Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative evaluation of a novel measurement tool to assess lumbar spine posture and range of motion

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The diagnosis of low back pain pathology is generally based upon invasive image-based assessment of structural pathology, but is limited in methods to evaluate function. The accurate and robust measurement of dynamic function may assist in the diagnosis and monitoring of therapy success. Epionics SPINE is an advanced strain-gauge measurement technology, based on the two sensor strips SpineDMS system, which allows the non-invasive assessment of lumbar and thoraco-lumbar motion for periods of up to 24 h. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability of Epionics SPINE and to collect and compare normative data for the characterisation of spinal motion in healthy subjects. Furthermore, the identification of parameters that influence lumbar range of motion (RoM) was targeted.

Methods

Spinal shape was measured using Epionics SPINE in 30 asymptomatic volunteers during upright standing, as well as maximum flexion and extension, to check intra-rater reliability. Furthermore, back shape was assessed throughout repeated maximum flexion and extension movements in 429 asymptomatic volunteers in order to collect normative data of the lordosis angle and RoM in different gender and age classes.

Results

The lordosis angle during standing in the healthy collective measured with Epionics SPINE was 32.4° ± 9.7°. Relative to this standing position, the average maximum flexion angle was 50.8° ± 10.9° and the average extension angle 25.0° ± 11.5°. Comparisons with X-ray and Spinal Mouse data demonstrated good agreement in static positions. Age played a larger role than gender in influencing lumbar posture and RoM.

Conclusions

The Epionics SPINE system allows the practical and reliable dynamic assessment of lumbar spine shape and RoM, and may therefore provide a clinical solution for the evaluation of lower back pain as well as therapy monitoring.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Frymoyer J, Cats-Baril W (1991) An overview of the incidence and costs of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am 22:263–271

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S (2008) A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J 8:8–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. D’Osualdo F, Schierano S, Cisotti C (2002) The evaluation of the spine through the surface. Europa Medicophysica 38:147–152

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lin C-WC, McAuley JH, Macedo L, Barnett DC, Smeets RJ, Verbunt JA (2011) Relationship between physical activity and disability in low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain 152:607–613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Levine D, Colston MA, Whittle MW, Pharo EC, Marcellin-Little DJ (2007) Sagittal lumbar spine position during standing, walking, and running at various gradients. J Athl Train 42:29–34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vogt L, Pfeifer K, Portscher M, Banzer W (2000) Lumbar corsets: their effect on three-dimensional kinematics of the pelvis. J Rehabil Res Dev 37:495–499

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Drerup B, Ellger B, zu Bentrup FM, Hierholzer E (2001) Rasterstereographische Funktionsaufnahmen—Eine neue Methode zur biomechanischen Analyse der Skelettgeometrie. Orthopäde 30:242–250

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mannion AF, Knecht K, Balaban G, Dvorak J, Grob D (2004) A new skin-surface device for measuring the curvature and global and segmental ranges of motion of the spine: reliability of measurements and comparison with data reviewed from the literature. Eur Spine J 13:122–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wunderlich M, Rüther T, Essfeld D, Erren TC, Piekarski C, and Leyk D (2011) A new approach to assess movements and isometric postures of spine and trunk at the workplace. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1777-7

  10. Goodvin C, Park EJ, Huang K, Sakaki K (2006) Development of a real-time three-dimensional spinal motion measurement system for clinical practice. Med Biol Eng Comput 44:1061–1075

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dvorák J, Vajda EG, Grob D, Panjabi MM (1995) Normal motion of the lumbar spine as related to age and gender. Eur Spine J 4:18–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Williams JM, Haq I, Lee RY (2010) Dynamic measurement of lumbar curvature using fibre-optic sensors. Med Eng Phys 32:1043–1049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ferguson SA, Marras WS (2004) Revised protocol for the kinematic assessment of impairment. Spine J 4:163–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Troke M, Moore AP, Maillardet FJ, Cheek E (2005) A normative database of lumbar spine ranges of motion. Man Ther 10:198–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Taylor WR, Consmüller T, Rohlmann A (2010) A novel system for the dynamic assessment of back shape. Med Eng Phys 32:1080–1083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Buckup K (2008) Clinical tests for the musculoskeletal system: examination, sings, phenomena. Thieme, Stuttgart

  17. Steinbeis S (1999) Alters- und geschlechtsspezifische Normwerte von Rückenform und-beweglichkeit gemessen mit der Rückenmaus. Thesis, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany

  18. Cheng XG, Sun Y, Boonen S, Nicholson PH, Brys P, Dequeker J, Felsenberg D (1998) Measurements of vertebral shape by radiographic morphometry: sex differences and relationships with vertebral level and lumbar lordosis. Skelet Radiol 27:380–384

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Vialle R, Levassor N, Rillardon L, Templier A, Skalli W, Guigui P (2005) Radiographic analysis of the sagittal alignment and balance of the spine in asymptomatic subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:260–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Janssen MM, Drevelle X, Humbert L, Skalli W, Castelein RM (2009) Differences in male and female spino-pelvic alignment in asymptomatic young adults: a three-dimensional analysis using upright low-dose digital biplanar X-rays. Spine J 34:E826–E832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Batti′e MC, Bigos SJ, Sheehy A, Wortley MD (1987) Spinal flexibility and individual factors that influence it. Phys Ther 67:653–658

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee S, Wong KWN, Chan MK, Yeung HM, Chiu JLF, Leong JCY (2002) Development and validation of a new technique for assessing lumbar spine motion. Spine J 27:215–220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fitzgerald GK, Wynveen KJ, Rheault W, Rothschild B (1983) Objective assessment with establishment of normal values for lumbar spinal range of motion. Phys Ther 63:1776–1781

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pearcy MJ (1985) Stereo radiography of lumbar spine motion. Acta Orthop Scand 56:1–45

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the volunteers for their contribution to this study. This study was partially supported by the EU (VPHOP ICT-2-5.3) and Epionics Medical, Potsdam, Germany.

Conflict of interest

T. Consmüller and D. Weinland are employees of Epionics Medical. A. Rohlmann is a consultant of Epionics Medical.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Epionics Medical GmbH, Am Luftschiffhafen 1, 14471, Potsdam, Germany

    Tobias Consmüller & Daniel Weinland

  2. Julius Wolff Institute, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany

    Antonius Rohlmann, Georg N. Duda & William R. Taylor

  3. Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany

    Claudia Druschel

Authors
  1. Tobias Consmüller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonius Rohlmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Weinland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Claudia Druschel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Georg N. Duda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. William R. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonius Rohlmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Consmüller, T., Rohlmann, A., Weinland, D. et al. Comparative evaluation of a novel measurement tool to assess lumbar spine posture and range of motion. Eur Spine J 21, 2170–2180 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2312-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2312-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation