Clinical Biomechanics
Volume 14, Issue 1 , Pages 54-62, January 1999

The in vivo dynamic response of the spine to perturbations causing rapid flexion: effects of pre-load and step input magnitude

  • S.R. Krajcarski

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1.
    • School of Human Biology and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
  • ,
  • J.R. Potvin

      Affiliations

    • School of Human Kinetics, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
  • ,
  • J. Chiang

      Affiliations

    • School of Human Biology and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Received 4 December 1997; accepted 19 May 1998.

Abstract 

Objective. To evaluate the impact of muscle pre-activation levels and load magnitude on the response of the trunk to loading conditions causing rapid flexion.

Design. Eight male subjects were asked to maintain an upright standing posture while resisting the application of forward flexion moments produced by four different loading conditions consisting of combinations of two pre-loads (4% or 16% of the maximum extensor moment) and two added loads (12% or 24%). Pre-loading was used to develop different initial levels of trunk muscle activity prior to the application of the added loads. Of special interest were the two conditions that resulted in total final loads of 28%.

Background. Cocontraction of the antagonistic and agonistic muscles of the trunk are required to provide stability during normal physiological loading conditions. In several in vivo studies, levels of trunk muscle cocontraction have been observed prior to the application of unexpected or sudden loads. Forces from the abdominal muscles have been proposed to provide stability when extensor moments are generated. The response of trunk muscles to rapid flexor moments would provide further insight into the dynamic stability mechanisms of the spine.

Methods. Measurements were made of the trunk extensor moments, angular displacement of the trunk and unilateral surface EMG amplitudes of three abdominal and three trunk extensor muscles. Values were recorded during the isometric pre-load and for the maximum magnitude of each variable in response to the added load.

Results. Higher pre-loads resulted in lower flexion rotations of the spine and higher added loads caused larger rotations. With increasing magnitudes of final loads, a corresponding increase in trunk extensor moments and trunk muscle cocontraction was observed. The largest activations were observed in the lumbar erector spinae and thoracic erector spinae muscles, while smaller yet substantial EMG activity was observed in the internal oblique and external oblique. A comparison of the 28% loading conditions showed an increased response of the trunk to the [4+24] loading condition (with lower initial trunk stiffness) when compared to the [16+12] loading condition.

Conclusions. Pre-activation of trunk extensor muscles can serve to reduce the flexion displacements caused by rapid loading. The abdominal oblique muscles, especially external oblique, will rapidly increase their activation levels in response to rapid loading. These changes are more pronounced when pre-activation levels are low, resulting in lower initial trunk stiffness and spine compression force. It is proposed that these factors will ultimately affect spine stability and the risk of injury.

Keywords:  Concontraction, Trunk, Spine, Dynamic reflex, Stability, Sagittal plane, Sudden/unexpected loading

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0268-0033(98)00048-5

Clinical Biomechanics
Volume 14, Issue 1 , Pages 54-62, January 1999