medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2025, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2025; 39 (1)

Results in the lumbopelvic isokinetic and functional training in patients operated with dynamic stabilization system

Esquitin-Garduño N, Coronado-Zarco R, Miranda-Duarte A, Zárate-Basurto A, Acosta-Cortez J, Reyes-Sánchez A

Language: Spanish
References: 31
Page: 13-18
PDF size: 249.38 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: the tendency in the rehabilitation is to train specifically to the lumbopelvic girdle muscles, to give stability and segmentary control of the same. Objective: to evaluate the isokinetic lumbopelvic in the patient's functional qualities with a dynamic instrumentation system (Accuflex). Material and methods: post-operated patients of spinal stenosis by means of dynamic liberation and fixation (Accuflex). Pain analogous visual scale was applied and the Oswestry functional qualities index and isokinetic evaluation of the knee flexo-extensors muscles (Biodex 3 Pro). A lineal isokinetic strengthening program (Cybex Kinetron II), during 6 weeks period, three times in a week in sessions of 40 minutes. Results: ten female patients (71.4%) and four male patients (28.65%) with an average age of 43.4 years. 13 of them (92.8%) with affectation in left pelvic member and 4 patients (7.2%) of the right pelvic member. L4-L5 (72%, 10 patients) and L5-S1 (28%, 4 patients). Low back pain the previous valuation was 4.4 versus 1.5 mm final with a p = 0.004. Affected pelvic member, initial was 4.6 versus 2.1 mm of the final valuation with a p = 0.004. The initial Oswestry disability index showed a 30 vs. a 19.64% subsequent to the training with a p = 0.0001. Conclusions: the lumbopelvic lineal isokinetic training showed to increase the force and muscular resistance in the inferior members with the functional conditions of the patients of the studio.


REFERENCES

  1. Sengupta DK. Dynamic stabilization devices in the treatment of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004; 35(1): 43-56.

  2. Barr KP, Griggs M, Cadby T. Lumbar stabilization. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 84(6): 473-80.

  3. Lin SI, Lin RM, Huang LW. Disability in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 87(9): 1250-6.

  4. Arbit E, Pannullo S. Lumbar stenosis: a clinical review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; (384): 137-43.

  5. Vo AN, Kamen LB, Shih VC, Bitar AA, Stitik TP, Kaplan RJ. Rehabilitation of orthopedic and rheumatologic disorders. 5. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 86(3 Suppl 1): S69-76.

  6. Bayramoglu M, Akman MN, Kilinç S, Cetin N, Yavuz N, Ozker R. Isokinetic measurement of trunk muscle strength in women with chronic low-back pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001; 80(9): 650-5.

  7. Grob D, Benini A, Junge A, Mannion AF. Clinical experience with the dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine: surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(3): 324-31.

  8. Brady S, Mayer T, Gatchel RJ. Physical progress and residual impairment quantification after functional restoration. Part II: isokinetic trunk strength. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994; 19(4): 395-400.

  9. Wong TK, Lee RY. Effects of low back pain on the relationship between the movements of the lumbar spine and hip. Hum Mov Sci. 2004; 23(1): 21-34.

  10. Mok NW, Brauer SG, Hodges PW. Hip strategy for balance control in quiet standing is reduced in people with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(6): E107-12.

  11. Rissanen A, Alaranta H, Sainio P, Harkonen H. Isokinetic and non-dynamometric tests in low back pain patients related to pain and disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994; 19(17): 1963-7.

  12. Price DD, Bush FM, Long S, Harkins SW. A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales. Pain. 1994; 56(2): 217-26.

  13. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980; 66(8): 271-3.

  14. Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modified oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale. Phys Ther. 2001; 81(2): 776-88.

  15. Ho CW, Chen LC, Hsu HH, Chiang SL, Li MH, Jiang SH, et al. Isokinetic muscle strength of the trunk and bilateral knees in young subjects with lumbar disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(18): E528-33.

  16. Huang RC, Wright TM, Panjabi MM, Lipman JD. Biomechanics of nonfusion implants. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005; 36(3): 271-80.

  17. Schwarzenbach O, Berlemann U, Stoll TM, Dubois G. Posterior dynamic stabilization systems: DYNESYS. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005; 36(3): 363-72.

  18. Heiderscheit BC, McLean KP, Davies GJ. The effects of isokinetic vs. plyometric training on the shoulder internal rotators. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1996; 23(2): 125-33.

  19. Rivero-Arias O, Campbell H, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J. Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2005; 330(7502): 1239.

  20. Korovessis P, Papazisis Z, Koureas G, Lambiris E. Rigid, semirigid versus dynamic instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a correlative radiological and clinical analysis of short-term results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(7): 735-42.

  21. Costaglioli M, et al. Evaluation of indications for dynamic stabilisation in degenetive lumbar disc disease. Eur Spine J. 2002; 11(Suppl 2): S170-8.

  22. Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J. 2002; 11 Suppl 2(Suppl 2): S170-8.

  23. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Dipl-Ing, Claes L, Wilke HJ. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003; 16(4): 418-23.

  24. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A; Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies. Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(23): 2521-32; discussion 2532-4.

  25. Mayer TG, Smith SS, Keeley J, Mooney V. Quantification of lumbar function. Part 2: Sagittal plane trunk strength in chronic low-back pain patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1985; 10(8): 765-72.

  26. Nicolaisen T, Jørgensen K. Trunk strength, back muscle endurance and low-back trouble. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1985; 17(3): 121-7.

  27. Dvir Z, Keating JL. Trunk extension effort in patients with chronic low back dysfunction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(7): 685-92.

  28. Thorstensson A, Arvidson A. Trunk muscle strength and low back pain. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1982; 14(2): 69-75.

  29. Ostelo RW, de Vet HC. Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005; 19(4): 593-607.

  30. Schaller B. Failed back surgery syndrome: the role of symptomatic segmental single-level instability after lumbar microdiscectomy. Eur Spine J. 2004; 13(3): 193-8.

  31. Cruz-Medina E, León-Hernández SR, Arellano-Hernández A, Martínez-Gonzaga E, García-Guerrero E, Coronado-Zarco R. Evaluación isocinética y estado funcional en pacientes posoperados por hernia de disco lumbar. Cir Ciruj. 2008; 76: 373-80.



EVIDENCE LEVEL

II




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com