Skip to main content
PMC home page
European Spine Journal logoLink to European Spine Journal
. 1997 Sep;6(5):308–315. doi: 10.1007/BF01142676

Quantitative assessment of the motion of the lumbar spine in the low back pain population and the effect of different spinal pathologies on this motion

A H McGregor 1,✉, D McCarthy 1, C J Doré 2, S P Hughes 1
PMCID: PMC3454599  PMID: 9391800

Abstract

There are few objective means by which disability caused by low back pain (LBP) can be quantified. The purpose of this study was to investigate the usefulness of motion measurements in the assessment of LBP. The motion characteristics of 138 LBP subjects were investigated, and the data compared with a previously published database of normal subjects. Values of range of motion and angular velocity were obtained for all subjects in each plane of motion. Analysis of these motion characteristics demonstrated significant differences (P < 0.0001) between the two populations; however both populations demonstrated considerable intersubject variation. Multiple regression analysis revealed that some of the variance in the LBP population was attributable to the underlying diagnosis. Patients with a spondylolisthesis tended to be hypermobile whilst those with spinal stenosis, disc prolapse or degenerative disc disease tended to be hypomobile. All diagnostic groups showed impairments in their velocity characteristics.

Key words: Lumbar spine, Spinal motion, Normal population, Low back pain population, Diagnosis

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.0 MB).

References

  • 1.Ahern DK, Hannon DJ, Goreczny AJ, Follick MJ, Parziale JR. Correlation of chronic low back pain behaviour and muscle function examination of the flexion-relaxation response. Spine. 1990;5:92–95. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199002000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Anderson JAD, Sweetman BJ. A combined flexi-rule/hydrogoniometer for measurement of lumbar spine and its sagittal movement. Rheum Rehabil. 1975;14:173–179. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/14.3.173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bailey W. Observations on the aetiology and frequency of spondylolisthesis and its precursors. Radiology. 1947;48:107–112. doi: 10.1148/48.2.107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bogduk N, Twomey LT. Clinical anatomy of the lumbar spine. 2nd edn. Melbourne: Churchill Livingstone; 1991. pp. 65–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Burton AK, Tillotson KM. Reference values for “normal” regional lumbar sagittal mobility. Clin Biomech. 1988;3:106–113. doi: 10.1016/0268-0033(88)90053-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dvorák J, Panjabi MM, Novotny JE, Chang DG, Grob D. Clinical validation of functional flexion-extension roentgenograms of the lumbar spine. Spine. 1991;16:943–950. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199108000-00014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dvorák J, Vajda EG, Grob D, Panjabi MM. Normal motion of the lumbar spine related to age and gender. Eur Spine J. 1995;4:18–23. doi: 10.1007/BF00298413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Fitzgerald GK, Wynveen KJ, Rheault W, Rothschild B. Objective assessment with establishment of normal values for lumbar spinal range of motion. Phys Ther. 1983;63:1776–1781. doi: 10.1093/ptj/63.11.1776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gianturco C. A roentgen analysis of the motion of the lumbar vertebrae in normal individuals and in patients with low back pain. Am J Roentgenol Rad Ther. 1944;52:261–268. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gill K, Krag MH, Johnson GB, Haugh LD, Pope MH. Repeatability of four clinical methods for assessment of lumbar spinal motion. Spine. 1988;13:50–53. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198801000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gomez T, Beach G, Cooke C, Hrudey W, Goyert P. Normative database for trunk range of motion, strength, velocity, and endurance with the isostation B-200 Lumbar Dynamometer. Spine. 1991;16:15–21. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199101000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hart FD, Strickland D, Cliffe P. Measurement of spinal mobility. Ann Rheum Dis. 1974;333:136–139. doi: 10.1136/ard.33.2.136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Israel M. A quantitative method for estimating flexion and extension of the spine. Mil Med. 1959;124:181–186. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Keeley J, Mayer TG, Cox R, Gatchel RJ, Smith J, Mooney V. Quantification of lumbar function. 5. Reliability of range of motion measures in the sagittal plane and an in vivo torso rotation measurement technique. Spine. 1986;11:31–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Klaber Moffett J, Richardson G, Sheldon TA, Maynard A. Back pain: its management and cost to society. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Levene JA, Seeds RH, Goldberg HM, Frazier M, Fuhrman GA. Trends in isodynamic and isometric trunk testing on the Isostation B200. J Spinal Disord. 1989;2:20–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Loebl WY. Measurement of spinal posture and range of spinal movement. Ann Phys Med. 1987;9:103–110. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/9.3.103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Macrae IF, Wright V. Measurement of back movement. Ann Rheum Dis. 1969;28:584–589. doi: 10.1136/ard.28.6.584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Marras WS, Wongsam PE. Flexibility and velocity of the normal and impaired lumbar spine. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986;67:213–217. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Marras WS, Pamianpour M, Ferguson SA, Kim JY, Crowell RR, Bose S, Simon SR. The classification of anatomic and symptom based low back disorders using motion measure models. Spine. 1995;20:2531–2546. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199512000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mayer TG. Using physical measurements to assess low back pain. J Musculoskeletal Med. 1985;2:44–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mayer TG, Tencer AF, Kristoferson S, Mooney V. Use of non-invasive techniques for quantification of spinal range of motion in normal subjects and chronic low back pain dysfunction patients. Spine. 1984;9:588–595. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198409000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.McGregor AH, McCarthy ID, Hughes SPF. The motion characteristics of the normal and low back pain population: a preliminary report. Physiotherapy. 1995;81:632–637. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.McGregor AH, McCarthy ID, Hughes SPF. Motion characteristics of the lumbar spine in the normal population: Spine. 1995;20:2421–2428. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199511001-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.McIntyre DR, Glover LH, Conino MC, Seeds RH, Levene JA. A comparison of the characteristics of preferred low-back motion of normal subjects and low back pain patients. J Spinal Disord. 1991;4:90–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Menezes AP, Davies KE, Hukins DWL, Jayson MIV. Measurement of the time course of bending of the back in the sagittal plane. Eur Spine J. 1995;4:24–28. doi: 10.1007/BF00298414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Merritt JL, McLean TJ, Erickson RP. Measurement of trunk flexibility in normal subjects: Reproducibility of three clinical methods. Mayo Clin Proc. 1986;61:192–197. doi: 10.1016/s0025-6196(12)61848-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Moll JMH, Wright V. Normal range of spinal mobility: an objective study. Ann Rheum Dis. 1971;30:381–384. doi: 10.1136/ard.30.4.381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Annual Report. Middlesex, UK: NBPA; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Annual Report. Middlesex, UK: NBPA; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Yamamato I, Crisco JJ. Mechanical behaviour of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curve. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1994;76:412–1124. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199403000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pearcy MJ (1985) Stereo radiography of lumbar spine motion. Acta Orthop Scand [Suppl] 212(56) [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 33.Pearcy M, Shepherd J. Is there instability in spondylolisthesis? Spine. 1985;10:175–177. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198503000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Reynolds PMG. Measurement of spinal mobility: a comparison of three methods. Rheum Rehabil. 1975;14:180–185. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/14.3.180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Schöber P. Ledenwirbelsäule und Kreuzschemerzen. Muench Med Wochensch. 1937;84:336. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Troke M, Moore AP, Cheek E. Intra-operator and inter-operator reliability of the OSI CA-6000 Spinal Motion Analyser with a new skin fixation system. Man Ther. 1996;1:92–98. doi: 10.1054/math.1996.0256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Adrichem JAM, Korst JK. Assessment of the flexibility of the lumbar spine. Scand J Rheumatol. 1973;2:87–91. doi: 10.3109/03009747309098823. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from European Spine Journal are provided here courtesy of Springer-Verlag

RESOURCES