Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy - Kyle B. Kiesel, MPT, PhD

Rehabilitative Ultrasound Imaging of the Posterior Paraspinal Muscles

Maria Stokes, Julie A. Hides, Kyle B. Kiesel, James M. Elliott, Paul W. Hodges

SYNOPSIS: Interest in rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) of the posterior paraspinal muscles is growing, along with the body of literature to support integration of this technique into routine physical therapy practice. This clinical commentary reviews how RUSI can be used as an evaluative and treatment tool, and proposes guidelines for its use for the posterior muscles of the lumbar and cervical regions. Both quantitative and qualitative applications are described, as well as measurement reliability and validity. Measurement of morphological characteristics of the muscles (morphometry) in healthy populations and people with spinal pathology are described. Preliminary normal reference data exist for measurements of cross-sectional area (CSA), linear dimensions (muscle depth/thickness and width), and shape ratios. Compared to individuals without low back pain, changes in muscles' size at rest and during the contracted state have been observed using RUSI in people with spinal pathology. Visual observation of the image during contraction indicates that RUSI may be a valuable biofeedback tool. Further investigation of many of these observations is required using controlled studies to provide conclusive evidence that RUSI enhances clinical practice.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(10):581-595, published online 29 August 2007. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2007.2599

KEY WORDS: cervical muscles, lumbar muscles, lumbar spine, neck, morphometry, sonography

A Comparison of Select Trunk Muscle Thickness Change Between Subjects With Low Back Pain Classified in the Treatment-Based Classification System and Asymptomatic Controls

Kyle B. Kiesel, Carl G. Mattacola, Arthur J. Nitz, Terry R. Malone, Frank B. Underwood
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive. OBJECTIVES: To investigate if muscle thickness change, as measured with rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI), is different across subgroups of patients with low back pain (LBP) classified in the Treatment-Based Cassification (TBC) system when compared to controls. BACKGROUND: Researchers have demonstrated that subgroups of patients with LBP exist and respond differently to treatment, challenging the assertion that LBP is "nonspecific." The TBC system uses 4 categories (stabilization, mobilization, direction-specific exercise, or traction) to subgroup patients. Recently, researchers have demonstrated impairments of the transverse abdominis (TrA) and lumbar multifidus (LM) in those with LBP, regardless of classification. Although distinct differences in impairments have been identified between sub-groups, TrA and LM impairments have not been studied and may be present across categories of the TBC system. METHODS AND MEASURES: RUSI was utilized to measure percent thickness change from rest to contracted state during a voluntary task of the TrA and during an upper extremity task known to activate the LM in 56 subjects classified in the TBC system and 20 controls. RESULTS: During the prone upper extremity lifting task with a hand weight, there was a significant group difference for the LM at L4-L5 (P = .03) and at L5-S1 (P = .04), and during volitional activation for the TrA (P<.01). Post-hoc testing revealed the differences were between controls and both the direction-specific and stabilization categories at the L4-L5 level, between control and direction-specific category for the L5-S1 level, and between controls and all 3 categories for the TrA. CONCLUSION: Deficits in the ability to generate muscle thickness changes in the TrA and LM occurred across categories of the TBC system. Intervention studies should be performed to determine if intervention can correct these deficits and if deficit corrections are related to outcomes.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(10):596-607, published online 28 August 2007. doi:10.2519/jospt.2007.2574. The original article was corrected in March 2008, and the amended article PDF is provided here. Please see Correction: A comparison of select trunk muscle thickness change between subjects with low back pain classified in the treatment-based classification system and asymptomatic controls. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38(3):161.

KEY WORDS: multifidus, sonography, spine stabilization, therapeutic exercise, transverse abdominis

Improved Activation of Lumbar Multifidus Following Spinal Manipulation: A Case Report Applying Rehabilitative Ultrasound Imaging

Alexander Karl Brenner, Kyle B. Kiesel, Norman W. Gill, Christopher J. Buscema

STUDY DESIGN: Case report. BACKGROUND: The use of spinal manipulation as a treatment to facilitate neuromuscular control of the paraspinal musculature is not well described in the literature. The use of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) may offer a convenient way to investigate and document possible changes occurring in the lumbar multifidus associated with manipulation intervention. CASE DESCRIPTION: The patient was a 33-year-old male with a 21-year history of low back pain and left posterior thigh pain who presented with lumbar hypomobility and met a previously published clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulation. During examination, the patient was asked to perform a prone upper extremity lifting task to assess activation in the lumbar multifidus during an automatic task. Through palpation, the examiner noted a decreased contraction of the left multifidus between L4-S1 compared to the right. To explore this further, a decision was made to assess the multifidus with RUSI, which confirmed the activation deficit noted during palpation. A lumbar regional manipulation was performed with the intention of reducing spinal hypomobility and assessing changes in multifidus activation. Imaging of the multifidus muscles at the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels were obtained premanipulation, immediately postmanipulation, and 1 day after manipulation. OUTCOMES: An increased ability to thicken the multifidus during a prone upper extremity lifting task was noted immediately and 1 day after manipulation. Average percent change in thickness at the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels with the prone arm lift was 3.6% premanipulation, 17.2% immediately postmanipulation, and 20.6% approximately 24 hours postmanipulation. Improvements in the thickening of the multifidus muscle during the upper extremity lifting task were greater than 3 standard errors of the measurement. Other changes included immediate palpable improvement in the contraction of the multifidus during the upper extremity lifting task, along with the patient report of increased ease of lifting. DISCUSSION: In this case report we quantified the short-term influence of spinal manipulation on multifidus muscular activation using RUSI. No cause-and-effect claims can be made; however, the results provide preliminary evidence to suggest that spinal manipulation may influence multifidus muscle function. RUSI offers a convenient way to investigate and document these changes.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(10):613-619, published online 29 May 2007. doi:10.2519/jospt.2007.2470

KEY WORDS: motor control, reflexogenic, sonography