Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 210–212 | Cite as

Pocket-size, portable surface EMG device in the differentiation of low back pain patients

  • P. Jalovaara
  • T. Niinimäki
  • H. Vanharanta
Original Articles

Summary

The relevance of surface EMG of the paraspinal muscles measured by a portable, pocket-size device with a special amplifier was evaluated in different low back pain groups. Patients with only local low back pain had significantly higher EMG activities than those with unilateral radiating pain without verified disc herniation, those with verified disc herniation, and controls, but there were no differences between the latter three groups. Pain clearly modified paravertebral muscle activity, as the patients experiencing pain during the recording showed significantly higher EMG activities than those with no pain. It is concluded that surface EMG is a valid tool for indirectly assessing pain in low back pain patients but not for classification into different diagnostic groups.

Key words

Low back pain Surface EMG Diagnosis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahern KD, Follick MJ, Council JR, Laser-Wolston N, Lichman H (1988) Comparison of lumbar paravertebral EMG patterns in chronic low back pain patients and non-pain controls. Pain 34:153–160Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arena JG, Sherman RA, Bruno GM, Young TR (1989) Electromyographic recordings of 5 types of low back pain subjects and non-pain controls in different positions. Pain 37:57–65Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins GA, Cohen MJ, Naliboff BD, Schandler SL (1982) Comparative analysis of paraspinal and frontalis EMG, heart rate and skin conductance in chronic low back pain patients and normals to various postures and stress. Scand J Rehab Med 14:39–46Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grabel JA (1973) Electromyographic study of low back muscle tension in subjects with and without chronic low back pain. Diss Abstr Int 34(6B):2929–2930Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kravitz E, Moore ME, Glaros A (1981) Paralumbar muscle activity in chronic low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehab 62:172–176Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Olmarker K, Rydevik B, Nordborg C (1993) Autologous nucleus pulposus induces neurophysiologic and histologic changes in porcine cauda equina nerve roots. Spine 18:1425–1432Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robinson ME, Cassisi JE, O'Connor PD, MacMillan M (1992) Lumbar iEMG during isotonic exercise: chronic low back patients versus controls. J Spinal Disord 5:8–15Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Akkerveeken PF (1993) On painpatterns of patients with lumbar nerve root entrapment. Neuro-orthop 14:81–102Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vanharanta H, Guyer RD, Ohnmeiss DD, Stith WJ, Sachs B L, Aprill C, Spivey M, Rashbaum RF, Hochschuler SH, Videman T, Selby DK, Terry A, Mooney V (1988) Disc deterioration in low-back syndromes. A prospective, multi-center CT/discography study. Spine 13:1349–1351Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Jalovaara
    • 2
  • T. Niinimäki
    • 1
  • H. Vanharanta
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of OuluFinland
  2. 2.Department of PhysiatricsUniversity of OuluFinland

Personalised recommendations