چکیده: (27 مشاهده)
Objectives: The present study aimed to compare the sagittal alignment and range of motion of the spine in military personnel with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP) and asymptomatic individuals and to determine the relationships between spinal parameters and central sensitization, pain, disability and psychosocial factors.
Methods: This cross-sectional study enrolled 104 male military personnel (49 with CNLBP). The participants completed the spinal examination via the Spinal Mouse. Central sensitization (CSI), pain intensity (VAS), Lumbar pressure pain threshold (PPT), psychosocial factors (ÖMPSQ), and disability (ODI) were assessed.
Results: Compared with controls, CNLBP participants showed smaller segmental angles during forward flexion for lumbar (MD = 10.9°, p < .001), inclination (MD = 20.3°, p < .001), and sacral/hip angles (MD = 11.4°, p < .001). The spinal range of motion was reduced across all movement transitions in CNLBP with moderate to strong effect sizes. In addition to these biomechanical changes, CNLBP participants exhibited substantially lower PPT at the lumbar region (MD = –23.38, p < .001) and higher CSI scores (MD = 13.39, p < .001). Correlation analyses revealed significant negative correlations between the VAS score and the lumbar angle in the forward flexion and upright to flexion (r = -0.44 and -0.40, p < 0.001, respectively). The CSI correlated strongly with ÖMPSQ (r = 0.61, p < 0.001), and moderately with the ODI score (r = 0.49, p < 0.001), and showed correlations with the VAS and lumbar region PPT (r = 0.31, p < 0.05 and -0.38, p < 0.001, respectively).
Discussion: CNLBP in military personnel is characterized by altered spinal biomechanics and neuro-psychosocial alterations. These findings suggest tailored interventions that address both mechanical impairments and neuro-psychosocial contributors.
Methods: This cross-sectional study enrolled 104 male military personnel (49 with CNLBP). The participants completed the spinal examination via the Spinal Mouse. Central sensitization (CSI), pain intensity (VAS), Lumbar pressure pain threshold (PPT), psychosocial factors (ÖMPSQ), and disability (ODI) were assessed.
Results: Compared with controls, CNLBP participants showed smaller segmental angles during forward flexion for lumbar (MD = 10.9°, p < .001), inclination (MD = 20.3°, p < .001), and sacral/hip angles (MD = 11.4°, p < .001). The spinal range of motion was reduced across all movement transitions in CNLBP with moderate to strong effect sizes. In addition to these biomechanical changes, CNLBP participants exhibited substantially lower PPT at the lumbar region (MD = –23.38, p < .001) and higher CSI scores (MD = 13.39, p < .001). Correlation analyses revealed significant negative correlations between the VAS score and the lumbar angle in the forward flexion and upright to flexion (r = -0.44 and -0.40, p < 0.001, respectively). The CSI correlated strongly with ÖMPSQ (r = 0.61, p < 0.001), and moderately with the ODI score (r = 0.49, p < 0.001), and showed correlations with the VAS and lumbar region PPT (r = 0.31, p < 0.05 and -0.38, p < 0.001, respectively).
Discussion: CNLBP in military personnel is characterized by altered spinal biomechanics and neuro-psychosocial alterations. These findings suggest tailored interventions that address both mechanical impairments and neuro-psychosocial contributors.