Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahern DK, Hannon DJ, Goreczny AJ, Follick MJ, Parziale JR (1990) Correlation of chronic low back pain behaviour and muscle function examination of the flexion-relaxation response. Spine 5:92–95

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson JAD, Sweetman BJ (1975) A combined flexi-rule/hydrogoniometer for measurement of lumbar spine and its sagittal movement. Rheum Rehabil 14:173–179

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bailey W (1947) Observations on the aetiology and frequency of spondylolisthesis and its precursors. Radiology 48: 107–112

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bogduk N, Twomey LT (1991) Clinical anatomy of the lumbar spine, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone, Melbourne, pp 65–81

    Google Scholar 

  5. Burton AK, Tillotson KM (1988) Reference values for “normal” regional lumbar sagittal mobility. Clin Biomech 3:106–113

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dvorák J, Panjabi MM, Novotny JE, Chang DG, Grob D (1991) Clinical validation of functional flexion-extension roentgenograms of the lumbar spine. Spine 16: 943–950

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dvorák J, Vajda EG, Grob D, Panjabi MM (1995) Normal motion of the lumbar spine related to age and gender. Eur Spine J 4:18–23

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fitzgerald GK, Wynveen KJ, Rheault W, Rothschild B (1983) Objective assessment with establishment of normal values for lumbar spinal range of motion. Phys Ther 63: 1776–1781

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gianturco C (1944) 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 52:261–268

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gill K, Krag MH, Johnson GB, Haugh LD, Pope MH (1988) Repeatability of four clinical methods for assessment of lumbar spinal motion. Spine 13: 50–53

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gomez T, Beach G, Cooke C, Hrudey W, Goyert P (1991) Normative database for trunk range of motion, strength, velocity, and endurance with the isostation B-200 Lumbar Dynamometer. Spine 16: 15–21

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hart FD, Strickland D, Cliffe P (1974) Measurement of spinal mobility. Ann Rheum Dis 333:136–139

    Google Scholar 

  13. Israel M (1959) A quantitative method for estimating flexion and extension of the spine. Mil Med 124:181–186

    Google Scholar 

  14. Keeley J, Mayer TG, Cox R, Gatchel RJ, Smith J, Mooney V (1986) Quantification of lumbar function. 5. Reliability of range of motion measures in the sagittal plane and an in vivo torso rotation measurement technique. Spine 11:31–35

    Google Scholar 

  15. Klaber Moffett J, Richardson G, Sheldon TA, Maynard A (1995) Back pain: its management and cost to society. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Levene JA, Seeds RH, Goldberg HM, Frazier M, Fuhrman GA (1989) Trends in isodynamic and isometric trunk testing on the Isostation B200. J Spinal Disord 2:20–35

    Google Scholar 

  17. Loebl WY (1987) Measurement of spinal posture and range of spinal movement. Ann Phys Med 9:103–110

    Google Scholar 

  18. Macrae IF, Wright V (1969) Measurement of back movement. Ann Rheum Dis 28:584–589

    Google Scholar 

  19. Marras WS, Wongsam PE (1986) Flexibility and velocity of the normal and impaired lumbar spine. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 67:213–217

    Google Scholar 

  20. Marras WS, Pamianpour M, Ferguson SA, Kim JY, Crowell RR, Bose S, Simon SR (1995) The classification of anatomic and symptom based low back disorders using motion measure models. Spine 20:2531–2546

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mayer TG (1985) Using physical measurements to assess low back pain. J Musculoskeletal Med 2:44–59

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mayer TG, Tencer AF, Kristoferson S, Mooney V (1984) Use of non-invasive techniques for quantification of spinal range of motion in normal subjects and chronic low back pain dysfunction patients. Spine 9:588–595

    Google Scholar 

  23. McGregor AH, McCarthy ID, Hughes SPF (1995a) The motion characteristics of the normal and low back pain population: a preliminary report. Physiotherapy 81: 632–637

    Google Scholar 

  24. McGregor AH, McCarthy ID, Hughes SPF (1995b) Motion characteristics of the lumbar spine in the normal population: Spine 20:2421–2428

    Google Scholar 

  25. McIntyre DR, Glover LH, Conino MC, Seeds RH, Levene JA (1991) A comparison of the characteristics of preferred low-back motion of normal subjects and low back pain patients. J Spinal Disord 4:90–95

    Google Scholar 

  26. Menezes AP, Davies KE, Hukins DWL, Jayson MIV (1995) Measurement of the time course of bending of the back in the sagittal plane. Eur Spine J 4:24–28

    Google Scholar 

  27. Merritt JL, McLean TJ, Erickson RP (1986) Measurement of trunk flexibility in normal subjects: Reproducibility of three clinical methods. Mayo Clin Proc 61:192–197

    Google Scholar 

  28. Moll JMH, Wright V (1971) Normal range of spinal mobility: an objective study. Ann Rheum Dis 30:381–384

    Google Scholar 

  29. National Back Pain Association (1991) Annual Report, NBPA, Middlesex, UK

    Google Scholar 

  30. National Back Pain Association (1993) Annual Report, NBPA, Middlesex, UK

    Google Scholar 

  31. Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Yamamato I, Crisco JJ (1994) Mechanical behaviour of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curve. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 76:412–1124

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pearcy MJ (1985) Stereo radiography of lumbar spine motion. Acta Orthop Scand [Suppl] 212(56)

  33. Pearcy M, Shepherd J (1985) Is there instability in spondylolisthesis? Spine 10:175–177

    Google Scholar 

  34. Reynolds PMG (1975) Measurement of spinal mobility: a comparison of three methods. Rheum Rehabil 14:180–185

    Google Scholar 

  35. Schöber P (1937) Ledenwirbelsäule und Kreuzschemerzen. Muench Med Wochensch 84:336

    Google Scholar 

  36. Troke M, Moore AP, Cheek E (1996) Intra-operator and inter-operator reliability of the OSI CA-6000 Spinal Motion Analyser with a new skin fixation system. Man Ther 1:92–98

    Google Scholar 

  37. Van Adrichem JAM, Van der Korst JK (1973) Assessment of the flexibility of the lumbar spine. Scand J Rheumatol 2:87–91

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McGregor, A.H., McCarthy, D., Doré, C.J. et al. 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. Eur Spine J 6, 308–315 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01142676

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01142676

Key words

Navigation