Differences of Lumbar Muscle Morphology Between Spondylosis Low Back Pain Patients and Healthy Individuals

• Published in: Lecture Notes in Bioengineering
• Main Author: Arimanshah A.A.N.; Tan Z.A.T.M.F.; Sulaiman N.; Ismail S.I.; Ismail H.; Adnan R.
• Format: Conference paper
• Language: English
• Published: Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH 2024
• Online Access: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85213306216&doi=10.1007%2f978-981-97-4186-1_22&partnerID=40&md5=11069d90d2bd033fad89368e8cca2cfc

Degenerative discs in low back pain (SLBP) patients are often examined as degenerative changes of vertebrae disc of the spine. SLBP is mainly associated with aging, trauma and repetitive stress which often view the structural changes of vertebrae body and discs of the spine. The paraspinals lumbar muscles such as the Lumbar Multifidus (LMF) and Lumbar Erector Spinae (LES) surround the lumbar spine to provide stability and lumbar spine function. During the last decade, an increasing number of studies to explored the interaction role of paraspinals muscle structure, spinal pathology and LBP. Since spine stability is associated with degeneration of the paraspinals, the limited study of degenerative changes of vertebrae body may also alter the muscle morphology. In this study, different muscle structure was evaluated through the muscle and fat cross-sectional areas of the paraspinals lumbar muscle in adults with SLBP and healthy individuals. A retrospective study was carried out on fifteen SLBP patients and six participants served as the control group (CG) with comparable age, weight and height. To determine the alteration of the muscle structure of lumbar paraspinals in SLBP, a gross muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and fatty degeneration of the LMF and LES were evaluated using axial T2-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) images at 3 lumbar levels (Upper L3, Upper L4, and Lower L4). The results of this study showed significant differences in the total CSA, muscle CSA and fat CSA between SLBP compared to CG (p > .05). Patients with SLBP have significantly higher total CSA of LMF at UL L4 (563.93 ± 140.29) compared to CG (506.57 ± 107.78). A lower total CSA of LES muscle at UL L3(479.70 ± 536.64) and UL L4 (566.83 ± 454.84) in SLBP patients compared to CG (p < .05). Patients with SLBP have smaller muscle CSA of the left LMF (426.96 ± 86.66) and right LMF (428.34 ± 9.00) while at LL L4 of the left LMF (511.7 ± 133.57). The muscle CSA of LES muscle was significantly difference at UL L3 on the left and right side and UL L4 between SLBP and CG (p < .05). Lastly, patients with SLBP recorded higher fat CSA of LMF and LES for UL L3, UL L4 and LL L4 compared to CG (p < .05). It can be concluded that localised muscle atrophied of LMF and LES, widespread higher fatty infiltration of LMF and LES muscle in SLBP patients. These preliminary findings warrant further investigation to unravel the alterations of LMF and LES muscles in SLBP patients. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024.