Individuals with non-specific low back pain use a trunk stiffening strategy to maintain upright posture

There is increasing evidence that individuals with non-specific low back pain (LBP) have altered movement coordination. However, the relationship of this neuromotor impairment to recurrent pain episodes is unknown. To assess coordination while minimizing the confounding influences of pain we characterized automatic postural responses to multi-directional support surface translations in individuals with a history of LBP who were not in an active episode of their pain. Twenty subjects with and 21 subjects without non-specific LBP stood on a platform that was translated unexpectedly in 12 directions. Net joint torques of the ankles, knees, hips, and trunk in the frontal and sagittal planes as well as surface electromyographs of 12 lower leg and trunk muscles were compared across perturbation directions to determine if individuals with LBP responded using a trunk stiffening strategy. Individuals with LBP demonstrated reduced peak trunk torques, and enhanced activation of the trunk and ankle muscle responses following perturbations. These results suggest that individuals with LBP use a strategy of trunk stiffening achieved through co-activation of trunk musculature, aided by enhanced distal responses, to respond to unexpected support surface perturbations. Notably, these neuromotor alterations persisted between active pain periods and could represent either movement patterns that have developed in response to pain or could reflect underlying impairments that may contribute to recurrent episodes of LBP.     

Effects of reflex delays on postural control during unstable seated balance

Patients with low-back pain (LBP) exhibit longer trunk muscle reflex latencies and poorer postural control than healthy individuals. We hypothesized that balance during a simulated postural control task would become impaired when the delays exhibited by LBP patients were incorporated into neuromuscular control. The task chosen for this investigation was seated balancing, which emphasizes trunk muscles’ contribution in postural control. This task was modeled in Simulink? as a fourth order linearized dynamic system with feedback delays. Optimization (minimizing error between experimental and model data) of state variables was used to determine neuromuscular control parameters. Experimental data were obtained from 7 subjects during 5 perturbation trials while balancing on the seat with eyes closed. Model accuracy, reflecting the ability of the model to capture the dynamics of seated balance, was correlated with seated balance performance (r=0.91, p<0.001). To minimize the risk of erroneous findings from inaccurate modeling, only the best five balancers’ data were used for hypothesis testing. In these five subjects, feedback delays in modeled neuromuscular control were increased to determine their effect on task stability, trunk displacement and trunk moment. Simulations showed that longer delays found in LBP, in general, did not produce unstable balancing, but did result in increased trunk displacement (p<0.001) and trunk moment (p=0.001). This impairment in neuromuscular control in chronic LBP patients could possibly exacerbate their condition by increasing tissue strain (more spinal displacement) and stress (more spinal loading).     

Altered trunk muscle coordination during rapid trunk flexion in people in remission of recurrent low back pain

People with a history of low back pain (LBP) are at high risk to encounter additional LBP episodes. During LBP remission, altered trunk muscle control has been suggested to negatively impact spinal health. As sudden LBP onset is commonly reported during trunk flexion, the aim of the current study is to investigate whether dynamic trunk muscle recruitment is altered in LBP remission. Eleven people in remission of recurrent LBP and 14 pain free controls performed cued trunk flexion during a loaded and unloaded condition. Electromyographic activity was recorded from paraspinal (lumbar and thoracic erector spinae, latissimus dorsi, deep and superficial multifidus) and abdominal muscles (obliquus internus, externus and rectus abdominis) with surface and fine-wire electrodes. LBP participants exhibited higher levels of co-contraction of flexor/extensor muscles, lower agonistic abdominal and higher antagonistic paraspinal muscle activity than controls, both when data were analyzed in grouped and individual muscle behavior. A sub-analysis in people with unilateral LBP (n = 6) pointed to opposing changes in deep and superficial multifidus in relation to the pain side. These results suggest that dynamic trunk muscle control is modified during LBP remission, and might possibly increase spinal load and result in earlier muscle fatigue due to intensified muscle usage. These negative consequences for spinal health could possibly contribute to recurrence of LBP.     

Comparing the local dynamic stability of trunk movements between varsity athletes with and without non-specific low back pain

The local dynamic stability of trunk movements, quantified using the maximum Lyapunov exponent (λ_max), can provide important information on the neuromuscular control of spine stability during movement tasks. Although previous research has displayed the promise of this technique, all studies were completed with healthy participants. Therefore the goal of this study was to compare the dynamic stability of spine kinematics and trunk muscle activations, as well as antagonistic muscle co-contraction, between athletes with and without low back pain (LBP). Twenty interuniversity varsity athletes (10 LBP, 10 healthy controls) were recruited to participate in the study. Each participant completed a repetitive trunk flexion task at 15 cycles per minute, both symmetrically and asymmetrically, while trunk kinematics and muscular activity (EMG) were monitored. The local dynamic stability of low back EMG was significantly higher (lower λ_max) in healthy individuals (p=0.002), whereas the dynamic stability of kinematics, the dynamic stability of full trunk system EMG, and the amount of antagonistic co-contraction were significantly higher when moving asymmetrically (p<0.05 for all variables). Although non-significant, kinematic and trunk system EMG stability also tended to be impaired in LBP participants, whereas they also tended to co-contract their antagonist muscles more. This study provides evidence that Lyapunov analyses of kinematic and muscle activation data can provide insight into the neuromuscular control of spine stability in back pain participants. Future research will repeat these protocols in patients with higher levels of pain, with hopes of developing a tool to assess impairment and treatment effectiveness in clinical and workplace settings.     

Differences between two subgroups of low back pain patients in lumbopelvic rotation and symmetry in the erector spinae and hamstring muscles during trunk flexion when standing

The present study was performed to examine lumbopelvic rotation and to identify asymmetry of the erector spinae and hamstring muscles in people with and without low back pain (LBP). The control group included 16 healthy subjects, the lumbar-flexion–rotation syndrome LBP group included 17 subjects, and the lumbar-extension–rotation syndrome LBP group included 14 subjects. Kinematic parameters were recorded using a 3D motion-capture system, and electromyography parameters were measured using a Noraxon TeleMyo 2400T. The two LBP subgroups showed significantly more lumbopelvic rotation during trunk flexion in standing than did the control group. The muscle activity and flexion–relaxation ratio asymmetries of the erector spinae muscles in the lumbar-flexion–rotation syndrome LBP group were significantly greater than those in the control group, and the muscle activity and flexion–relaxation ratio asymmetry of the hamstring muscles in the lumbar-extension–rotation syndrome LBP group were significantly greater than those in the control group. Imbalance or asymmetry of passive tissue could lead to asymmetry of muscular activation. Muscle imbalance can cause asymmetrical alignment or movements such as unexpected rotation. The results showed a greater increase in lumbopelvic rotation during trunk flexion in standing among the lumbar-flexion–rotation syndrome and lumbar-extension–rotation syndrome LBP groups compared with the control group. The differences between the two LBP subgroups may be a result of imbalance and asymmetry in erector spinae and hamstring muscle properties.     

Immediate effects of co-contraction training on motor control of the trunk muscles in people with recurrent low back pain

Although deficits in the activation of abdominal muscles are present in people with low back pain (LBP), this can be modified with motor training. Training of deep abdominal muscles in isolation from the other trunk muscles, as an initial phase of training, has been shown to improve the timing of activation of the trained muscles, and reduce symptoms and recurrence of LBP. The aim of this study was to determine if training of the trunk muscles in a non-isolated manner can restore motor control of these muscles in people with LBP. Ten subjects with non-specific LBP performed a single session of training that involved three tasks: “abdominal curl up”, “side bridge” and “birdog”. Electromyographic activity (EMG) of trunk and deltoid muscles was recorded with fine-wire and surface electrodes during rapid arm movements and walking, before and immediately following the intervention. Onset of trunk muscle EMG relative to that of the prime mover (deltoid) during arm movements and the mean, standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation of abdominal muscle EMG during walking were calculated. There was no significant change in the times of onset of trunk muscle EMG during arm movements nor was there any change in the variability of EMG of the abdominal muscles during walking. However, the mean amplitude and SD of abdominal EMG was reduced during walking after training. The results of this study suggest that unlike isolated voluntary training, co-contraction training of the trunk muscles does not restore the motor control of the deep abdominal muscles in people with LBP after a single session of training.     

Timing and magnitude of lumbar spine contribution to trunk forward bending and backward return in patients with acute low back pain

Alterations in the lumbo-pelvic coordination denote changes in neuromuscular control of trunk motion as well as load sharing between passive and active tissues in the lower back. Differences in timing and magnitude aspects of lumbo-pelvic coordination between patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) and asymptomatic individuals have been reported; yet, the literature on lumbo-pelvic coordination in patients with acute LBP is scant. A case-control study was conducted to explore the differences in timing and magnitude aspects of lumbo-pelvic coordination between females with (n=19) and without (n=19) acute LBP. Participants in each group completed one experimental session wherein they performed trunk forward bending and backward return at preferred and fast paces. The amount of lumbar contribution to trunk motion (as the magnitude aspect) as well as the mean absolute relative phase (MARP) and deviation phase (DP) between thoracic and pelvic rotations (as the timing aspect) of lumbo-pelvic coordination were calculated. The lumbar contribution to trunk motion in the 2nd and the 3rd quarters of both forward bending and backward return phases was significantly smaller in the patient than the control group. The MARP and the DP were smaller in the patient vs. the control group during entire motion. The reduced lumbar contribution to trunk motion as well as the more in-phase and less variable lumbo-pelvic coordination in patients with acute LBP compared to the asymptomatic controls is likely the result of a neuromuscular adaptation to reduce painful deformation and to protect injured lower back tissues.     

Trunk muscle responses to suddenly applied loads: Do individuals who develop discomfort during prolonged standing respond differently?

Individuals with low back pain or injury (LBP/LBI) have been shown to display altered muscle responses to trunk perturbations; however it is unclear whether these observations are a cause or a result of the LBP/LBI. In this study, a 6.78 kg load was suddenly applied to the hands to perturb the trunk prior to and following a 2-h standing period, during which trunk and hip electromyography (EMG) and centre of pressure (CoP) at the feet were recorded. Seven of the 13 participants developed substantial low back discomfort (LBDiscomfort) during the standing period. These individuals, both pre- and post-standing, showed a greater average number of responsive extensor muscles (3.8 compared to 3.1 in those who did not develop discomfort) and a greater occurrence of extensor muscle response (95–100% of trials) as compared to those who did not develop LBDiscomfort (73–86% of trials). Also, after discomfort developed, these individuals displayed an increased response in their abdominal muscles. This overall increase in trunk musculature activity could either be detrimental by potentially increasing spinal loading leading to LBDiscomfort, or beneficial in that this increased musculature responsiveness may reduce one’s likelihood of developing a future LBI through a pathway of increased spine stability. In either case, these responses indicate motor control characteristics that can distinguish the likelihood of an individual developing LBDiscomfort during common tasks such as prolonged standing.     

Trunk response to sudden forward perturbations – Effects of preload and sudden load magnitudes,posture and abdominal antagonistic activation

Unexpected loading of the spine is a risk factor for low back pain. The trunk neuromuscular and kinematics responses are likely influenced by the perturbation itself as well as initial trunk conditions. The effect of four parameters (preload, sudden load, initial trunk flexed posture, initial abdominal antagonistic activity) on trunk kinematics and back muscles reflex response were evaluated. Twelve asymptomatic subjects participated in sudden forward perturbation tests under six distinct conditions. Preload did not change the reflexive response of back muscles and the trunk displacement; while peak trunk velocity and acceleration as well as the relative load peak decreased. Sudden load increased reflex response of muscles, trunk kinematics and loading variables. When the trunk was initially flexed, back muscles latency was delayed, trunk velocity and acceleration increased; however, reflex amplitude and relative trunk displacement remained unchanged. Abdominal antagonistic preactivation increased reflexive response of muscles but kinematics variables were not affected. Preload, initial flexed posture and abdominal muscles preactivation increased back muscles preactivity. Both velocity and acceleration peaks of the trunk movement decreased with preload despite greater total load. In contrast, they increased in the initial flexed posture and to some extent when abdominal muscles were preactivated demonstrating the distinct effects of pre-perturbation variables on trunk kinematics and risk of injury.     

Effect of experimental low back pain on neuromuscular control of the trunk in healthy volunteers and patients with chronic low back pain

Studies of electromyographic (EMG) activity and lumbopelvic rhythm have led to a better understanding of neuromuscular alterations in chronic low back pain (cLBP) patients. Whether these changes reflect adaptations to chronic pain or are induced by acute pain is still unclear. This work aimed to assess the effects of experimental LBP on lumbar erector spinae (LES) EMG activity and lumbopelvic kinematics during a trunk flexion–extension task in healthy volunteers and LBP patients. The contribution of disability to these effects was also examined. Twelve healthy participants and 14 cLBP patients performed flexion–extension tasks in three conditions; control, innocuous heat and noxious heat, applied on the skin over L5 or T7. The results indicated that noxious heat at L5 evoked specific increases in LES activity during static full trunk flexion and extension, irrespective of participants’ group. Kinematic data suggested that LBP patients adopted a different movement strategy than controls when noxious heat was applied at the L5 level. Besides, high disability was associated with less kinematic changes when approaching and leaving full flexion. These results indicate that experimental pain can induce neuromechanical alterations in cLBP patients and healthy volunteers, and that higher disability in patients is associated with decreased movement pattern changes.     

Visualization of painful experiences believed to trigger the activation of affective and emotional brain regions in subjects with low back pain

In the management of clinical low back pain (LBP), actual damage to lower back areas such as muscles, intervertebral discs etc. are normally targeted for therapy. However, LBP may involve not only sensory pain, but also underlying affective pain which may also play an important role overall in painful events. Therefore we hypothesized that visualization of a painful event may trigger painful memories, thus provoking the affective dimension of pain. The present study investigated neural correlates of affect processing in subjects with LBP (n = 11) and subjects without LBP (n = 11) through the use of virtual LBP stimuli. Whole brain functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed for all subjects while they were shown a picture of a man carrying luggage in a half-crouching position. All subjects with LBP reported experiencing discomfort and 7 LBP subjects reported experiencing pain. In contrast to subjects without LBP, subjects with LBP displayed activation of the cortical area related to pain and emotions: the insula, supplementary motor area, premotor area, thalamus, pulvinar, posterior cingulate cortex, hippocampus, fusiform, gyrus, and cerebellum. These results suggest that the virtual LBP stimuli caused memory retrieval of unpleasant experiences and therefore may be associated with prolonged chronic LBP conditions.     

Pain and motor control of the lumbopelvic region: effect and possible mechanisms.

Many authors report changes in the control of the trunk muscles in people with low back pain (LBP). Although there is considerable disagreement regarding the nature of these changes, we have consistently found differential effects on the deep intrinsic and superficial muscles of the lumbopelvic region. Two issues require consideration; first, the potential mechanisms for these changes in control, and secondly, the effect or outcome of changes in control for lumbopelvic function. Recent data indicate that experimentally induced pain may replicate some of the changes identified in people with LBP. While this does not exclude the possibility that changes in control of the trunk muscles may lead to pain, it does argue that, at least in some cases, pain may cause the changes in control. There are many possible mechanisms, including changes in excitability in the motor pathway, changes in the sensory system, and factors associated with the attention demanding, stressful and fearful aspects of pain. A new hypothesis is presented regarding the outcome from differential effects of pain on the elements of the motor system. Taken together these data argue for strategies of prevention and rehabilitation of LBP.     

Classification of large array surface myoelectric potentials from subjects with and without low back pain.

An algorithm was developed and tested for differentiating between the spatial distribution of large arrays of surface electromyographic (LASE) data from subjects with and without low back pain (LBP). The surface EMG data from 62 channels were collected from the low back of 161 healthy and 44 acute (less than 6-weeks) LBP subjects in three minimum stress postural positions including standing, 20 degrees of trunk flexion (at hip joint) and standing with arms extended forward holding a 1.36kg (3lb) weight in each hand. These data were statistically analyzed and the spatial distribution of the root mean square (RMS) values was used in a multivariate quadratic discriminant model to reclassify the healthy and acute LBP subjects. The most predictive results were obtained from the 'flexion' group of experiments and correctly reclassified 95.5% (42/44) of the acute LBP subjects and 99.4% (160/161) of the healthy subjects. The success rate of this reclassification based on surface distribution of myoelectric potentials was found to be better than the reported patient classifications based on a smaller set of electrode pairs using fewer subjects [Peach JP, McGill SM, Classification of low back pain with use of spectral electromyogram parameters. Spine 23(10):1998;1117-23; Roy SH, De Luca CJ, Emley M, Oddsson LI, Buijs RJ, Levins JA, Newcombe DS, Jabre JF. Classification of back muscle impairment based on the surface electromyographic signal. J Rehabil Res Dev 34(4):1997;405-14 [review]]. The results indicated the potential of the model for clinical patient classification.     

Adaptive trunk sway velocities following repeated perturbations in subjects with and without low back pain

Faster trunk motions could be a strategy to prevent loss of balance and fall injuries due to unexpected perturbations. However, it is unclear how trunk sway velocities can be compensated during stepping in subjects with low back pain (LBP). The purpose of this study was to investigate lower limb reaction, swing, and step times, as well as trunk sway velocities at heel strike and toe-off, following repeated step perturbations between subjects with and without LBP. There were 30 subjects with LBP and 42 control subjects who were exposed to treadmill-induced perturbations at a velocity of 0.12 m/sec for 0.62 m. The treadmill-induced steps caused subjects to walk forward for 4.90 sec after the perturbation. The groups demonstrated significant interactions on the lower limb reaction times and on the number of repeated perturbations (F = 4.83, p = 0.03) due to a decreased step time at the first perturbation (t = 2.52, p = 0.01) in the LBP group. For the trunk sway velocities, the repeated perturbations demonstrated a significant interaction between groups (F = 4.65, p = 0.03). This adaptive trunk strategy for gait stability increased step times with repeated perturbations in the LBP group. The group interactions on the trunk sway velocities also indicated a possible somatosensory integration for step time adjustments to avoid potential fall hazards. This adaptive response with repeated step perturbations could result in compensatory trunk sway for gait stability.     

Is muscle co-activation a predisposing factor for low back pain development during standing? A multifactorial approach for early identification of at-risk individuals

Purpose and scopeLow back pain development has been associated with static standing postures in occupational settings. Previous work has demonstrated gluteus muscle co-activation as a predominant pattern in previously asymptomatic individuals who develop low back pain when exposed to 2-h of standing. The purpose of this work was to investigate muscle co-activation as a predisposing factor in low back pain development while including a multifactorial approach of clinical assessment tools and psychosocial assessments to identify individuals who are at risk for pain development during standing.ResultsForty percent of participants developed low back pain during the 2-h of standing. Pain developers demonstrated bilateral gluteus medius and trunk flexor–extensor muscle co-activation prior to reports of pain development. Pain developers and non-pain developers demonstrated markedly different patterns of muscle activation during the 2-h of standing. A novel screening test of active hip abduction was the only clinical assessment tool that predicted pain development.ConclusionsGluteus medius and trunk muscle co-activation appears to be a predisposing rather than adaptive factor in low back pain development during standing. A combination of a positive active hip abduction test and presence of muscle co-activation during standing may be useful for early identification of at-risk individuals.     

Changes in direction-specific activity of psoas major and quadratus lumborum in people with recurring back pain differ between muscle regions and patient groups

Psoas major (PM) and quadratus lumborum (QL) muscles have anatomically discrete regions. Redistribution of activity between these regions has been observed in people with low back pain (LBP). We hypothesised that the bias of activity of specific regions of PM and QL towards trunk extension may change depending on whether LBP individuals have more or less erector spinae (ES) activity in an extended/upright lumbar posture. Ten volunteers with recurring episodes of LBP and nine pain-free controls performed isometric trunk efforts in upright sitting. LBP individuals were subgrouped into those with high and low ES electromyographic activity (EMG) when sitting with a lumbar lordosis. Fine-wire electrodes were inserted into fascicles of PM arising from the transverse process (PM-t) and vertebral body (PM-v) and anterior (QL-a) and posterior layers (QL-p) of QL. The LBP group with low ES EMG had greater bias of PM-t, PM-v and QL-p towards trunk extension. The LBP group with high ES activity showed less PM activity towards extension. These findings suggest redistribution of activity within and/or between these muscles with extensor moments. This is likely to be important to consider for effective clinical interventions for individuals with LBP.     

Persistence of improvements in postural strategies following motor control training in people with recurrent low back pain.

This study investigated long-term effects of training on postural control using the model of deficits in activation of transversus abdominis (TrA) in people with recurrent low back pain (LBP). Nine volunteers with LBP attended four sessions for assessment and/or training (initial, two weeks, four weeks and six months). Training of repeated isolated voluntary TrA contractions were performed at the initial and two-week session with feedback from real-time ultrasound imaging. Home program involved training twice daily for four weeks. Electromyographic activity (EMG) of trunk and deltoid muscles was recorded with surface and fine-wire electrodes. Rapid arm movement and walking were performed at each session, and immediately after training on the first two sessions. Onset of trunk muscle activation relative to prime mover deltoid during arm movements, and the coefficient of variation (CV) of EMG during averaged gait cycle were calculated. Over four weeks of training, onset of TrA EMG was earlier during arm movements and CV of TrA EMG was reduced (consistent with more sustained EMG activity). Changes were retained at six months follow-up (p<0.05). These results show persistence of motor control changes following training and demonstrate that this training approach leads to motor learning of automatic postural control strategies.     

Lumbo-pelvic joint protection against antigravity forces: motor control and segmental stiffness assessed with magnetic resonance imaging

The antigravity muscles of the lumbo-pelvic region, especially transversus abdominis (TrA), are important for the protection and support of the weightbearing joints. Measures of TrA function (the response to the postural cue of drawing in the abdominal wall) have been developed and quantified using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Cross-sections through the trunk allowed muscle contraction as well as the large fascial attachments of the TrA to be visualized. The cross sectional area (CSA) of the deep musculo-fascial system was measured at rest and in the contracted state, using static images as well as a cine sequence. In this developmental study, MRI measures were undertaken on a small sample of low back pain (LBP) and non LBP subjects. Results demonstrated that, in non LBP subjects, the draw in action produced a symmetrical deep musculo-fascial "corset" which encircles the abdomen. This study demonstrated a difference in this "corset" measure between subjects with and without LBP. These measures may also prove useful to quantify the effect of unloading in bedrest and microgravity exposure.     

The role of trunk muscles in sitting balance control in people with low back pain

The purpose of this study was to examine the muscular activities and kinetics of the trunk during unstable sitting in healthy and LBP subjects. Thirty-one healthy subjects and twenty-three LBP subjects were recruited. They were sat on a custom-made chair mounted on a force plate. Each subject was asked to regain balance after the chair was tilted backward at 20°, and then released. The motions of the trunk and trunk muscle activity were examined. The internal muscle moment and power at the hip and lumbar spine joints were calculated using the force plate and motion data. No significant differences were found in muscle moment and power between healthy and LBP subjects (p > 0.05). The duration of contraction of various trunk muscles and co-contraction were significantly longer in the LBP subjects (p < 0.05) when compared to healthy subjects, and the reaction times of the muscles were also significantly reduced in LBP subjects (p < 0.05). LBP subjects altered their muscle strategies to maintain balance during unstable sitting, but these active mechanisms appear to be effective as trunk balance was not compromised and the internal moment pattern remained similar. The changes in muscle strategies may be the causes of LBP or the result of LBP with an attempt to protect the spine.     

Steadiness of Spinal Regions during Single-Leg Standing in Older Adults with and without Chronic Low Back Pain

The aims of this study were to compare the steadiness index of spinal regions during single-leg standing in older adults with and without chronic low back pain (LBP) and to correlate measurements of steadiness index with the performance of clinical balance tests. Thirteen community-dwelling older adults (aged 55 years or above) with chronic LBP and 13 age- and gender-matched asymptomatic volunteers participated in this study. Data collection was conducted in a university research laboratory. Measurements were steadiness index of spinal regions (trunk, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and pelvis) during single-leg standing including relative holding time (RHT) and relative standstill time (RST), and clinical balance tests (timed up and go test and 5-repetition sit to stand test). The LBP group had a statistically significantly smaller RHT than the control group, regardless of one leg stance on the painful or non-painful sides. The RSTs on the painful side leg in the LBP group were not statistically significantly different from the average RSTs of both legs in the control group; however, the RSTs on the non-painful side leg in the LBP group were statistically significantly smaller than those in the control group for the trunk, thoracic spine, and lumbar spine. No statistically significant intra-group differences were found in the RHTs and RSTs between the painful and non-painful side legs in the LBP group. Measurements of clinical balance tests also showed insignificant weak to moderate correlations with steadiness index. In conclusion, older adults with chronic LBP demonstrated decreased spinal steadiness not only in the symptomatic lumbar spine but also in the other spinal regions within the kinetic chain of the spine. When treating older adults with chronic LBP, clinicians may also need to examine their balance performance and spinal steadiness during balance challenging tests.