Use of Isometric Back Extension Endurance Testing a Case Study

Anupkrishanan  Janakiram; Dr. P. N.  Deshmukh

Use of Isometric Back Extension Endurance Testing a Case Study

Assessing Isometric Back Extension Endurance in Spinal Muscle Measures

by Anupkrishanan Janakiram*, Dr. P. N. Deshmukh,

- Published in International Journal of Physical Education & Sports Sciences, E-ISSN: 2231-3745

Volume 2, Issue No. 2, Jan 2012, Pages 0 - 0 (0)

Published by: Ignited Minds Journals

ABSTRACT

Endurance has been studied. Most commonly, these are(1) Several types of methods of testing spinal muscle measures of isometric, orstatic, endurance, (2) active measures of endurance within a nonfixed range ofmotion (isotonic), and (3) isokinetic testing that places subjects in a fixedrange of motion as well as a fixed rate of joint motion acceleration. Of theassessment strategies available, isometric endurance testing seems to becost-effective and requires little equipment for testing. Because of these features,we chose to focus on isometric endurance assessment; we felt that if there wasevidence to support it as a clinically useful and valid procedure, it would bethe type of testing that clinicians would choose to use to measure spinalmuscle endurance. We also explored the literature for evidence regarding theendurance of the lumbar spine extensors specifically, because many methods arepurported to test the lumbar spine extensors.

KEYWORD

endurance, isometric back extension, testing, spinal muscle measures, cost-effective, clinically useful, valid procedure, lumbar spine extensors

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to review the literature that investigates the use of isometric back extension endurance testing. Different testing methods and evidence regarding their utilization are presented in this review. Objective: To review the literature that describes and evaluates the use of isometric back extension endurance tests.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Because of these features, we chose to focus on isometric endurance assessment; we felt that if there was evidence to support it as a clinically useful and valid procedure, it would be the type of testing that clinicians would choose to use to measure spinal muscle endurance. We also explored the literature for evidence regarding the endurance of the lumbar spine extensors specifically, because many methods are purported to test the lumbar spine extensors. Relevant articles in English were retrieved through a search of MEDLINE and the Index to Chiropractic Literature. Key search terms were back muscle endurance, isometric back

endurance, trunk extensors, back muscle performance, and Sorensen test.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Endurance has been studied. Most commonly, these are (1) Several types of methods of testing spinal muscle measures of isometric, or static, endurance, (2) active measures of endurance within a nonfixed range of motion (isotonic), and (3) isokinetic testing that places subjects in a fixed range of motion as well as a fixed rate of joint motion acceleration. Of the assessment strategies available, isometric endurance testing seems to be cost-effective and requires little equipment for testing. Data Synthesis: The principal criterion for inclusion was as follows: any study that discussed or tested an isometric type of back endurance extension test. Studies that were excluded did not use an isometric testing protocol. Thirty-seven of the initial studies are included in this review. Six different types of isometric back extension endurance testing methods were found. Three of these procedures require special testing devices. Much of the research on this topic has centered on a procedure known as the Sorensen test. Normative databases have been established for the Sorensen test and 2 other test types.

Available online at www.ignited.in Page 2

the procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The influence of motivation and effort exerted by the subject are limiting factors in all of the tests reviewed. These psychologic factors warran further research. On the basis of the literature reviewed, we determined that the Sorensen is probably the most clinically useful of these tests; it is easy to perform, requires no special equipment, and enjoys the most support from the literature. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2001;24:110-22)

REFERENCES

1- Walk D, Fisher MA, Doundoulakis SH, Hemmati M. Somatosensory evoked potential in the evaluation of lumbosacral radiculopathy. Neurolog. 1992;42(6):1197-1202. 2- Abdulwahab S. The effect of reading and traction on patient with cervical radiculopathy based on electrodiagnostic testing . Journal of the Neuromusculoskeletal System. 1999;7(3):91-96. 3- Valezquez-Perez L, Sanchez-cruz G, Perez-Gonzalez RM. Neurophysiological diagnosis of lumbosacral radiculopathy compression syndrome from late responsce. Rev Neurol 2002; 34(9):819-823. 4- Bezer M, Erole B, Kocaoglu B, Aydin N, Guven O. Low back pain among children and adolescents. Acta orthop Traumatol Turc. 2004;38(2):136-144. 5- Wilbourn AJ, Aminoff MJ. The electrophysiological examination in patients with radiculopathy. Muscle & nerve. 1988;11(11): 1099-1114. 6- Johnson EW. Understanding the H-Reflex in lumbosacral radiculopathy. Am J Physi Med Rehabil. 1999; 78(5):407. 7- Savettieri G, Salemi G, Rocca WA, et al. Prevalence of lumbosacral radiculopathy in two Sicilian municipalities. Acta Neurol Scand 1996; 93(6): 464-469. 8- Papag lopoulos PJ, Petrou HG, Triantafyllidis PG. Treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain with epidural steroid injections. Orthopedics 2001;24(2):145-149. 9- Porter RW Spinal stenosis of the central and root canal in the lumber spine and back pain. Edinburgh, Chirchill-livingstone.1992; 313-332. Med J Aust. 2004 Jan 19;180(2):79-83. PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.softwarelabs.com 11- Fayad F, Lefevre-Colau MM, Poiraudeau S, Fermanain J, Rannou F Walodyka Demaille S, Benyahya R, Revel M. Chronicity, recurrence, and return to work in low back pain common prognostic factors. Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2004;47(4):179-189. 12- Jayson MIV. Mechanisms underlying chronic low back pain. BMJ 1994;309:681-682. 13- Lawrence JS 1997 Disc disorders In: Rheumatism in populations London: Heinemann PP 68-97. 14- Knutssan F.the instability associated with disc degeneration in the lumber spine. Acta Radial 1944;25:593-609. 15- Hoybne JA, Freemont AJ, Jayson MIV. Intervertebral foramen venous obstruction. A cause of periradicular fibrosis. Spine 1989;14:558-568. 16- Yu S, Sether LA, Ho PS, Wagner M, Haughter VM. Tears of the annulus fibrosis; correlation between MR and pathologic findings in cadavers. AJNR 1988;9:367-371. 17- Bucky GJ, Mawhinney R, Mulliolland RC, Worthington BS. Magnetic resonance imaging and discography in the diagnosis of disc degeneration. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1986;68:369-373. 18- Knob-Jergas BM, Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Delong B. Anatomical position of herniated nucleus pulposus predicts the outcome of lumbar discetomy. J Spine Disord 1996;9(3):246-250. 19- WWW.thepainctr.com/radiculopathy.html 20- McGregor AH, Hughes SP. The evaluation of surgical management of nerve root compression in patient with low back pain:part 1: the assessment of outcome. Spine 2002;27(13):1465-1470.