臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

研究背景：經由分析背側深層多裂肌解剖位置、型態結構以及生物力學模式可以證實頸部多裂肌於感覺與動作皆佔有重要地位；然而， 受限於研究方法與儀器，過去少有研究調查頸部多裂肌受疼痛影響。目的：本研究主要是運用超音波影像記錄第四至第六節頸椎於頭部抗靜態後移阻力下，收縮與放鬆過程中肌肉厚度的變化。方法：徵召五十九名志願參與本研究之受試者（二十九名無頸部疼痛症狀，十三名男性、十六名女性、平均年齡29.4±6.4歲；三十名頸部疼痛病患，十五名男性、十五名女性，平均年齡29.4±6.4歲），利用超音波影像系統(HDI 5000, ATL, USA)與力量換能器（strain gauge, U3B1- 50K- B, Minebea Co., Ltd., Singapore）同步記錄由休息時到對抗最大頭部靜態後移阻力，以及最大用力至放鬆之整個過程中的力量與頸部多裂肌肌肉厚度變化，進一步利用最佳預測二次曲線（best fitted equation, y=ax2+bx+c）來表示此動態變化，X值代表頭部力量變化、Y值表示多裂肌厚度變化量。統計分析則使用SPSS11.0.版統計分析軟體中的混合效應模式（Mixed analysis of Variance Models）比較頸部疼痛、不同用力狀況（收縮與放鬆）、不同節頸椎(C4-6)多裂肌厚度之變化；同時比較上述參數對最佳預測二次曲線之各次項係數 (coefficients of best fitted equation; a, b, c)之影響。 結果：多裂肌厚度不論有無經體重標準化過之在休息時無明顯組間差異，同時多裂肌厚度於最大用力時與變化量具組間顯著差異。此外，無疼痛組最佳預測曲線結果(y=ax2+bx+c, a:-0.0018- -.0033; b: 0.41-0.51; c: 1.05-14.09; R2: 0.28-0.98)，頸部疼痛組之最佳預測曲線範圍如下(y=ax2+bx+c, a:-0.00005- -.0031; b: 0.22-0.41; c: 1.33-13.35, R2: 0.25 -0.98)，經統計分析之比較，疼痛組的二次項係數絕對值與非疼痛組有顯著差異(p<0.05)，一次項係數組間也同樣具顯著差異，放鬆時的常數項係數明顯大於用力時。結論：頸部疼痛與多裂肌厚度增加量減少有關，預測曲線的係數變化，表示頸部疼痛病患之多裂肌肌肉厚度增加量於低、高阻力時，表現不同。應用於臨床，可作為早期診斷頸部肌肉功能與評估運動訓練效果之用途。

Background: The important role of cervical multifidus has been demonstrated by anatomical, morphological and biomechanical models. However, fewer studies have investigated the dynamic function of cervical multifidus which might be disturbed by the present of chronic pain. Purpose: The present study was to investigate the thickness changes of cervical multifidus during contraction and relaxation; and to compare the differences in activation patterns of cervical multifidus between participants with and without cervical symptoms. Method: Thirty participants (29.1±5.3 years old, 15 women and 15 men; 29.4±6.4 years old, 16 women and 13 men) were recruited to investigate the multifidus activation patterns during retraction against a fixed strain gauge (U3B1- 50K- B, Minebea Co., Ltd., Singapore). This force recording system was synchronized with ultrasonographic system (HDI 5000, ATL, USA). The mathematical relationship of instantaneous force (x) and changes of muscle thickness (y) during contraction (and relaxation) was estimated by quadratic models and the R2 values were calculated. Mixed models were used to examine the interaction and main effect of group (symptomatic and asymptomatic), contraction (contraction and relaxation) and levels (C4-C6). Results: Muscle thickness at resting condition showed no significantly smaller in participants with cervical symptom than those without symptoms. Muscle thickness, as well as the change from resting to maximal contraction, were significantly smaller than those of asymptomatic one (p<0.05). The best estimation equations during contraction and relaxation between the thickness-force relationship in asymptomatic participants (y=ax2+bx+c, a: range from -0.0018 to -.0033; b: from 0.41 to 0.51; c: from 1.05 to 14.09) showed significant curvilinear relationship (R2: 0.28-0.98). Compared to those of the asymptomatic participants, the symptomatic ones (y=ax2+bx+c, a: from -0.00005 to-.0031; b: from 0.22 to 0.41; c: range 1.33 to 13.35, R2: 0.25 -0.98) showed significantly smaller absolute value of a (p<0.05) and b values (p<0.05). Significant smaller c was observed during contraction than relaxation. Conclusion: Inability of increasing muscle thickness during maximal head retraction resistance was observed in symptomatic participants. Furthermore, the curvature of the thickness-force curve during contraction of the symptomatic participants was different from the asymptomatic participants, indicating the change of contraction in low load and high load condition was not consistent. Clinical application of this approaching might involve in early diagnosis and monitoring treatment effect of exercise.

List of Tables.......................................II
List of Figures......................................III
List of Appendix.....................................IV
中文摘要.............................................3
Abstract.............................................5

Background...........................................7
Purpose of Study.....................................12
Terminology..........................................13
Hypothesis...........................................14

Content of Study

Cervical Multifidus Contraction Pattern during Head Retraction Manoeuvre in Adults with and without Cervical Symptom-an Ultrasonography study
Introduction ........................................15
Method and Materials ................................18
Result ..............................................34
Discussion ..........................................38
Conclusion ..........................................45
Reference List.......................................46

List of Tables

Table 1 Basic data of two participated groups........T-1
Table 2 Results of questionnaires in two participated groups...............................................T-2
Table 3 Thickness at rest, at maximal contraction and change of thickness between rest and contraction.....T-3
Table 4 Characteristics of activation pattern of cervical multifidus during contraction and relaxation.........T-4


List of Figures
Figure 1 Experimental setting........................F-1
Figure 2 Muscle thickness normalized by body weight of cervical multifidus at resting and.................. F-2
Figure 3 Muscle thickness of cervical multifidus at maximal contraction and normalized by body weight....F-3
Figure 4 Changes of muscle thickness of cervical multifidus between resting and maximal contraction which normalized by body weight............................F-4
Figure 5 Dynamic characteristics: a (coefficient of X2)..................................................F-5
Figure 6 Dynamic characteristics: b (coefficient of X)...................................................F-6
Figure 7 Dynamic characteristics: c (coefficient of constant)............................................F-7

Appendix
Consent for subjects.................................A-1
Questionnaire for basic data of subject..............A-3
Original Neck Disability Index.......................A-6
Chinese Neck Disability Index........................A-7
Original Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia................A-8
Chinese Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia.................A-9
Chinese Beck Depression Index........................A-10

1. Anderson JS, Hsu AW, Vasavada AN. Morphology, architecture, and biomechanics of human cervical multifidus. Spine 2005;30:E86-E91.
2. Barton PM, Hayes KC. Neck flexor muscle strength, efficiency, and relaxation times in normal subjects and subjects with unilateral neck pain and headache. Arch.Phys.Med.Rehabil. 1996;77:680-7.
3. Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M et al. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch.Gen.Psychiatry. 1961;4:561-71.:561-71.
4. Borghouts JA, Koes BW, Bouter LM. The clinical course and prognostic factors of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review. Pain 1998;77:1-13.
5. Boyd-Clark LC, Briggs CA, Galea MP. Muscle spindle distribution, morphology, and density in longus colli and multifidus muscles of the cervical spine. Spine 2002;27:694-701.
6. Chiu TT, Lam TH, Hedley AJ. A randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of exercise for patients with chronic neck pain. Spine 2005;30:E1-E7.
7. Conley MS, Foley JM, Ploutz-Snyder LL et al. Effect of acute head-down tilt on skeletal muscle cross-sectional area and proton transverse relaxation time. J.Appl.Physiol 1996;81:1572-7.
8. Conley MS, Meyer RA, Bloomberg JJ et al. Noninvasive analysis of human neck muscle function. Spine 1995;20:2505-12.
9. Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. The Saskatchewan Health and Back Pain Survey. The prevalence of neck pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults. Spine 1998;23:1689-98.
10. Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. The factors associated with neck pain and its related disability in the Saskatchewan population. Spine 2000;25:1109-17.
11. Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll LJ et al. The annual incidence and course of neck pain in the general population: a population-based cohort study. Pain 2004;112:267-73.
12. Crombez G, Eccleston C, Van den BA et al. Hypervigilance to pain in fibromyalgia: the mediating role of pain intensity and catastrophic thinking about pain. Clin.J.Pain 2004;20:98-102.
13. Dall''Alba PT, Sterling MM, Treleaven JM et al. Cervical range of motion discriminates between asymptomatic persons and those with whiplash. Spine 2001;26:2090-4.
14. Elliott JM, Galloway GJ, Jull GA et al. Magnetic resonance imaging analysis of the upper cervical spine extensor musculature in an asymptomatic cohort: an index of fat within muscle. Clin.Radiol. 2005;60:355-63.
15. Falla D. Unravelling the complexity of muscle impairment in chronic neck pain. Man.Ther. 2004;9:125-33.
16. Falla D, Bilenkij G, Jull G. Patients with chronic neck pain demonstrate altered patterns of muscle activation during performance of a functional upper limb task. Spine 2004;29:1436-40.
17. Falla D, Jull G, Edwards S et al. Neuromuscular efficiency of the sternocleidomastoid and anterior scalene muscles in patients with chronic neck pain. Disabil.Rehabil. 2004;26:712-7.
18. Falla D, Jull G, Hodges PW. Feedforward activity of the cervical flexor muscles during voluntary arm movements is delayed in chronic neck pain. Exp.Brain Res. 2004;157:43-8.
19. Falla D, Jull G, Rainoldi A et al. Neck flexor muscle fatigue is side specific in patients with unilateral neck pain. Eur.J.Pain 2004;8:71-7.
20. Falla DL, Jull GA, Hodges PW. Patients with neck pain demonstrate reduced electromyographic activity of the deep cervical flexor muscles during performance of the craniocervical flexion test. Spine 2004;29:2108-14.
21. Guez M, Hildingsson C, Stegmayr B et al. Chronic neck pain of traumatic and non-traumatic origin: a population-based study. Acta Orthop.Scand. 2003;74:576-9.
22. Heikkila H, Astrom PG. Cervicocephalic kinesthetic sensibility in patients with whiplash injury. Scand.J.Rehabil.Med. 1996;28:133-8.
23. Hides JA, Richardson CA, Jull GA. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography of the lumbar multifidus muscle. Comparison of two different modalities. Spine 1995;20:54-8.
24. Hides JA, Richardson CA, Jull GA. Multifidus muscle recovery is not automatic after resolution of acute, first-episode low back pain. Spine 1996;21:2763-9.
25. Hides JA, Stokes MJ, Saide M et al. Evidence of lumbar multifidus muscle wasting ipsilateral to symptoms in patients with acute/subacute low back pain. Spine 1994;19:165-72.
26. Hodges PW. The role of the motor system in spinal pain: implications for rehabilitation of the athlete following lower back pain. J.Sci.Med.Sport 2000;3:243-53.
27. Hodges PW, Pengel LH, Herbert RD et al. Measurement of muscle contraction with ultrasound imaging. Muscle Nerve 2003;27:682-92.
28. Hodges PW, Richardson CA. Inefficient muscular stabilization of the lumbar spine associated with low back pain. A motor control evaluation of transversus abdominis. Spine 1996;21:2640-50.
29. Hodges PW, Richardson CA. Contraction of the abdominal muscles associated with movement of the lower limb. Phys.Ther. 1997;77:132-42.
30. Jordan A, Mehlsen J, Ostergaard K. A comparison of physical characteristics between patients seeking treatment for neck pain and age-matched healthy people. J.Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1997;20:468-75.
31. Jull G, Trott P, Potter H et al. A randomized controlled trial of exercise and manipulative therapy for cervicogenic headache. Spine 2002;27:1835-43.
32. Kristjansson E. Reliability of ultrasonography for the cervical multifidus muscle in asymptomatic and symptomatic subjects. Man.Ther. 2004;9:83-8.
33. Larsson R, Oberg PA, Larsson SE. Changes of trapezius muscle blood flow and electromyography in chronic neck pain due to trapezius myalgia. Pain. 1999;79:45-50.
34. Lee J-P. Cervical Multifidus Architecture during Head Retraction Manoeuvre-an Ultrasonography Study. 1-93. 2004. National Taiwan University Medical Library.
35. Lee H, Nicholson LL, Adams RD. Cervical range of motion associations with subclinical neck pain. Spine 2004;29:33-40.
36. Lee H, Nicholson LL, Adams RD et al. Proprioception and rotation range sensitization associated with subclinical neck pain. Spine 2005;30:E60-E67.
37. Mayoux-Benhamou MA, Revel M, Vallee C. Selective electromyography of dorsal neck muscles in humans. Exp.Brain Res. 1997;113:353-60.
38. Mayoux-Benhamou MA, Revel M, Vallee C et al. Longus colli has a postural function on cervical curvature. Surg.Radiol.Anat. 1994;16:367-71.
39. Moseley GL, Hodges PW, Gandevia SC. Deep and superficial fibers of the lumbar multifidus muscle are differentially active during voluntary arm movements. Spine 2002;27:E29-E36.
40. Moseley GL, Nicholas MK, Hodges PW. Pain differs from non-painful attention-demanding or stressful tasks in its effect on postural control patterns of trunk muscles. Exp.Brain Res. 2004;156:64-71.
41. Nederhand MJ, Hermens HJ, IJzerman MJ et al. Cervical muscle dysfunction in chronic whiplash-associated disorder grade 2: the relevance of the trauma. Spine 2002;27:1056-61.
42. Nederhand MJ, IJzerman MJ, Hermens HJ et al. Cervical muscle dysfunction in the chronic whiplash associated disorder grade II (WAD-II). Spine 2000;25:1938-43.
43. Nederhand MJ, Ijzerman MJ, Hermens HJ et al. Predictive value of fear avoidance in developing chronic neck pain disability: consequences for clinical decision making. Arch.Phys.Med.Rehabil. 2004;85:496-501.
44. Panjabi M, Abumi K, Duranceau J et al. Spinal stability and intersegmental muscle forces. A biomechanical model. Spine 1989;14:194-200.
45. Panjabi MM. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral zone and instability hypothesis. J.Spinal Disord. 1992;5:390-6.
46. Panjabi MM. Clinical spinal instability and low back pain. J.Electromyogr.Kinesiol. 2003;13:371-9.
47. Panjabi MM, Miura T, Cripton PA et al. Development of a system for in vitro neck muscle force replication in whole cervical spine experiments. Spine. 2001;26:2214-9.
48. Rankin G, Stokes M, Newham DJ. Size and shape of the posterior neck muscles measured by ultrasound imaging: normal values in males and females of different ages. Man.Ther. 2005;10:108-15.
49. Richardson C, Hodges P, Hides JA. Therapeutic Exercise for Lumbopelvic Stabilization-A Motor Control Approach for the Treatment and Prevention of Low Back Pain. second ed.Churchil Lingstone, 2004:1-265.
50. Richardson CA, Snijders CJ, Hides JA et al. The relation between the transversus abdominis muscles, sacroiliac joint mechanics, and low back pain. Spine 2002;27:399-405.
51. Sterling M, Jull G, Vicenzino B et al. Development of motor system dysfunction following whiplash injury. Pain 2003;103:65-73.
52. Sterling M, Kenardy J, Jull G et al. The development of psychological changes following whiplash injury. Pain 2003;106:481-9.
53. Stokes M, Young A. The contribution of reflex inhibition to arthrogenous muscle weakness. Clin.Sci.(Lond). 1984;67:7-14.
54. Uhlig Y, Weber BR, Grob D et al. Fiber composition and fiber transformations in neck muscles of patients with dysfunction of the cervical spine. J.Orthop.Res. 1995;13:240-9.
55. Vasavada AN, Li S, Delp SL. Influence of muscle morphometry and moment arms on the moment-generating capacity of human neck muscles. Spine 1998;23:412-22.
56. Vernon HT, Aker P, Aramenko M et al. Evaluation of neck muscle strength with a modified sphygmomanometer dynamometer: reliability and validity. J.Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992;15:343-9.
57. Vlaeyen JW, Crombez G. Fear of movement/(re)injury, avoidance and pain disability in chronic low back pain patients. Man.Ther. 1999;4:187-95.
58. Vlaeyen JW, Kole-Snijders AM, Boeren RG et al. Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance. Pain 1995;62:363-72.
59. Vlaeyen JW, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain 2000;85:317-32.
60. Wu J-P, Lee J-P, Mao H-Y et al. Reliability of Locating Cervical Spinal Levels by Palpation and Ultrasonography. Formosa Journal of Physical Therapy 30, 80-87. 2005.
61. Ylinen J, Takala EP, Kautiainen H et al. Association of neck pain, disability and neck pain during maximal effort with neck muscle strength and range of movement in women with chronic non-specific neck pain. Eur.J.Pain 2004;8:473-8.
62. Ylinen JJ, Savolainen S, Airaksinen O et al. Decreased strength and mobility in patients after anterior cervical diskectomy compared with healthy subjects. Arch.Phys.Med.Rehabil. 2003;84:1043-7.
63. Zagzebski G. Essetials of Ultrsound Physics.Mosby-Year Book, 1996:1-219.