Cureus · 2024
Examining Movement Patterns, Skeletal Muscle Mass, and Hip Mobility in Office Workers With or Without Lower Back Pain: An Analytical Cross-Sectional Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Miyachi Ryo, Fujii Yoshinari, Nishimura Takaaki, Goda Akio, Nagamori Yui, Kanazawa Yuji
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to clarify the relationship between Functional Movement Screen (FMS), skeletal muscle mass, and hip mobility in office workers with or without chronic lower back pain (LBP), as well as to determine whether the above items differed between office workers with or without chronic LBP.
METHODS: This study utilized an analytic cross-sectional design. The participants were 35 office workers (14 in the LBP group and 21 in the non-lower back pain group, or NLBP) who were willing to cooperate with the request for cooperation in this study. Movement patterns were assessed by FMS and skeletal muscle mass was measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis. Hip mobility was measured by prone hip extension (PHE) and straight leg raising. The correlations between each item and differences in the presence or absence of LBP were analyzed.
RESULTS: The LBP and NLBP groups showed different correlations (p<0.05) between total and subcategory scores and skeletal muscle mass. Total FMS score (p=0.02, r=-0.40) and PHE angle (p=0.01, r=0.43) were significantly higher in the LBP group than in the NLBP group.
CONCLUSIONS: The FMS shows different relationships between total and subcategory scores and skeletal muscle mass for office workers with or without LBP. In addition, office workers with LBP may have different movement patterns and greater hip extension range of motion than those without LBP.
METHODS: This study utilized an analytic cross-sectional design. The participants were 35 office workers (14 in the LBP group and 21 in the non-lower back pain group, or NLBP) who were willing to cooperate with the request for cooperation in this study. Movement patterns were assessed by FMS and skeletal muscle mass was measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis. Hip mobility was measured by prone hip extension (PHE) and straight leg raising. The correlations between each item and differences in the presence or absence of LBP were analyzed.
RESULTS: The LBP and NLBP groups showed different correlations (p<0.05) between total and subcategory scores and skeletal muscle mass. Total FMS score (p=0.02, r=-0.40) and PHE angle (p=0.01, r=0.43) were significantly higher in the LBP group than in the NLBP group.
CONCLUSIONS: The FMS shows different relationships between total and subcategory scores and skeletal muscle mass for office workers with or without LBP. In addition, office workers with LBP may have different movement patterns and greater hip extension range of motion than those without LBP.