Energetics and mechanics of walking in patients with chronic low back pain and healthy matched controls.
Détails
ID Serval
serval:BIB_A27CD45AC534
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Energetics and mechanics of walking in patients with chronic low back pain and healthy matched controls.
Périodique
European Journal of Applied Physiology
ISSN
1439-6327 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1439-6319
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
11/2015
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
115
Numéro
11
Pages
2433-2443
Langue
anglais
Résumé
PURPOSE: Walking in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) is characterized by motor control adaptations as a protective strategy against further injury or pain. The purpose of this study was to compare the preferred walking speed, the biomechanical and the energetic parameters of walking at different speeds between patients with cLBP and healthy men individually matched for age, body mass and height.
METHODS: Energy cost of walking was assessed with a breath-by-breath gas analyser; mechanical and spatiotemporal parameters of walking were computed using two inertial sensors equipped with a triaxial accelerometer and gyroscope and compared in 13 men with cLBP and 13 control men (CTR) during treadmill walking at standard (0.83, 1.11, 1.38, 1.67 m s(-1)) and preferred (PWS) speeds. Low back pain intensity (visual analogue scale, cLBP only) and perceived exertion (Borg scale) were assessed at each walking speed.
RESULTS: PWS was slower in cLBP [1.17 (SD = 0.13) m s(-1)] than in CTR group [1.33 (SD = 0.11) m s(-1); P = 0.002]. No significant difference was observed between groups in mechanical work (P ≥ 0.44), spatiotemporal parameters (P ≥ 0.16) and energy cost of walking (P ≥ 0.36). At the end of the treadmill protocol, perceived exertion was significantly higher in cLBP [11.7 (SD = 2.4)] than in CTR group [9.9 (SD = 1.1); P = 0.01]. Pain intensity did not significantly increase over time (P = 0.21).
CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support the hypothesis of a less efficient walking pattern in patients with cLBP and imply that high walking speeds are well tolerated by patients with moderately disabling cLBP.
METHODS: Energy cost of walking was assessed with a breath-by-breath gas analyser; mechanical and spatiotemporal parameters of walking were computed using two inertial sensors equipped with a triaxial accelerometer and gyroscope and compared in 13 men with cLBP and 13 control men (CTR) during treadmill walking at standard (0.83, 1.11, 1.38, 1.67 m s(-1)) and preferred (PWS) speeds. Low back pain intensity (visual analogue scale, cLBP only) and perceived exertion (Borg scale) were assessed at each walking speed.
RESULTS: PWS was slower in cLBP [1.17 (SD = 0.13) m s(-1)] than in CTR group [1.33 (SD = 0.11) m s(-1); P = 0.002]. No significant difference was observed between groups in mechanical work (P ≥ 0.44), spatiotemporal parameters (P ≥ 0.16) and energy cost of walking (P ≥ 0.36). At the end of the treadmill protocol, perceived exertion was significantly higher in cLBP [11.7 (SD = 2.4)] than in CTR group [9.9 (SD = 1.1); P = 0.01]. Pain intensity did not significantly increase over time (P = 0.21).
CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support the hypothesis of a less efficient walking pattern in patients with cLBP and imply that high walking speeds are well tolerated by patients with moderately disabling cLBP.
Pubmed
Web of science
Création de la notice
17/07/2015 10:23
Dernière modification de la notice
20/12/2019 13:47