|
|
2022, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (11): 1656-1661Effects of different types of abdominal support on lumbar-back muscle surface electromyography signals in people with abdominal obesityShang Wandi1, Wang Xingze1, 2, Wei Xiaoyan1
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Scholars at home and abroad have developed various lumbar protective belts on prevention of low back pain. Following series of experiments in biomechanical studies and clinical applications, no suitable belts can provide definite benefit for people with abdominal obesity. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of several types of abdominal supports on trunk range of motion and surface electromyography of back muscles among subjects with abdominal obesity. METHODS: Eighteen adult males with abdominal obesity were recruited. Different types of abdominal supports, no taping, elastic abdominal belt and non-elastic athletic white taping were randomly selected during flexion-extension phase of trunk at non-weight-bearing and heavy lifting (weight-bearing). Noranxon bipolar surface electromyography device was used to collected electromyography activities of back muscles, including the multifidus, lumbar erector spinae and thoracic erector spinae muscles. Kinematics of trunk was recorded with a Vicon T40 motion capture system. The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shanghai University of Sport (approval No. 102772020RT091). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Multifidus: Compared with no taping and elastic abdominal belt, multifidus values of athletic white taping were significantly reduced during extension phase of non-weight-bearing (P < 0.05). Additionally, during extension phase of weight-bearing, multifidus values of elastic abdominal belt were significantly lower than no taping and athletic white taping (P < 0.05). Lumbar erector spinae: Compared with athletic white taping, lumbar erector spinae values of elastic abdominal belt were significantly decreased during flexion phase of non-weight-bearing (P < 0.05). Compared with no taping and athletic white taping, lumbar erector spinae values of elastic abdominal belt were significantly reduced during extension phase of non-weight-bearing and weight-bearing (P < 0.05). Thoracic erector spinae: Compared with no taping, thoracic erector spinae values of elastic abdominal belt were significantly reduced during flexion phase of non-weight-bearing (P < 0.05). Compared with no taping, thoracic erector spinae values of athletic white taping and elastic abdominal belt were significantly reduced during flexion phase of weight-bearing (P < 0.05). Compared with no taping, thoracic erector spinae values of athletic white taping and elastic abdominal belt were significantly reduced during extension phase of weight-bearing (P < 0.05), and compared to athletic white taping, thoracic erector spinae values of elastic abdominal belt were significantly reduced (P < 0.05). The maximum flexion angle in subjects supported by elastic abdominal belt was less than that in no taping and elastic abdominal belt (P < 0.05). The results suggest that both athletic white taping and elastic abdominal belt significantly reduce muscle activation of the back muscles in people with abdominal obesity, thereby potentially slowing spinal load and preventing occurrence of low back pain. Moreover, the elastic abdominal belt will not restrict the normal range of motion of the trunk, allowing for a wider application. Key words:lumbar support, elastic abdominal belts, athletic taping, abdominal obesity, surface electromyography, kinematics, low back pain |