The relationships of lumbar proprioception with postural control have not been clarified in people with chronic low back pain. This study aimed to compare the associations between lumbar proprioception and postural control in response to calf vibration in individuals with and without chronic low back pain. In this study, we recruited twenty patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP group) and twenty healthy control subjects (HC group) aged between 18 and 50 years. This study was a cross-sectional study and completed from May 2022 to October 2022. The passive joint repositioning sense (PJRS) test for two positions (15° and 35°) were used to assess lumbar proprioception and expressed as the mean of reposition error (RE). Postural control was tested by adding and removing calf vibration while standing on a stable force plate with eyes closed. The sway velocity in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction of center of pressure (COP) data with a window of 15s epoch at baseline, during and after calf vibration was used to evaluate postural control. Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare the difference of lumbar proprioception between two groups, and the independent t-tests were used to compare the difference of postural control at baseline and during vibration, and a mixed design ANOVA was used to compare the difference of postural control during post-perturbation. In addition, to explore the association between postural control and lumbar proprioception and pain intensity, Spearman’s correlations were used for each group. The major results are: (1) significantly higher PJRS on RE of 15° (CLBP: 95% CI [2.03, 3.70]; HC: 95% CI [1.03, 1.93]) and PJRS on RE of 35° (CLBP: 95% CI [2.59, 4.88]; HC: 95% CI [1.07, 3.00]) were found in the CLBP group; (2) AP velocity was not different between the CLBP group and the HC group at baseline and during calf vibration. However, AP velocity was significantly larger in the CLBP group compared with the HC group at epoch 2–14 after calf vibration, and AP velocity for the CLBP group took a longer time (23 epochs) to return to the baseline after calf vibration compared with the HC group (9 epochs); (3) lumbar proprioception represented by PJRS on RE of 15°correlated negatively with AP velocity during and after vibration for the HC group. Within the CLBP group, no significant relationships between PJRS on RE for two positions (15° and 35°) and AP velocity in any postural phases were found. In conclusion, the CLBP group has poorer lumbar proprioception, slower proprioceptive reweighting and impaired postural control after calf vibration compared to the HC group. Lumbar proprioception offers different information on the control strategy of standing control for individuals with and without CLBP in the situations with proprioceptive disturbance. These results highlight the significance of assessing lumbar proprioception and postural control in CLBP patients.

中文翻译：

---

患有或不患有慢性腰痛的人在小腿振动期间和之后腰椎本体感觉与姿势控制之间的关联

慢性腰痛患者腰椎本体感觉与姿势控制的关系尚未阐明。本研究旨在比较患有和不患有慢性腰痛的个体对小腿振动的腰部本体感觉和姿势控制之间的关联。在这项研究中，我们招募了 20 名慢性腰痛患者（CLBP 组）和 20 名年龄在 18 至 50 岁之间的健康对照受试者（HC 组）。这项研究是一项横断面研究，于2022年5月至2022年10月完成。使用两个位置（15°和35°）的被动关节重新定位感觉（PJRS）测试来评估腰椎本体感觉，并表示为重新定位误差的平均值（关于）。通过闭眼站在稳定的测力板上添加和消除小腿振动来测试姿势控制。使用基线、小腿振动期间和之后压力中心 (COP) 数据的前后 (​​AP) 方向的摇摆速度（窗口为 15 秒）来评估姿势控制。采用Mann-Whitney U检验比较两组腰椎本体感觉的差异，采用独立t检验比较基线和振动过程中姿势控制的差异，采用混合设计方差分析比较两组之间的差异。扰动后姿势控制的差异。此外，为了探讨姿势控制与腰椎本体感觉和疼痛强度之间的关联，每组均使用斯皮尔曼相关性。主要结果是：(1) RE 为 15° 时 PJRS 显着较高（CLBP：95% CI [2.03, 3.70]；HC：95% CI [1.03, 1.93]）和 RE 为 35° 时 PJRS（CLBP：95） CLBP 组中发现 % CI [2.59, 4.88]；HC：95% CI [1.07, 3.00]； (2) 在基线和小腿振动期间，CLBP 组和 HC 组之间的 AP 速度没有差异。然而，与 HC 组相比，CLBP 组在小腿振动后第 2-14 epoch 时的 AP 速度明显更大，并且与小腿振动后 CLBP 组相比，CLBP 组的 AP 速度在小腿振动后需要更长的时间（23 epoch）才能回到基线。 HC 组（9 个 epoch）； (3) HC 组振动期间和振动后以 15° RE 上的 PJRS 为代表的腰椎本体感觉与 AP 速度呈负相关。在 CLBP 组中，没有发现两个位置（15° 和 35°）RE 上的 PJRS 与任何姿势阶段的 AP 速度之间存在显着关系。总之，与 HC 组相比，CLBP 组腰椎本体感觉较差，本体感觉重重较慢，小腿振动后姿势控制受损。腰椎本体感觉为有和没有 CLBP 的个体在本体感觉障碍的情况下提供关于站立控制的控制策略的不同信息。这些结果强调了评估 CLBP 患者腰椎本体感觉和姿势控制的重要性。