Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: The psoas major (PM) is important for stabilizing lumbopelvic region during active straight leg raising (ASLR). Uncontrolled lumbopelvic rotation (ULPR) frequently occurs during ASLR in subjects with poor lumbo-pelvic stability and may contribute to asymmetric symptoms including pain in lumbopelvic region.
Objects: This study compared the thickness of contralateral PM (cPM) using ultrasound imaging during ASLR in subjects with and without ULPR.
Method: Healthy male subjects (18 without ULPR, 19 with ULPR) were recruited. The thickness of the cPM during rest and ASLR without loading and with a 1-kg load was measured by ultrasound imaging. The relative muscle thickness was calculated as the thickness during ASLR/thickness at rest. Two-way mixed-model analysis of variance was used to identify significant differences in the relative thickness of the cPM between groups and within a loading status. The level of statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.
Results: The resting thickness of the cPM in subjects without ULPR did not differ from that of subjects with ULPR. The relative thickness of the cPM in subjects without ULPR was significantly greater during ASLR than that in subjects with ULPR both without loading and with a load (p < 0.01). No significant change in thickness of the cPM was evident in those with ULPR.
Conclusion: The thickness of the cPM was significantly greater during ASLR in subjects without ULPR than with ULPR. This result indicates that persons with ULPR have less activation of the cPM to stabilize the lumbar spine during ASLR.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2015.07.006 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!