Download PDF
manuelletherapie 2004; 8(4): 169-177
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-813692
Originalarbeit

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Vergleich wiederholter und statischer Dehnung der LWS in Extensionsrichtung bei gesunden Erwachsenen[*]

Comparison of Repeated and Static Stretching in Extension of the Lumbar Spine in Healthy AdultsS. Williams1 , C. E. White1 , T. Hancock1 , A. E. Pusateri1 , C. P. Dionne1 , R. F. Bybee1
  • 1University of Texas at El Paso
Further Information

Publication History

Manuskript eingetroffen: 10.5.2004

Manuskript akzeptiert: 8.7.2004

Publication Date:
25 October 2004 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Übliche Mittel zur Steigerung des Bewegungsausmaßes lumbaler Extension sind statisches oder wiederholtes Dehnen bis zum Ende des Bewegungsbereichs. Ziel der vorliegenden Studie ist herauszufinden, welche der beiden Techniken zur Steigerung des Bewegungsausmaßes lumbaler Extension im Vergleich zu einer Kontrollgruppe den größeren Zuwachs an Beweglichkeit bewirkte.

Gesunde Erwachsene steigern das Bewegungsausmaß ihrer lumbalen Extension häufiger durch wiederholte Dehnung im Endbereich der Bewegung als durch statisches Dehnen und signifikant mehr, als wenn die LWS nicht in Extensionsrichtung gedehnt wird.

Abstract

Common means to increase lumbar extension are static or repeated end-range stretching. The purpose of this study is to determine which of 2 techniques for increasing lumbar extension yielded greater motion increase in comparison to a conrol group.

Healthy adults increase lumbar extension more frequently through repetitive stretching end of range than through static stretching and significantly more than not stretching.

Schlüsselwörter

Flexibilität - unterer Rücken - Bewegungsausmaß

Key words

Flexibility - low back - range of motion

1 *Gebilligt vom Institutional Review Board, University of Texas at El Paso.

Literatur

  • 1 Bandy W D, Irion J M. The Effect of Time of Static Stretch on the Flexibility of the Hamstring Muscles.  Phys Ther. 1994;  74 845-850
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Battie M C, Bigos S J, Sheehy A. et al . Spinal Flexibility and Individual Factors that Influence It.  Phys Ther. 1987;  67 653-658
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Beattie P, Rothstein J M, Lamb R L. Reliability of the Attraction Method for Measuring Lumbar Spine Backward Bending.  Phys Ther. 1987;  67 364-369
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Biering-Sorensen F. Physical Measurements as Risk Indicators for Low-Back Trouble over a One-year Period.  Spine. 1984;  9 106-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Burton A. Regional Lumbar Sagittal Mobility: Measurements of Flexicurves.  Clin Biomech. 1986;  1 20-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dopf C A, Mandel S S, Geiger D F. et al . Analysis of Spine Motion Variability Using a Computerized Goniometer Compared to Physical Examination: A Prospective Clinical Study.  Spine. 1994;  19 586-595
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Draper N R, Smith H. Applied Regression Analysis. 3rd. ed. New York; Wiley & Sons 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Dvorak J, Vajda E G, Grob D. et al . Normal Motion of the Lumbar Spine as Related to Age and Gender.  Eur Spine J. 1995;  4 18-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Engelburg A. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Chicago; American Medical Association 1988
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Erhard R E, Delitto A, Cibulka M T. Relative Effectiveness of an Extension Program and a Combined Program of Manipulation and Flexion and Extension Exercises in Patients with Acute Low Back Syndrome.  Phys Ther. 1994;  74 1093-1100
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Fitzgerald G K, Wynveen K J, Rheault W. et al . Objective Assessment with Establishment of Normal Values for Lumbar Spinal Range of Motion.  Phys Ther. 1983;  63 1776-1781
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Howell D W. Musculoskeletal Profile and Incidence of Musculoskeletal Injuries in Lightweight Women Rowers.  Am J Sports Med. 1984;  12 278-282
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hsieh C J, Pringle R K. Range of Motion of the Lumbar Spine Required for Four Activities of Daily Living.  Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1994;  17 353-358
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Indahl A, Velund L, Reikeraas O. Good Prognosis for Low Back Pain when Left Untampered.  Spine. 1995;  20 473-477
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Keeley J, Mayer T G, Cox R. et al . Quantification of Lumbar Function: Part 5: Reliability of Range-of-Motion Measurements in the Sagital Plane and In Vivo Torso Rotation Measurements.  Spine. 1986;  11 31-35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Khalil T M, Shihab S A, Lorgia M M. et al . Stretching in the Rehabilitation of Low-Back Pain Patients.  Spine. 1992;  17 311-317
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kisner C, Colby L A. Therapeutic Exercise: Foundation and Techniques. 4th ed. Philadelphia; F.A. Davis 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Kramer J. Intervertebral Disk Diseases: Causes, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prophylaxis. 2nd ed. New York; Thieme Medical Publishers 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Loebl W. Measurement of Spinal Posture and Range in Spinal Movements.  Ann Phys Med. 1967;  9 103-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mayer T G, Tencer A F, Kristoferson S. et al . Use of Noninvasive Techniques for Quantification of Spinal Range-of-Motion in Normal Subjects and Chronic Low-back Dysfunction Patients.  Spine. 1984;  9 588-595
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 McKenzie R A. The Lumbar Spine: Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy. Waikanae, New Zealand; Spinal Publications 1981
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Mellin G, Harkapaa K, Vanharanta H. et al . Outcome of a Multimodal Treatment Including Physical Training of Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.  Spine. 1993;  18 825-829
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Miller S A, Mayer T, Cox R. et al . Reliability Problems Associated with the Modified Schober Technique for True Lumbar Flexion Measurement.  Spine. 1992;  17 345-348
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Moll J MH, Wright V. Normal Range of Spinal Mobility.  Ann Rheumatol Dis. 1971;  30 381-386
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Moll J MH, Liyanage S P, Wright V A. An Objective Clinical Method to Measure Spinal Extension.  Rheumatol Rehabil. 1972;  11 293-312
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Norkin C C, White D J. Measurement of Joint Motion: A Guide to Goniometry. Philadelphia; F.A. Davis 1985
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Peterson C M, Johnson R D, Schuit D. et al . Intraobserver and Interobserver Reliability of Asymptomatic Subjects: Thoracolumbar Range of Motion Using the OSI CA 6000 Spine Motion Analyzer.  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1994;  20 207-212
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Portney L G, Watkins M P. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River; Prentice Hall Health; 2000. 
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Rondinelli R, Murphy J, Esler A. et al . Estimation of Normal Lumbar Flexion with Surface Inclinometry: A Comparison of Three Methods.  Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;  71 219-224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Smith R L, Mell D B. Effects of Prone Spine Extension Exercise on Passive Lumbar Extension Range of Motion.  Phys Ther. 1987;  67 1517-1521
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sturrock R D, Wojtulewski J A, Hart F D. Spondylometry in a Normal Population and in Ankylosing Spondylitis.  Rheumatol Rehabil. 1973;  12 135-142
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Sullivan M S, Dickinson C E, Troup J DG. The Influence of Age and Gender on Lumbar Spine Sagital Plane Range of Motion: A Study of 1126 Healthy Subjects.  Spine. 1994;  19 682-686
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Vujnovich A L, Dawson N J. The Effect of Therapeutic Muscle Stretch on Neural Processing.  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1994;  20 145-153
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Wessling K C, DeVane D A, Hylton C R. Effects of Static Stretch versus Static and Ultrasound Combined on Triceps Surae Muscle Extensibility in Healthy Women.  Phys Ther. 1987;  67 674-679
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Williams R, Binkley J, Bloch R. et al . Reliability of the Modified-Modified Schober and Double Inclinometry Methods for Measuring Lumbar Flexion and Extension.  Phys Ther. 1993;  73 26-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

1 *Gebilligt vom Institutional Review Board, University of Texas at El Paso.

Dip Ronald F. Bybee, PT, DPT, OCS, MDT, Assistant, Professor

University of Texas at El Paso

1101 N. Campbell Street

USA-El Paso, TX 79902

Phone: + 1 (9) 1 57 47 82 21

Fax: + 1 (9) 1 57 47 82 11

Email: bybee@utep.edu

      >