Page 61 - Petelin Ana. Ur. 2022. Zdravje otrok in mladostnikov / Health of children and adolescents. Proceedings. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem/University of Primorska Press
P. 61
ond aim is to evaluate the relationship between maximum trunk strength movement and hardware content selection for exergame development 61
and the performance of the stability test.
Methods
Subjects: The literature review included subjects between 10 and 65 years of age.
The relationship study involved 9 subjects (20.4 ± 6.1 years, 178.8 ± 6.1 centim-
eters, 70.8 ± 13.5 kilograms). Subjects with LBP and/or musculoskeletal disor-
ders were excluded from the study. Before the study all subjects signed the in-
formed consent.
Article selection process: The review was carried out in the PubMed da-
tabase. We focused on articles published since 2010. The search key relating to
the hardware contained the following keywords: (“motion” OR “movement” OR
“exercise”) AND (“capture” OR “video analysis” OR “tracking”) AND (“system”
OR “technology). The search key related to movement therapy contained the
following keywords: (“low back pain”) AND (“exercise” OR “training” OR “ki-
nesiotherapy”) AND (“program” OR “intervention”).
Trunk strength and stability assessment: Postural control was evaluated
with unstable sitting test, where we measured the center of pressure (CoP) ar-
ea. Participants sat on an unstable hemi-sphere (radius = 22 cm; height = 18 cm)
with arms crossed over their chest and their feet rested on a surface that was a
part of the hemi-sphere. The hemi-sphere was placed on the force plate (Kistler,
9286B, Switzerland). Subjects performed 3 repetitions of 30 seconds with an in-
termediate 30 second break.
Maximal trunk strength was measured with multi-functional dynamom-
eter (S2P d.o.o., Ljubljana, Slovenia). Each subject performed 3 maximal iso-
metric contractions in direction of trunk extension and lateral flexion to the
right.
Statistical analysis: Maximal force was evaluated as the peak value with-
in one second time interval. An average of three repetitions was included into
the further statistical analysis. The normality of the data distribution was veri-
fied with Shapiro–Wilk tests. Spearman coefficient was used to analyse the cor-
relation between the variables. The level of statistical significance was set to p <
0.05. Statistical analyses were done in SPSS (SPSS statistics 19, IBM, New York,
USA).
Results
The final review included 15 (hardware) and 25 (movement therapy) articles
(Figure 1). Overall, the researchers agree that a successful LBP program con-
sists of several phases (Mcgill, 2007). It seems that local muscle endurance plays
a key role in LBP prevention and is superior to maximal strength. Our study
did not show a significant association between the maximal strength in sagit-
tal plane, frontal plane (Figure 2) and the CoP area (ρ = 0.100; p = 0,789, ρ =
0,033-; p = 0.932, respectively).
and the performance of the stability test.
Methods
Subjects: The literature review included subjects between 10 and 65 years of age.
The relationship study involved 9 subjects (20.4 ± 6.1 years, 178.8 ± 6.1 centim-
eters, 70.8 ± 13.5 kilograms). Subjects with LBP and/or musculoskeletal disor-
ders were excluded from the study. Before the study all subjects signed the in-
formed consent.
Article selection process: The review was carried out in the PubMed da-
tabase. We focused on articles published since 2010. The search key relating to
the hardware contained the following keywords: (“motion” OR “movement” OR
“exercise”) AND (“capture” OR “video analysis” OR “tracking”) AND (“system”
OR “technology). The search key related to movement therapy contained the
following keywords: (“low back pain”) AND (“exercise” OR “training” OR “ki-
nesiotherapy”) AND (“program” OR “intervention”).
Trunk strength and stability assessment: Postural control was evaluated
with unstable sitting test, where we measured the center of pressure (CoP) ar-
ea. Participants sat on an unstable hemi-sphere (radius = 22 cm; height = 18 cm)
with arms crossed over their chest and their feet rested on a surface that was a
part of the hemi-sphere. The hemi-sphere was placed on the force plate (Kistler,
9286B, Switzerland). Subjects performed 3 repetitions of 30 seconds with an in-
termediate 30 second break.
Maximal trunk strength was measured with multi-functional dynamom-
eter (S2P d.o.o., Ljubljana, Slovenia). Each subject performed 3 maximal iso-
metric contractions in direction of trunk extension and lateral flexion to the
right.
Statistical analysis: Maximal force was evaluated as the peak value with-
in one second time interval. An average of three repetitions was included into
the further statistical analysis. The normality of the data distribution was veri-
fied with Shapiro–Wilk tests. Spearman coefficient was used to analyse the cor-
relation between the variables. The level of statistical significance was set to p <
0.05. Statistical analyses were done in SPSS (SPSS statistics 19, IBM, New York,
USA).
Results
The final review included 15 (hardware) and 25 (movement therapy) articles
(Figure 1). Overall, the researchers agree that a successful LBP program con-
sists of several phases (Mcgill, 2007). It seems that local muscle endurance plays
a key role in LBP prevention and is superior to maximal strength. Our study
did not show a significant association between the maximal strength in sagit-
tal plane, frontal plane (Figure 2) and the CoP area (ρ = 0.100; p = 0,789, ρ =
0,033-; p = 0.932, respectively).
