect outcomes. Myotonometry is a non-invasive method to assess muscle stiffness which has demonstrated significant associations with physical performance and musculoskeletal injury.

Hypothesis/Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the stiffness of trunk (lumbar multifidus [LM] and longissimus thoracis [LT]) and lower extremity (vastus lateralis [VL] and biceps femoris [BF]) muscles between individuals with and without LBP during the lying, standing, and deadlifting body positions.

Study Design

Cross-sectional cohort comparison.

Methods

Muscle stiffness measures were collected in the VL, BF, LM, and LT muscles with participants in lying (supine and prone), standing, and the trap bar deadlift position. Separate analyses of covariance were conducted to compare absolute and relative muscle stiffness between the groups for each muscle and condition.

Results

Sixty-eight participants (41 female, 21.3 years, 34 LBP) volunteered for the study. Within the deadlift condition there was a significantly greater increase in the percent-muscle stiffness change in the VL (p = .029, 21.9%) and BF (p = .024, 11.2%) muscles in the control group than in the LBP group. There were no differences in percent-muscle stiffness changes for the standing condition nor were there any absolute muscle stiffness differences between the two groups for the three conditions.

Conclusion

No differences in muscle stiffness were identified in the lying, standing, or deadlifting conditions between participants with and without LBP. Differences in percent stiffness changes were noted between groups for the deadlift position, however the differences were modest and within measurement error. Future studies should investigate the utility of myotonometry as a method to identify LBP-related impairments that contribute to chronic and/or recurrent low back injury.

Level of Evidence

Level 3.

Thoracolumbar fascia deformation during deadlifting and trunk extension in individuals with and without back pain

Background

Alterations in posture, lumbopelvic kinematics, and movement patterns are commonly seen in patients with low back pain. Therefore, strengthening the posterior muscle chain has been shown to result in significant improvement in pain and disability status. Recent studies suggest that thoracolumbar fascia (TLF) has a major impact on the maintenance of spinal stability and paraspinal muscle activity, and thus is likely to have an equal impact on deadlift performance.

Objective

Aim of the study was to evaluate the role of thoracolumbar fascia deformation (TFLD) during spinal movement in track and field athletes (TF) as well as individuals with and without acute low back pain (aLBP).

Methods

A case-control study was performed with n = 16 aLBP patients (cases) and two control groups: untrained healthy individuals (UH, n = 16) and TF (n = 16). Participants performed a trunk extension task (TET) and a deadlift, being assessed for erector spinae muscle thickness (EST) and TLFD using high-resolution ultrasound imaging. Mean deadlift velocity (VEL) and deviation of barbell path (DEV) were measured by means of a three-axis gyroscope. Group differences for TLFD during the TET were examined using ANOVA. Partial Spearman rank correlations were calculated between TLFD and VEL adjusting for baseline covariates, EST, and DEV. TLFD during deadlifting was compared between groups using ANCOVA adjusting for EST, DEV, and VEL.

Results

TLFD during the TET differed significantly between groups. TF had the largest TLFD (-37.6%), followed by UH (-26.4%), while aLBP patients had almost no TLFD (-2.7%). There was a strong negative correlation between TLFD and deadlift VEL in all groups (r = -0.65 to -0.89) which was highest for TF (r = -0.89). TLFD during deadlift, corrected for VEL, also differed significantly between groups. TF exhibited the smallest TLFD (-11.9%), followed by aLBP patients (-21.4%), and UH (-31.9%).

Conclusion

TFLD maybe a suitable parameter to distinguish LBP patients and healthy individuals during lifting tasks. The cause-effect triangle between spinal movement, TFLD and movement velocity needs to be further clarified.

Clinical trial registration

https://drks.de/register/de/trial/DRKS00027074/, German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00027074.