This study aimed to investigate the effect of the abdominal drawing-in maneuver (ADIM) and abdominal expansion maneuver (AEM) on trunk stabilization, as well as trunk muscle activities and differences in quadruple visual analogue scale, Korean Oswestry Disability Index, and Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire scores, in patients with chronic low back pain and lumbar spine instability. To increase intra-abdominal pressure during the trunk stabilization exercise, the technique of pushing the abdomen out using diaphragmatic abdominal breathing suggested by Pavel Koral was used, which we termed the AEM. Fifty patients who tested positive on more than three of the five lumbar spine instability tests were separated from 138 patients with chronic low back pain of these patients, 16 were placed in the control group (trunk stabilization exercise), 17 were placed in the ADIM group (trunk stabilization exercise with ADIM), and 17 were placed in the AEM group (trunk stabilization exercise with AEM). Each group participated in the study for 30 minutes three times weekly for 4 weeks. Surface electromyography was used to measure the trunk muscle activities during the kneeling forward and supine bridging positions, and one-way repeated analysis of variance was used to determine the statistical significance of the trunk muscle activities in the rectus abdominis, internal oblique (IO), erector spinae, and multifidus (MF) muscles. The ADIM and AEM groups showed relatively larger improvements in psychosocial and functional disability level than control group. There were significant changes among the three groups, those from the measured values of the AEM group was significantly higher than the other two groups in changes in IO and MF trunk muscle activities (p＜05). This finding demonstrates that trunk stabilization exercises with AEM is more effective than ADIM for increasing trunk deep muscle activity of chronic low back pain patients with lumbar spine instability.

The purpose of this study was to establish the reliability and validity of the passive lumbar extension (PLE) test and prone instability test (PIT). Thirty-three subjects (14 males, 19 females) with lower back pain enrolled in the study and the subjects were divided into 2 groups (positive and negative instability groups) on the basis of radiographies of flexion and extension. Reliability was determined by the kappa coefficient and validity was examined using calculated sensitivity, specificity, and the likelihood ratio. The results showed that the reliability of the PLE test was higher than the PIT (intra-rater reliability: k=.86 and k=.81, interrater reliability: k=.65 and k=.62) and the validity of the PLE test was also higher than the PIT (sensitivity: 91% and 62%, specificity: 95% and 85% positive likelihood ratio: 20.00 and 4.10, negative likelihood ratio: .10 and .45). In conclusion, we think that the PLE test was a more reliable and valid method for lumbar instability than the PIT.