IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i15p9033-d870986.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Movement Analysis Could Help in the Assessment of Chronic Low Back Pain Patients: Results from a Preliminary Explorative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Stefano Negrini

    (Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan “La Statale”, 20122 Milan, Italy
    IRCCS (Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi), 20161 Milan, Italy)

  • Joel Pollet

    (IRCCS (Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi), 20148 Milan, Italy)

  • Giorgia Ranica

    (IRCCS (Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi), 20148 Milan, Italy)

  • Sabrina Donzelli

    (ISICO (Italian Scientific Spine Institute), 20141 Milan, Italy)

  • Massimiliano Vanossi

    (ISICO (Italian Scientific Spine Institute), 20141 Milan, Italy)

  • Barbara Piovanelli

    (Physiotherapy Clinic, 89069 San Lorenzo, Italy)

  • Cinzia Amici

    (Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Brescia, 25123 Brescia, Italy)

  • Riccardo Buraschi

    (IRCCS (Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi), 20148 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

Introduction : This study aimed to assess the reliability of a qualitative scoring system based on the movement analysis of the spine in different populations and after usual care rehabilitative intervention. If proven true, the results could further future research development in quantitative indexes, leading to a possible subclassification of chronic low back pain (cLBP). Methods : This was a preliminary exploratory observational study. Data of an optoelectronic spine movement analysis from a pathological population (cLBP population, 5 male, 5 female, age 58 ± 16 years) were compared to young healthy participants (5M, 5F, age 22 ± 1) and were analysed via a new qualitative score of the pattern of movement. Internal consistency was calculated. Two independent assessors (experienced and inexperienced) assessed the blinded data, and we calculated inter- and intrarater reliability. We performed an analysis for cLBP pre and post a ten session group rehabilitation program between and within groups. Results : Internal consistency was good for all movements (α = 0.84–0.88). Intra-rater reliability (Intraclass correlation coefficient–ICC) was excellent for overall scores of all movements (ICC (1,k) = 0.95–0.99), while inter-rater reliability was poor to moderate (ICC (1,k) = 0.39–0.78). We found a significant difference in the total movement scores between cLBP and healthy participants ( p = 0.001). Within-group comparison (cLBP) showed no significant difference in the total movement score in pre and post-treatment. Conclusion : The perception of differences between normal and pathological movements has been confirmed through the proposed scoring system, which proved to be able to distinguish different populations. This study has many limitations, but these results show that movement analysis could be a useful tool and open the door to quantifying the identified parameters through future studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefano Negrini & Joel Pollet & Giorgia Ranica & Sabrina Donzelli & Massimiliano Vanossi & Barbara Piovanelli & Cinzia Amici & Riccardo Buraschi, 2022. "Movement Analysis Could Help in the Assessment of Chronic Low Back Pain Patients: Results from a Preliminary Explorative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-20, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9033-:d:870986
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9033/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9033/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edyta Kinel & Moreno D’Amico & Piero Roncoletta, 2018. "Normative 3D opto-electronic stereo-photogrammetric sagittal alignment parameters in a young healthy adult population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9033-:d:870986. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.