Background: Effective trunk stabilization has been a cornerstone in physiotherapy, particularly for individuals with lower back issues. While bridging exercises were traditionally employed for this purpose, there has been a growing interest in their modified versions to optimize therapeutic benefits. Objectives: To investigated the differential effects of traditional and modified bridging exercises, particularly when varying leg support and integrating abduction maneuvers during sling-assisted exercises, on trunk muscle responsiveness. Design: Cross-Sectional study. Methods: A group of twenty participants was subjected to three exercise protocols: Bilateral Limb Bridging (BLB), Single Limb Bridging (SLB), and Single Limb Bridging combined with Hip Abduction (SLBHA). Using Surface Electromyography (EMG), the study captured the activation patterns of the Internal Oblique (IO), Erector Spinae (ES), and Multifidus (MF) muscles. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis test, with post-hoc examination for detailed insights. For data consistency, normalization was executed based on Maximum Voluntary Isometric Contractions, and EMG data interpretation was conducted using the RMS technique. Results: The most prominent variations in muscle activation were identified in the IO muscles on both sides. The left IO displayed marked activation disparities between BLB vs. SLB and SLB vs. SLBHA. Analogous observations were made for the right IO when comparing BLB to SLBHA and BLB to SLB. Conversely, ES and MF muscle activations remained consistent across the different exercises. Conclusion: Modified bridge exercises with sling-assisted leg supports with abduction can selectively activate IO muscles, with a noticeable asymmetrical effect favoring the left side.

Background: Neurodynamic mobilization is divided into slider mobilization and tensioner mobilization. However, movement direction in neurodynamic mobilization has been overlooked in neurodynamic exercise program. Objective: To examine the effect of movement direction in neurodynamic mobilization on upper limb mobility and pain. Design: Quasi-experimental study Methods: Twenty-two adults positive for neurodynamic test for the median nerve were recruited for participation in this study. Twenty-two subjects were allocated to the applied neurodynamic mobilization at limited side group (ANTLS, n=7), the applied neurodynamic mobilization at contralateral limited side group (ANTCLS, n=7), and the applied neurodynamic mobilization at bilateral side group (ANTBS, n=8). Before the intervention upper limb limited was measured neurodynamic test for the median nerve, pain was measured using visual analogue scale (VAS), movement direction in neurodynamic mobilization was applied to each group, and then re-measured using neurodynamic test for the median nerve and VAS. Differences the Intra-groups before and between the intergroups after intervention were analyzed. Results: In the ANTLS and ANTBS groups, a statistically significant increase in ROM and decrease in VAS score in the population before and after intervention were indicated. Statistically significant differences in VAS and ROM from before to after intervention were found among the ANTLS, ANTCLS, and ANTBS groups. Conclusions: The results of the present study indicate that movement direction in neurodynamic mobilization must be considered within the limits of its selected range of the neurodynamic exercise program.

Background: Mobilization and cranio-cervical flexion exercise has been reported in reducing pain from cervical part and improving its motor function; also, has been represented that alleviate of neck pain and recover of neck muscles improve the normal gait performance. However, few studies have identified the effects of mobilization and exercise on pain and gait parameters with preceding issues. Objective: To examine the effects or changes of pressure pain threshold (PPT) and gait parameters in patients with chronic neck pain. Design: Cross-Sectional Clinical Trials Methods: Twenty patients with the history of neck pain (>3 months) performed the cervical mobilization and cranio-cervical flexion exercise. Gait parameters were assessed with wireless device and collected data were transmitted to the personal computer via Bluetooth. The PPT was measured posteroanterior direction at the prone position and the mean of subsequent three PPT measurements was used for the final analysis. Results: Both cervical central posteroanterior mobilization (CCPAM) (p<.000) and sling-based cranio-cervical flexion exercise (SBCCFE) (p<.000) group showed a significant increase in the PPT and the gait parameters, cadence (p<.023), was significantly increased in the CCPAM group, however slightly increased in the SBCCFE group. The comparison between the CCPAM and the SBCCFE groups after treatment did not show significant differences for the score on the PPT and gait parameters. Conclusions: This study suggests that CCPAM and SBCCFE increase PPT, cadence, and gait speed.

본 연구는 오른쪽 어깨관절에 칼텐본-에비엔즈컨셉 미끄러뜨림 등급Ⅱ와 Ⅲ으로 아래쪽미끄러뜨림적용시 위팔뼈머리의 이동거리 및 벌림각도(abduction angle)의 변화를 알아보고자 하였다. 미끄러뜨림 등급Ⅱ(Grade Ⅱ) 적용시 위팔뼈머리는 초기보다 아래쪽으로 5㎜ 가량 이동하였고 등급Ⅲ 적용시 8㎜ 가량 이동하였다. 이동거리에 대한 성별 비교에서는 남자가 여자에 비해 등급별로 이동거리가 높게 나타났으나 통계적으로 유의한 차이는 나타나지 않았다. 등급Ⅱ(Grade Ⅱ) 적용시 벌림각도는 초기보다 10°가량, 등급Ⅲ(Grade Ⅲ) 적용시 12°가량 증가하였다. 벌림각도에 대한성별 비교에서는 모든 등급별로 여자가 남자보다 벌림각도가 크게 나타났으나 통계적으로 유의한 차이는 나타나지 않았다.본 연구를 통해 미끄러뜨림 등급 적용시 위팔뼈머리의 운동형상학적 변화를 알아보았으며 향후 추가 연구를 통해이들 변화가 주변 구조물에 미치는 영향에 대해 알아본다면 보다 과학적인 근거중심의 치료를 기대할 수 있을 것으로사료된다.

본 연구에서는 로딩셀기구를 이용하여 어깨관절의 아래, 앞, 뒤쪽 방향으로 칼텐본-에비엔즈컨셉 미끄러뜨림 치료등급 Ⅱ와 Ⅲ 적용 시 남녀, 미끄러뜨림 방향 그리고 미끄러뜨림 등급에 따라 적용되는 힘의 크기를 비교해보고자 하였다. 남녀에 따른 부하량 차이를 비교한 결과 아래쪽미끄러뜨림 Ⅱ/Ⅲ등급(Caudal Grade Ⅱ/Ⅲ), 앞쪽미끄러뜨림 Ⅱ/Ⅲ등급(Ventral Grade Ⅱ/Ⅲ), 뒤쪽미끄러뜨림 Ⅱ/Ⅲ등급(Dorsal Grade Ⅱ/Ⅲ) 모두 여자에 비해 남자의 부하량이 유의하게 높았다(p<.05). 치료방향에 따른 부하량 차이를 비교한 결과 등급Ⅱ(Grade Ⅱ)와 등급Ⅲ(Grade Ⅲ) 모두에서아래쪽(Caudal)에 비해 앞쪽(Ventral)과 뒤쪽(Dorsal)에서 부하량이 유의하게 높았다(p<.05). 치료등급에 따른 부하량 차이를 비교한 결과 아래쪽(Caudal), 앞쪽(Ventral) 그리고 뒤쪽(Dorsal) 모두에서 등급Ⅱ(Grade Ⅱ)에 비해 등급Ⅲ(Grade Ⅲ)에서 부하량이 유의하게 높게 나타났다(p<.05). 위 결과로부터 위팔어깨관절(glenohumeral joint)의 아래, 앞, 뒤 방향에 대한 미끄러뜨림(gliding) Ⅱ/Ⅲ 적용 시 같은 등급에서 적용되는 힘의 크기가 방향과 성별에 따라다름을 알 수 있었다.