No description available.

Background: Individuals with Subacromial Pain Syndrome (SPS) often present with a variety of contributing factors. It is possible that a subgroup exists within SPS that has primary impairments of scapular mobility and/or muscle strength. In an attempt to better identify scapular contributions in SPS, the Scapular Assistance Test (SAT) and Scapula Reposition Test (SRT) have been described. Additionally, thoracic spine thrust manipulation has been shown to be effective for shoulder pain. Problem Statement: It is currently unknown whether or not there are impairments in scapulothoracic muscle force generation or scapular mobility in individuals with SPS who have positive results on the SAT and SRT. It also remains unknown whether individuals with SPS respond differently in the immediate effects on scapular motion, scapulothoracic muscle force generation, pain, or function following different manipulation techniques. Methodology: Sixty subjects with shoulder pain were enrolled in the study. Baseline measures were obtained for scapular upward rotation and posterior tilt, scapulothoracic muscle force generation, pectoralis minor muscle length, pain, and function. Participants were randomized to receive a seated thrust manipulation, supine thrust manipulation, or sham manipulation. Measures were reassessed immediately after treatment and the Penn Shoulder Score (PSS) was reassessed at 48 hours. Results: The results indicated no significant differences in scapular upward rotation or posterior tilt, or muscle force generation based on the results of the SAT or SRT. There was a small but significant difference in pectoralis minor muscle length based on the result of the SAT. There were no significant between-group differences in scapular motion, muscle force generation, or pectoralis minor muscle length based on the treatment received. There were no significant differences in 48-hour improvement in pain, function, satisfaction, and total PSS scores. Small but significant within group changes existed on several measures. Discussion: The SAT and SRT may be ineffective in differentiating scapular movement associated impairments. Thoracic spine thrust manipulation resulted in no greater immediate improvements in scapular motion, strength, pectoralis minor muscle length, pain, or function compared to a sham treatment. The improvements in pain and function are likely not biomechanical in nature and are likely not derived from the manipulative thrust.

No description available.

Background and objective: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a complex musculoskeletal condition and often the source of the pain is not clear. A correlation has been found to exist between incidences of low back pain (LBP) and those with respiratory diseases such as COPD. This could give reason to believe that the sequence of events could be reversed, and LBP could elicit changes in respiratory function. The purpose of this study is to investigate if CLBP has an influence on breathing mechanics and the positioning of the diaphragm in the trunk. Methods: Volunteers were recruited between the ages of 35-65 years old with and without CLBP. All subjects underwent an MRI for imaging of their diaphragm to find the position of the diaphragm at the end of exhalation and inhalation. The height of the diaphragm at the end of exhalation and inhalation was then measured. Respiratory values were measured that included forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and respiratory amplitude at the thoracic and abdominal level both at rest and after a series of functional exercises. Respiratory amplitude was used to measure average displacement of the abdomen and mid-ribcage during normal breathing. FEV1 was measured using a handheld spirometer and respiratory amplitude was measured using band-like respiratory sensors that were wrapped around the participants. Results: A total of 36 participants were recruited for this study (n = 21M; n = 15F), with 18 controls (n = 11M; n = 7F) and 18 with CLBP (n = 10M; 8F). Eleven variables were assessed to compare the results from the control group and CLBP group and see if there were any differences. No statistically significant differences were found for all variables assessed. Conclusion: There was no significant evidence there was a difference in diaphragm positioning and breathing mechanics in those who have CLBP. For future testing, we would want to change categorization to CLBP groups based on pain severity or compare the differences between acute LBP and CLBP. We would also consider changing our method for measuring the diaphragm such as measuring the percent change in area of the diaphragm between inhalation and exhalation. We would also consider other parameters to test that could include more use of the information given in the PROMIS questionnaire or looking at the amount of lumbar lordosis as seen on the MRI and how those values compare to among the different groups.

Ziel dieser Studie war es, neue Erkenntnisse über die epidemiologischen Merkmale von Patienten mit Atlasfrakturen zu gewinnen und die Komplikationsraten nach operativer und nichtoperativer Behandlung retrospektiv zu bewerten.:Inhaltsverzeichnis Abkürzungsverzeichnis ................................................................................................... 2 Einführung ......................................................................................................................3 1. Bedeutung der Halswirbelsäulenverletzungen............................................................3 2. Der 1. Halswirbel (Atlas)............................................................................................3 2.1 Anatomischer Aufbau ...........................................................................................3 2.2 Frakturen des Atlas................................................................................................5 2.2.1 Häufigkeit und Ursache......................................................................................5 2.2.2 Frakturtypen und Klassifikationen.....................................................................5 2.2.2.1 Jefferson-Fraktur....................................................................................6 2.2.3 Patientenpopulation............................................................................................7 2.2.4 Symptome ..........................................................................................................7 2.2.5 Diagnostik .......................................................................................................... 8 2.2.6 Therapie..............................................................................................................8 3. Zielsetzung der Arbeit...............................................................................................11 Publikation ....................................................................................................................12 4. Zusammenfassung der Arbeit ...................................................................................20 5. Abbildungsverzeichnis..............................................................................................23 6. Literaturverzeichnis ..................................................................................................24 7. Anlagen.....................................................................................................................27 7.1 Spezifizierung des eigenen wissenschaftlichen Beitrags ....................................27 7.2 Selbständigkeitserklärung ...................................................................................28 7.4 Danksagung.........................................................................................................31 / The purpose of this study was to gain new insights into the epidemiologic characteristics of patients with atlas fractures and to retrospectively evaluate complication rates after surgical and non-surgical treatment.:Inhaltsverzeichnis Abkürzungsverzeichnis ................................................................................................... 2 Einführung ......................................................................................................................3 1. Bedeutung der Halswirbelsäulenverletzungen............................................................3 2. Der 1. Halswirbel (Atlas)............................................................................................3 2.1 Anatomischer Aufbau ...........................................................................................3 2.2 Frakturen des Atlas................................................................................................5 2.2.1 Häufigkeit und Ursache......................................................................................5 2.2.2 Frakturtypen und Klassifikationen.....................................................................5 2.2.2.1 Jefferson-Fraktur....................................................................................6 2.2.3 Patientenpopulation............................................................................................7 2.2.4 Symptome ..........................................................................................................7 2.2.5 Diagnostik .......................................................................................................... 8 2.2.6 Therapie..............................................................................................................8 3. Zielsetzung der Arbeit...............................................................................................11 Publikation ....................................................................................................................12 4. Zusammenfassung der Arbeit ...................................................................................20 5. Abbildungsverzeichnis..............................................................................................23 6. Literaturverzeichnis ..................................................................................................24 7. Anlagen.....................................................................................................................27 7.1 Spezifizierung des eigenen wissenschaftlichen Beitrags ....................................27 7.2 Selbständigkeitserklärung ...................................................................................28 7.4 Danksagung.........................................................................................................31

Title: Kinematic of cervical thoracic spine in the context of whole body posture Problematics: This work describes the kinematics of upper thoracic spine during specific movement of the shoulder girdle. The kinematic changes are evaluated with the relationship of the whole body posture. Aim: To develop the objective evaluation of the posture and the amount of the segmental spinal movement of cervical thoracic spine. To describe the relationship between the specific movement of arm - adduction and external humeral rotation - and the posture using 3D kinematic analysis. To objectify this tested movement as a diagnostic tool or a therapy for forward head posture. Methods: The theoretical part of this work summarizes the current knowledge of poor posture and there is defined the upright posture. The experimental part describes the measurement of the movement of shoulder girdle and its response to the axial system using 3D kinematic analysis. Result: The results of kinematic 3D motion analysis show that the external humeral rotation with adduction of the shoulder leads to the upright posture if there is the horizontal position of the thorax and pelvis. The posture was divided due to the physiological or pathological response with this simple movement. Conclusion: A new model for evaluation of the...

Introduction The joint dysfunction of the spine in the sense of functional blockade is connected with corresponding painful condition, reflex contraction of the surrounding muscles and restriction of mobility in the spinal segment. Joint block has its mechanical context, which need not be accompanied by a structural disturbance but it's affecting the biomechanical properties of the spine. Several theories exist how the joints become restricted. Scientific evidence highly supports the meniscoid entrapment theory. Purposes The aim of the study was to identify the meniscoids of the cervical spine using in- vivo MRI imaging and to determine their potential role in the development of functional joint blocks of the axial system (AS). Another objective was to find out how the articular blocks affect the rheological properties of the spine by the Transfer Vibration through the Spine (TVS) method. Patient sample The MRI study was conducted on a research file of 12 subjects - two anatomical preparations and ten in vivo. Two subjects were examined in TVS experiment. Methodology Two anatomical preparations were investigated on MRI to find the appropriate sequence for imaging of meniscoids, three subjects for identification of meniscoids in vivo. Seven subjects underwent initial investigation, manipulation of...

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.