請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/47494
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 王淑芬(Shwu-Fen Wang) | |
dc.contributor.author | I-Shan Liu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 劉伊珊 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T06:02:44Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2015-09-09 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2010-09-09 | |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2010-08-16 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. Macintosh JE, Valemcia F, Bogduk N, Munro RR. The morphology of the human lumbar multifidus. Clin Biomech 1986;1:196-204.
2. Rosatelli AL, Ravichandiran K, Agur AM. Three-dimensional study of the musculotendinous architecture of lumbar multifidus and its functional implications. Clin Anat 2008;21(6):539-46. 3. Lonnemann ME, Paris SV, Gorniak GC. A Morphological Comparison of the Human Lumbar Multifidus by Chemical Dissection. J Man Manip Ther 2008;16(4):E84-E92. 4. Moseley GL, Hodges PW, Gandevia SC. Deep and superficial fibers of the lumbar multifidus muscle are differentially active during voluntary arm movements. Spine 2002;27(2):E29-36. 5. Moseley GL, Hodges PW, Gandevia SC. External perturbation of the trunk in standing humans differentially activates components of the medial back muscles. J Physiol 2003;547(Pt 2):581-7. 6. Moseley GL, Nicholas MK, Hodges PW. Pain differs from non-painful attention-demanding or stressful tasks in its effect on postural control patterns of trunk muscles. Exp Brain Res 2004;156(1):64-71. 7. Hodges PW, Moseley GL, Gabrielsson A, Gandevia SC. Experimental muscle pain changes feedforward postural responses of the trunk muscles. Exp Brain Res 2003;151(2):262-71. 8. Hides J, Richardson C, Hodges P. Local segment control. Therapeutic exercise for lumbopelvic stabilization: a motor control approach for the treatment and prevention of low back pain. 2nd ed. Sydney: Churchill Livingstone; 2004. p 185–219. 9. MacDonald DA, Moseley GL, Hodges PW. The lumbar multifidus: does the evidence support clinical beliefs? Man Ther 2006;11(4):254-63. 10. MacDonald D, Moseley GL, Hodges PW. Why do some patients keep hurting their back? Evidence of ongoing back muscle dysfunction during remission from recurrent back pain. Pain 2009;142(3):183-8. 11. MacDonald D, Moseley GL, Hodges PW. People with recurrent low back pain respond differently to trunk loading despite remission from symptoms. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35(7):818-24. 12. Dickx N, Cagnie B, Achten E, Vandemaele P, Parlevliet T, Danneels L. Differentiation between deep and superficial fibers of the lumbar multifidus by magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Spine J 2010;19(1):122-8. 13. Sirca A, Kostevc V. The fibre type composition of thoracic and lumbar paravertebral muscles in man. J Anat 1985;141:131-7. 14. Ekstrom RA, Donatelli RA, Carp KC. Electromyographic analysis of core trunk, hip, and thigh muscles during 9 rehabilitation exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2007;37(12):754-62. 15. Ekstrom RA, Osborn RW, Hauer PL. Surface electromyographic analysis of the low back muscles during rehabilitation exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2008;38(12):736-45. 16. Danneels L, Coorevits P, Cools A, Vanderstraeten G, Cambier D, Witvrouw E et al. Differences in electromyographic activity in the multifidus muscle and the iliocostalis lumborum between healthy subjects and patients with sub-acute and chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2002;11(1):13-9. 17. Jull G, Richardson C. Rehabilitation of active stabilisation of the lumbar spine. In: LT T, JR T, editors. Physical Therapy of the Low Back. 2nd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1994. p 251-73. 18. Richardson CA, Jull GA. Muscle control-pain control. What exercises would you prescribe? Man Ther 1995;1(1):2-10. 19. Hides JA, Richardson CA, Jull GA. Multifidus muscle recovery is not automatic after resolution of acute, first-episode low back pain. Spine 1996;21(23):2763-9. 20. Koumantakis GA, Oldham JA, Winstanley J. Intermittent isometric fatigue study of the lumbar multifidus muscle in four-point kneeling: an intra-rater reliability investigation. Man Ther 2001;6(2):97-105. 21. Van K, Hides JA, Richardson CA. The use of real-time ultrasound imaging for biofeedback of lumbar multifidus muscle contraction in healthy subjects. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006;36(12):920-5. 22. Hides J, Stanton W, McMahon S, Sims K, Richardson C. Effect of Stabilization Training on Multifidus Muscle Cross-sectional Area Among Young Elite Cricketers With Low Back Pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2008;38(3):101-8. 23. Herbert WJ, Heiss DG, Basso DM. Influence of feedback schedule in motor performance and learning of a lumbar multifidus muscle task using rehabilitative ultrasound imaging: a randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther 2008;88(2):261-9. 24. Wallwork TL, Stanton WR, Freke M, Hides JA. The effect of chronic low back pain on size and contraction of the lumbar multifidus muscle. Man Ther 2009;14(5):496-500. 25. O'Sullivan PB, Dankaerts W, Burnett AF, Farrell GT, Ther MM, Jefford E et al. Effect of Different Upright Sitting Postures on Spinal-Pelvic Curvature and Trunk Muscle Activation in a Pain-Free Population. Spine 2006;31(19):E707. 26. Claus AP, Hides JA, Moseley GL, Hodges PW. Different ways to balance the spine: subtle changes in sagittal spinal curves affect regional muscle activity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34(6):E208-14. 27. Kiesel KB, Uhl TL, Underwood FB, Rodd DW, Nitz AJ. Measurement of lumbar multifidus muscle contraction with rehabilitative ultrasound imaging. Man Ther 2007;12(2):161-6. 28. Stokes M, Rankin G, Newham DJ. Ultrasound imaging of lumbar multifidus muscle: normal reference ranges for measurements and practical guidance on the technique. Man Ther 2005;10(2):116-26. 29. Brenner AK, Gill NW, Buscema CJ, Kiesel K. Improved activation of lumbar multifidus following spinal manipulation: a case report applying rehabilitative ultrasound imaging. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy 2007;37(10):613. 30. Kiesel KB, Underwood FB, Matacolla C, Nitz AJ, Malone TR. A comparison of select trunk muscle thickness change between subjects with low back pain classified in the treatment-based classification system and asymptomatic controls. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2007;37(10):596-607. 31. Kiesel KB, Uhl T, Underwood FB, Nitz AJ. Rehabilitative ultrasound measurement of select trunk muscle activation during induced pain. Man Ther 2008;13(2):132-8. 32. Koppenhaver SL, Hebert JJ, Fritz JM, Parent EC, Teyhen DS, Magel JS. Reliability of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging of the transversus abdominis and lumbar multifidus muscles. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009;90(1):87-94. 33. Dickx N, Cagnie B, Parlevliet T, Lavens A, Danneels L. The effect of unilateral muscle pain on recruitment of the lumbar multifidus during automatic contraction. An experimental pain study. Man Ther 2010. 34. Hebert JJ, Koppenhaver SL, Magel JS, Fritz JM. The Relationship of Transversus Abdominis and Lumbar Multifidus Activation and Prognostic Factors for Clinical Success With a Stabilization Exercise Program: A Cross-Sectional Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91(1):78-85. 35. Magee DJ. Orthopedic Physical Assessment. 4 ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders; 2002. 36. McGill SM. Low back exercises: evidence for improving exercise regimens. Phys Ther 1998;78(7):754-65. 37. McGill SM. Low back stability: from formal description to issues for performance and rehabilitation. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2001;29(1):26-31. 38. McGill SM, Grenier S, Kavcic N, Cholewicki J. Coordination of muscle activity to assure stability of the lumbar spine. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2003;13(4):353-9. 39. Vasseljen O, Dahl HH, Mork PJ, Torp HG. Muscle activity onset in the lumbar multifidus muscle recorded simultaneously by ultrasound imaging and intramuscular electromyography. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2006;21(9):905-13. 40. Silfies SP, Mehta R, Smith SS, Karduna AR. Differences in feedforward trunk muscle activity in subgroups of patients with mechanical low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009;90(7):1159-69. 41. Flicker PL, Fleckenstein JL, Ferry K, Payne J, Ward C, Mayer T et al. Lumbar muscle usage in chronic low back pain. Magnetic resonance image evaluation. Spine 1993;18(5):582-6. 42. Roy SH, De L, Carlo J, Casavant DA. Lumbar muscle fatigue and chronic lower back pain. Spine 1989;14(9):992. 43. Van Dieen JH, Cholewicki J, Radebold A. Trunk muscle recruitment patterns in patients with low back pain enhance the stability of the lumbar spine. Spine 2003;28(8):834. 44. Leinonen V, Kankaanpaa M, Luukkonen M, Hanninen O, Airaksinen O, Taimela S. Disc herniation-related back pain impairs feed-forward control of paraspinal muscles. Spine 2001;26(16):E367-72. 45. Rantanen J, Hurme M, Falck B, Alaranta H, Nykvist F, Lehto M et al. The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine 1993;18(5):568-74. 46. Mengiardi B, Schmid MR, Boos N, Pfirrmann CWA, Brunner F, Elfering A et al. Fat Content of Lumbar Paraspinal Muscles in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain and in Asymptomatic Volunteers: Quantification with MR Spectroscopy1. Radiology 2006;240(3):786. 47. Hides JA, Stokes MJ, Saide M, Jull GA, Cooper DH. Evidence of lumbar multifidus muscle wasting ipsilateral to symptoms in patients with acute/subacute low back pain. Spine 1994;19(2):165-72. 48. Hodges P, Holm AK, Hansson T, Holm S. Rapid Atrophy of the Lumbar Multifidus Follows Experimental Disc or Nerve Root Injury. Spine 2006;31(25):2926. 49. Kamaz M, Kiresi D, Oguz H, Emlik D, Levendoglu F. CT measurement of trunk muscle areas in patients with chronic low back pain. Diagn Interv Radiol 2007;13(3):144-8. 50. Kulig K, Scheid AR, Beauregard R, Popovich JM, Jr., Beneck GJ, Colletti PM. Multifidus morphology in persons scheduled for single-level lumbar microdiscectomy: qualitative and quantitative assessment with anatomical correlates. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2009;88(5):355-61. 51. O'Sullivan PB, Twomey L, Allison GT. Altered abdominal muscle recruitment in patients with chronic back pain following a specific exercise intervention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998;27(2):114-24. 52. Tsao H, Hodges PW. Persistence of improvements in postural strategies following motor control training in people with recurrent low back pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2008;18(4):559-67. 53. Zagzebski JA. Bioeffects and safety consideration. Essentials of ultrasound physics. St. Louis: Mosby; 1996. p 162-78. 54. Hodges PW, Pengel LHM, Herbert RD, Gandevia SC. Measurement of muscle contraction with ultrasound imaging. Muscle Nerve 2003;27(6). 55. Hides JA, Richardson CA, Jull GA. Use of real-time ultrasound imaging for feedback in rehabilitation. Man Ther 1998;3(3):125-31. 56. Hides JA, Cooper DH, Stokes MJ. Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging for Measurement of the Lumbar Multifidus Muscle in Normal Young Adults. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 1992;8(1):19-26. 57. Wallwork TL, Hides JA, Stanton WR. Intrarater and interrater reliability of assessment of lumbar multifidus muscle thickness using rehabilitative ultrasound imaging. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2007;37(10):608-12. 58. Hides JA, Richardson CA, Jull GA. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography of the lumbar multifidus muscle. Comparison of two different modalities. Spine 1995;20(1):54-8. 59. Pressler JF, Heiss DG, Buford JA, Chidley JV. Between-day repeatability and symmetry of multifidus cross-sectional area measured using ultrasound imaging. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006;36(1):10-8. 60. Barr KP, Griggs M, Cadby T. Lumbar Stabilization-- Core Concepts and Current Literature, Part 1. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:473-80. 61. Farfan HF. Muscular mechanism of the lumbar spine and the position of power and efficiency. Orthop Clin North Am 1975;6(1):135-44. 62. Bergmark A. Stability of the lumbar spine. A study in mechanical engineering. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 1989;230:1-54. 63. Panjabi MM. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part I. Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement. J Spinal Disord 1992;5(4):383-9; discussion 97. 64. O'Sullivan PB. Lumbar segmental `instability': clinical presentation and specific stabilizing exercise management. Man Ther 2000;5(1):2-12. 65. Goldby LJ, Moore AP, Doust J, Trew ME. A randomized controlled trial investigating the efficiency of musculoskeletal physiotherapy on chronic low back disorder. Spine 2006;31(10):1083-93. 66. Ferreira ML, Ferreira PH, Latimer J, Herbert RD, Hodges PW, Jennings MD et al. Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial. Pain 2007;131(1-2):31-7. 67. Koumantakis GA, Watson PJ, Oldham JA. Trunk muscle stabilization training plus general exercise versus general exercise only: randomized controlled trial of patients with recurrent low back pain. Phys Ther 2005;85(3):209-25. 68. Cairns MC, Foster NE, Wright C. Randomized controlled trial of specific spinal stabilization exercises and conventional physiotherapy for recurrent low back pain. Spine 2006;31(19):E670-81. 69. Richardson C, Hodges P, Hides J. Therapeutic Exercise For Lumbopelvic Stabilization. A motor Control Approach and Prevention of Low Back Pain. 2nd ed. Edingburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone; 2004. 70. Cresswell AG, Grundstrom H, Thorstensson A. Observations on intra-abdominal pressure and patterns of abdominal intra-muscular activity in man. Acta Physiol Scand 1992;144(4):409-18. 71. Hodges P, Cresswell A, Thorstensson A. Preparatory trunk motion accompanies rapid upper limb movement. Exp Brain Res 1999;124(1):69-79. 72. Bogduk N, Macintosh JE. The applied anatomy of the thoracolumbar fascia. Spine 1984;9(2):164-70. 73. Ford D, Bagnall KM, McFadden KD, Greenhill B, Raso J. Analysis of vertebral muscle obtained during surgery for correction of a lumbar disc disorder. Acta Anat (Basel) 1983;116(2):152-7. 74. Hansen L, de Zee M, Rasmussen J, Andersen TB, Wong C, Simonsen EB. Anatomy and Biomechanics of the Back Muscles in the Lumbar Spine With Reference to Biomechanical Modeling. Spine 2006;31(17):1888. 75. Panjabi M, Abumi K, Duranceau J, Oxland T. Spinal stability and intersegmental muscle forces. A biomechanical model. Spine 1989;14(2):194-200. 76. Cholewicki J, VanVliet JJt. Relative contribution of trunk muscles to the stability of the lumbar spine during isometric exertions. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2002;17(2):99-105. 77. Bogduk N, Macintosh JE, Pearcy MJ. A universal model of the lumbar back muscles in the upright position. Spine 1992;17(8):897-913. 78. McGill SM. Kinetic potential of the lumbar trunk musculature about three orthogonal orthopaedic axes in extreme postures. Spine 1991;16(7):809-15. 79. Rantanen J, Rissanen A, Kalimo H. Lumbar muscle fiber size and type distribution in normal subjects. Eur Spine J 1994;3(6):331-5. 80. Bagnall KM, Ford DM, McFadden KD, Greenhill BJ, Raso VJ. The histochemical composition of human vertebral muscle. Spine 1984;9(5):470-3. 81. Valencia FP, Munro RR. An electromyographic study of the lumbar multifidus in man. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1985;25(4):205-21. 82. Stokes IAF, Henry SM, Single RM. Surface EMG electrodes do not accurately record from lumbar multifidus muscles. Clin Biomech 2003;18(1):9-13. 83. Donisch EW, Basmajian JV. Electromyography of deep back muscles in man. Am J Anat 1972;133(1):25-36. 84. Floyd WF, Silver PH. Function of erectores spinae in flexion of the trunk. Lancet 1951;1(3):133-4. 85. Joseph J, McColl I. Electromyography of muscles of posture: posterior vertebral muscles in males. The Journal of Physiology 1961;157(1):33. 86. Morris JM, Benner G, Lucas DB. An electromyographic study of the intrinsic muscles of the back in man. J Anat 1962;96(Pt 4):509. 87. Hislop HJ, Montgomery J. Daniels and Worthingham's muscle testing. 6th ed. Singapore: Elsevier; 2002. 88. Janda V. Evaluation of muscular balance. In: Liebenson C, editor. Rehabilitation of the spine : a practitioner's manual. Baltimore Williams & Wilkins; 1996. 89. Ng J, Richardson C. EMG study of erector spinae and multifidus in two isometric back extension exercises. Physiotherapy 1994;40:115-21. 90. Hodges PW, Richardson CA. Inefficient muscular stabilization of the lumbar spine associated with low back pain. A motor control evaluation of transversus abdominis. Spine 1996;21(22):2640-50. 91. Hodges PW, Richardson CA. Delayed postural contraction of transversus abdominis in low back pain associated with movement of the lower limb. J Spinal Disord 1998;11(1):46-56. 92. Hodges PW, Richardson CA. Altered trunk muscle recruitment in people with low back pain with upper limb movement at different speeds. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80(9):1005-12. 93. Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML, Hodges PW. Changes in recruitment of the abdominal muscles in people with low back pain: ultrasound measurement of muscle activity. Spine 2004;29(22):2560. 94. Hides JA, Boughen CL, Stanton WR, Strudwick MW, Wilson SJ. A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Investigation of the Transversus Abdominis Muscle During Drawing-in of the Abdominal Wall in Elite Australian Football League Players With and Without Low Back Pain. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy 2010;40(1):4-10. 95. Hodges PW. Core stability exercise in chronic low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am 2003;34(2):245-54. 96. Kristjansson E. Reliability of ultrasonography for the cervical multifidus muscle in asymptomatic and symptomatic subjects. Man Ther 2004;9(2):83-8. 97. Chow JH, Chan CC. Validation of the Chinese version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Work 2005;25(4):307-14. 98. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research. Applications to Practice. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.; 2009. 99. Koppenhaver SL, Parent EC, Teyhen DS, Hebert JJ, Fritz JM. The effect of averaging multiple trials on measurement error during ultrasound imaging of transversus abdominis and lumbar multifidus muscles in individuals with low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009;39(8):604-11. 100. Weber BR, Grob D, Dvorak J, Muntener M. Posterior surgical approach to the lumbar spine and its effect on the multifidus muscle. Spine 1997;22(15):1765. 101. Parkkola R, Kormano M. Lumbar disc and back muscle degeneration on MRI: correlation to age and body mass. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 1992;5(4):86. 102. Mannion AF, Kaser L, Weber E, Rhyner A, Dvorak J, Muntener M. Influence of age and duration of symptoms on fibre type distribution and size of the back muscles in chronic low back pain patients. Eur Spine J 2000;9(4):273-81. 103. Taylor JR, Twomey LT. Age changes in lumbar zygapophyseal joints: observations on structure and function. Spine 1986;11(7):739. 104. Watson T, McPherson S, Starr K. The Association of Nutritional Status and Gender with Cross-Sectional Area of the Multifidus Muscle in Establishing Normative Data. 2008. 105. Keller A, Johansen JG, Hellesnes J, Brox JI. Predictors of isokinetic back muscle strength in patients with low back pain. Spine 1999;24(3):275. 106. Lee PJ, Rogers EL, Granata KP. Active trunk stiffness increases with co-contraction. Journal of electromyography and kinesiology: official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology 2006;16(1):51. 107. Gardner-Morse MG, Stokes IAF. The effects of abdominal muscle coactivation on lumbar spine stability. Spine 1998;23(1):86. 108. Granata KP, Marras WS. The influence of trunk muscle coactivity on dynamic spinal loads. Spine 1995;20(8):913. 109. Danneels LA, Vanderstraeten GG, Cambier DC, Witvrouw EE, Stevens VK, De Cuyper HJ. A functional subdivision of hip, abdominal, and back muscles during asymmetric lifting. Spine 2001;26(6):E114. 110. Ward SR, Kim CW, Eng CM, Gottschalk LJt, Tomiya A, Garfin SR et al. Architectural analysis and intraoperative measurements demonstrate the unique design of the multifidus muscle for lumbar spine stability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91(1):176-85. 111. Hodges PW, Richardson CA. Relationship between limb movement speed and associated contraction of the trunk muscles. Ergonomics 1997;40(11):1220-30. 112. McCook DT, Vicenzino B, Hodges PW. Activity of deep abdominal muscles increases during submaximal flexion and extension efforts but antagonist co-contraction remains unchanged. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2009;19(5):754-62. 113. Granata KP, Rogers E, Moorhouse K. Effects of static flexion-relaxation on paraspinal reflex behavior. Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) 2005;20(1):16. 114. Van Dieen JH, Selen LPJ, Cholewicki J. Trunk muscle activation in low-back pain patients, an analysis of the literature. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2003;13(4):333-51. 115. Travell J, Rinzler S, Herman M. Pain and disability of the shoulder and arm: treatment by intramuscular infiltration with procaine hydrochloride. JAMA 1942;120(6):417. 116. Kaufman MP, Longhurst JC, Rybicki KJ, Wallach JH, Mitchell JH. Effects of static muscular contraction on impulse activity of groups III and IV afferents in cats. J Appl Physiol 1983;55(1):105. 117. Mense S. Nociception from skeletal muscle in relation to clinical muscle pain. Pain 1993;54(3):241-89. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/47494 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 背景:腰部多裂肌為維持腰部穩定相當重要的肌群,尤其深層多裂肌被認為在持續性收縮及維持關節穩定更為重要,下背痛病人也證實在肌肉控制方面會產生變化,但目前在人體上用來評估深層多裂肌的方法卻仍缺乏,亟需臨床上可行、且可分別量測深層多裂肌功能的評估方法。
目的: 1) 建立以超音波影像量測深層多裂肌之方法學;2) 建立以超音波影像量測深層、淺層多裂肌之信度;3) 研究可能會影響深層、淺層多裂肌收縮的因素;4) 比較有無下背痛受試者之間,分別在自主意識收縮及自動收縮這兩大類運動裡,比較深、淺層多裂肌收縮的動作型態有何不同。 方法:比較離體豬隻的腰部深層多裂肌形態學與其超音波影像,並注入染料確認多裂肌解剖位置,以建立超音波量測深層多裂肌之方法學。以超音波影像儀器擷取靜態時及收縮時之深層及淺層多裂肌形態學變化以代表收縮程度,並量測兩層肌肉的厚度改變。信度測試及主要測試皆收取下背痛及健康無症狀之受試者,並探討兩層多裂肌之厚度變化與年齡、身高、體重、身體質量指數(Body mass index, BMI)與性別之影響。接著請受試者作兩類常用於臨床治療之多裂肌等長收縮之動作,第一類為自主意識收縮,包含腹部內縮、背肌撐厚、骨盆前傾等;第二類為自動收縮,分為俯臥抬高與測試邊同邊及對邊上肢或下肢,並觀察其厚度變化。信度分析部份將以組內相關係數(Intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC3,3)來分析。研究可能影響因素將用Pearson correlation 計算在休息時及收縮時之肌肉厚度及兩個狀態間之厚度變化,與年齡、身體測量參數的相關性,而以independent t-test來比較性別之間差異。以三尾變異數分析(3-way ANOVA)作在兩組之間同一類型中各動作與深、淺層多裂肌厚度變化之差異比較,α值設在0.05。 結果:超音波可以觀測離體豬隻腰部深層多裂肌,實際解剖走向及超音波影像都可與人類相對應。信度測試確立在有無下背痛之兩組受試者中,經由三次量測而得之深、淺層多裂肌在休息、收縮時之厚度或厚度變化平均值,皆可達良好信度(ICC3,3= 0.84~1.00)。在本次收錄之受試者中,年齡、身高、體重、身體質量指數(Pearson correlation= 0.47~0.66)、與性別(p= 0.03~0.05)皆會影響休息及收縮時之淺層多裂肌厚度,厚度變化則不影響,深層多裂肌也都不受影響。在無症狀之受試者中,於自主意識收縮類動作時淺層多裂肌之厚度變化大於深層多裂肌(p< 0.005),但深層肌之厚度變化與最大收縮時之比例高(0.46~0.95)。檢視不同動作間差異,腹部內縮時之多裂肌厚度變化明顯較背肌撐厚時(p< 0.005)及骨盆前傾時少(p< 0.005),且淺層肌隨不同動作增加的幅度大於深層肌。自動收縮類動作中,抬高同邊及對邊上肢或抬高同邊及對邊下肢時皆能使淺層多裂肌之標準化厚度變化大於深層多裂肌(p< 0.005)。若是在有無下痛之受試者間比較,在自主意識收縮中,因動作而異之收縮模式在兩組間不相同(p= 0.02),事後比較發現淺層多裂肌之後度變化較深層多裂肌大(p< 0.005),且此趨勢隨動作荷重增加而增加。在趴姿抬同側及對側上肢時,病人的多裂肌厚度變化相較於健康人多 (p= 0.05)。在趴姿抬同側及對側上肢或下肢時,淺層多裂肌之厚度變化都較深層多裂大(p< 0.005)。 結論:1) 以觀測其解剖走向及超音波影像都可與人類相對應的離體豬隻時實驗,能夠建立觀測腰部深層多裂肌之方法學;2) 經由三次量測而得之深、淺層多裂肌在休息、收縮時之厚度或厚度變化平均值,皆可達良好信度;3) 深、淺層多裂肌之收縮前後厚度變化變化皆不受年齡、身高、體重、身體質量指數與性別影響;4) 自主意識收縮類動作中有高比例之深層肌參與動作,可作為選擇脊椎穩定運動及與下背痛者比較之參考。腹部內縮時前側及背側多裂肌共同收縮,以抬單邊上下肢所引發之兩側腰部多裂肌對稱性的自動收縮,此多裂肌收縮模式支持腰部多裂肌之穩定性功能。復發性下背痛著傾向使用較無症狀者多的多裂肌。可能與代償軀幹深層肌的延遲收縮有關。本篇研究提供治療復發性下背痛患者動作控制的治療方向。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Background: The lumbar multifidus (MF) is an important muscle in maintaining spinal stability. The deep layer of MF (dMF) is considered important in maintaining tonic contraction and joint stability. Motor control impairment is also discovered in patients with low back pain (LBP). However, a non-invasive method to evaluate the morphology of the dMF is lack.
Purposes: The purposes of the study are: 1) to establish the methodology of measuring the thickness of the dMF; 2) to establish the reliability of measuring the sMF and the dMF; 3) to investigate the possible factor influencing the contraction of the dMF and the sMF; 4) Compare the contraction pattern of the dMF and the sMF between two groups of subjects with and without LBP during cognitively controlled and automatic controlled movements. Method: We set up the methodology of observing the dMF by comparing the dissection and the ultrasonography (USI) of the porcine specimen and inject the ink to confirm the position of the dMF. An ultrasonographic instrument is used to capture the morphologic change of the dMF and the sMF. The changes of thickness between static and contracted status of the two layers of MF are measured. The subjects with and without LBP will be recruited in the reliability test and the main test and the influence factor such as age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI) and gender would be evaluated. There are two kinds of tasks which are usually performed clinically: the first is cognitively controlled movement, which includes draw-in abdominal maneuver (ADIM), swell-out, pelvis anterior tilt; the second is automatic controlled movement, which include lifting the ipsilateral and contralateral arm or leg to the observing side in prone position. The reliability of measuring the change of thickness is represented by within-subject intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC3,3). We used Pearson correlation to calculate the correlation between age, anthropometric data with the thickness of the MF in resting and contracted status and the change in thickness between two statuses to examining the possible influencing factors. Independent t-test was used to compare the difference between genders. Three-way analysis of variance (3-way ANOVA) was used to analyze the change in thickness of the dMF and the sMF among the tasks within the same kind of movement between two groups of subjects with and without LBP. The α-value is set at 0.05. Results: The USI could be used to observe the dMF of the porcine specimen, the dissection and the USI is compatible with humans. The reliability test showed the measuring the thickness of the dMF or the sMF in static or the contracted status and the change of the thickness are all reliable through averaging three trials of measurement (ICC3,3= 0.84~1.00). In this study, age, anthropometric data (Pearson correlation= 0.47~0.66) and gender (p= 0.03~0.05) are correlated with the thickness of the sMF during static and contracted status. The change of the sMF is not influenced, the dMF is neither influenced. Three-way interaction is significantly revealed in cognitive control tasks (p= 0.02), indicating difference task-specific contraction pattern between groups. Among the asymptomatic subjects, the change of thickness is in the following order: ADIM, swell out, anterior tilt, during lifting upper limbs, and during lifting lower limbs. The change in thickness of the sMF is higher than the dMF in different tasks. However, the proportional change of thickness of dMF in these tasks is high. The change in thickness during the task of ADIM is higher than that during the task of swell out (p< 0.005) and pelvis anterior tilt (p< 0.005). Among the automatic controlled movement, while lifting the ipsilateral and contra-lateral limbs, the changes in thickness of sMF and dMF is no different between sides. The change in thickness of the sMF and the dMF in patients is significant greater than the asymptomatic subjects during the tasks of lifting the ipsi-lateral and contra-lateral arm (p= 0.05). For the tasks of upper and lower extremity lifting, sMF is significantly larger than the dMF (both p< 0.005). Conclusion: 1) The methodology of observing the dMF could be established by observing the porcine specimen that have compatible anatomy and USI of the dMF with human; 2) the measurement of the dMF and the sMF are reliable through averaging three trials of measurement; 3) the change in thickness of the dMF and the sMF is not influenced by age, height, weight, BMI and gender; 4) The activation of the superficial and deep MF is task-specific during cognitively controlled movement. The co-activation of TrA and MF, and the symmetrically activated of deep and superficial MF support the functional role of the MF in trunk stabilization. Patient with recurrent low back pain adapted an activation pattern by increasing the usage of superficial multifidus in mild and moderate tasks, probably due to the compensation for the delay onset of deep trunk muscles. This result provided the base for the intervention of patients with recurrent low back pain with motor control approaches. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T06:02:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-99-R96428005-1.pdf: 983020 bytes, checksum: 6e726d5178a995f34d87d8d21f461de6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 致謝…………………………………………………………i
中文摘要…………………………………………………………ii Abstract ……………………………………………………………iv Chapter 1 Introduction…………………………………………………………1 1.1 Background………………………………………………… 1 1.2 Purpose of this study.……………………………4 1.3 Research question………………………………………………4 1.4 Hypothesis…………………………… 5 Chapter 2 Literature Review……………………………6 2.1 The MF is one of the important muscles among the back muscle groups to enhance spinal stability ……………………………6 2.2 The biomechanical, histological and EMG studies show that dMF could keep the spine stiff and maintain the spinal stability during motion……………………………7 2.3 Measuring the torque production in the existing muscle evaluation system is not relevant for measuring the function of the dMF as a joint stability contributor……………………………9 2.4 The multifidus could be activated by two probably approaches- cognitively controlled movement or automatically contraction……………………………10 2.5 The characteristics of the contraction pattern of MF and possible treatment in subjects with LBP…………………………12 2.6 The use of USI is feasible to evaluate the activation of the dMF……………………………14 2.7 The reliability of measuring the MF under USI was good, but no study had conducted the reliability test of measuring the dMF……………………………………………………14 Chapter 3 Research Method……………………………16 3.1 Identify the USI of the dMF……………………………16 3.2 Reliability……………………………18 3.3 The possible factor influencing the thickness of the MF and the tasks that could specifically activate the dMF in subjects with and without LBP……………………………21 Chapter 4 Results…………………………………………………27 4.1 Identify the USI of the dMF……………………………27 4.2 Reliability……………………………28 4.3 The factors correlated with the change of thickness of two layers of MF……………………………30 4.4 The difference in the change of the thickness between two layers of MF in asymptomatic subjects……………………………31 Chapter 5 Discussions……………………………34 5.1 Identify the USI of the dMF……………………………34 5.2 Reliability……………………………36 5.3 The factors correlated with the change of the thickness of two layers of MF……………………………40 5.4 The difference in the change of the thickness between two layers of MF during cognitively controlled or autonomic controlled movement in participants with and without LBP……………………………42 Chapter 6 Conclusion……………………………49 Reference……………………………50 List of Tables Table 1. Tasks used to facilitate the whole MF....................................... 64 Table 2. The dysfunction of the MF among the patients with LBP........... 69 Table 3. The effects of stabilization exercise compared to other treatments ..............................................................................................................71 Table 4. Comparison of the reliability of measuring the sMF.................. 72 Table 5. Descriptive data of the subjects enrolled in the reliability study ...............................................................................................................73 Table 6. The pain status of the subjects with LBP in the reliability study 74 Table 7. The reliability of measuring the thickness of two layers of multifidus under static and contracted status in asymptomatic subject................... 75 Table 8. The reliability of measuring the thickness of two layers of multifidus under static and contracted status in subjects with LBP.......................... 76 Table 9. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable difference (MDD) of the dMF and sMF during different tasks.................. 77 Table 10. The reliability of measuring the thickness of two layers of multifidus under static and contracted status in subjects with LBP.......................... 78 Table 11. Descriptive data of the participants in the main study............ 79 Table 12. Relationship among the resting thickness, the thickness during contraction, the contraction ratio, and descriptive data during total trunk extension in subjects without LBP.......................................................... 80 Table 13. The difference of the thickness in resting and contraction, the change of the difference and the contraction ratio between genders in subjects without LBP.............................................................................. 81 Table 14. The thickness of each layer of multifidus during different tasks ..............................................................................................................82 Table 15. The pain status of the subjects with LBP in the main study..... 83 Table 16. The proportional change in thickness of two layers of multifidus during different tasks............................................................................ 84 Table 17. 3-way comparison among the change in thickness of two layers of MF during cognitively controlled movements ..........................................85 Table 18. 3-way comparison among the change in thickness of two layers of MF during lifting upper limbs................................................................ 86 Table 19. 3-way comparison among the change in thickness of two layers of MF during lifting lower limbs................................................................. 87 List of Figures Figure 1. Orientation of MF around the facet joint of L4/L5................... 88 Figure 2. The tasks used in this study................................................... 89 Figure 3. Move the position of the transducer to find the clear image of the dMF....................................................................................................... 90 Figure 4. Identificatio of the dMF under USI........................................... 91 Figure 5. The dMF is attached at the facet joint and lied over of surface of the groove between the facet joint capsule and lamina................................ 92 Figure 6. Anatomical attachment of the dMF of human; the USI of the dMF of human; and the USI of the dMF of swine................................................ 93 Figure 7. The thickness of dMF and sMF in resting and contracted status in asymptomatic subjects……………………………..………………………...........94 Figure 8. The thickness of dMF and sMF in resting and contracted status in subjects with LBP……………………………………..…………….……….............95 Figure 9. Proportional change in thickness during different tasks.......... 96 Figure 10. Post-hoc comparison (task × layer) among the change in thickness of two layers of MF during cognitively controlled movements for individual group.................................................................................................... 97 Figure 11. Main effect (layer × group) among the change in thickness of two layers of MF during cognitively controlled movements for individual task 98 Figure 12. Layer and group main effect (task × layer × group) among the change in thickness of two layers of MF during lifting upper limbs........ 99 Figure 13. Layer and group main effect (task × layer × group) among the change in thickness of two layers of MF during lifting upper limbs........ 100 List of Appendices Appendix 1: Subject informed consent……………………………………………….........................................101 Appendix 2: Basic data and pain questionnaire……………...……………….106 Appendix 3: Oswestry Disability Index………………….....……………………109 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 不同型態軀幹穩定運動時腰部多裂肌厚度變化-動態超音波研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Change in Thickness of Lumbar Multifidus during Different Tasks for Trunk Stabilization-Dynamic Ultrasonographic Study | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 98-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 王崇禮(Chung-Li Wang),邵耀華(Yio-Wha Shau),柴惠敏(Huei-Ming Chai) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 腰部多裂肌,超音波,動作,下背痛, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Lumbar multifidus,Ultrasonography,Movement,Low back pain, | en |
dc.relation.page | 110 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2010-08-17 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 醫學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 物理治療學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 物理治療學系所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-99-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 959.98 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。