Cargando…

Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review

BACKGROUND: Lumbar multifidus (LM) is regarded as the major stabilizing muscle of the spine. The effects of exercise therapy in low back pain (LBP) are attributed to this muscle. A current literature review is warranted, however, given the complexity of LM morphology and the inconsistency of anatomi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hofste, Anke, Soer, Remko, Hermens, Hermie J., Wagner, Heiko, Oosterveld, Frits G. J., Wolff, André P., Groen, Gerbrand J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7236939/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32429944
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03257-7
_version_ 1783536235574198272
author Hofste, Anke
Soer, Remko
Hermens, Hermie J.
Wagner, Heiko
Oosterveld, Frits G. J.
Wolff, André P.
Groen, Gerbrand J.
author_facet Hofste, Anke
Soer, Remko
Hermens, Hermie J.
Wagner, Heiko
Oosterveld, Frits G. J.
Wolff, André P.
Groen, Gerbrand J.
author_sort Hofste, Anke
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Lumbar multifidus (LM) is regarded as the major stabilizing muscle of the spine. The effects of exercise therapy in low back pain (LBP) are attributed to this muscle. A current literature review is warranted, however, given the complexity of LM morphology and the inconsistency of anatomical descriptions in the literature. METHODS: Scoping review of studies on LM morphology including major anatomy atlases. All relevant studies were searched in PubMed (Medline) and EMBASE until June 2019. Anatomy atlases were retrieved from multiple university libraries and online. All studies and atlases were screened for the following LM parameters: location, imaging methods, spine levels, muscle trajectory, muscle thickness, cross-sectional area, and diameter. The quality of the studies and atlases was also assessed using a five-item evaluation system. RESULTS: In all, 303 studies and 19 anatomy atlases were included in this review. In most studies, LM morphology was determined by MRI, ultrasound imaging, or drawings – particularly for levels L4–S1. In 153 studies, LM is described as a superficial muscle only, in 72 studies as a deep muscle only, and in 35 studies as both superficial and deep. Anatomy atlases predominantly depict LM as a deep muscle covered by the erector spinae and thoracolumbar fascia. About 42% of the studies had high quality scores, with 39% having moderate scores and 19% having low scores. The quality of figures in anatomy atlases was ranked as high in one atlas, moderate in 15 atlases, and low in 3 atlases. DISCUSSION: Anatomical studies of LM exhibit inconsistent findings, describing its location as superficial (50%), deep (25%), or both (12%). This is in sharp contrast to anatomy atlases, which depict LM predominantly as deep muscle. Within the limitations of the self-developed quality-assessment tool, high-quality scores were identified in a majority of studies (42%), but in only one anatomy atlas. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a lack of standardization in the depiction and description of LM morphology. This could affect the precise understanding of its role in background and therapy in LBP patients. Standardization of research methodology on LM morphology is recommended. Anatomy atlases should be updated on LM morphology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7236939
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72369392020-05-27 Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review Hofste, Anke Soer, Remko Hermens, Hermie J. Wagner, Heiko Oosterveld, Frits G. J. Wolff, André P. Groen, Gerbrand J. BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Lumbar multifidus (LM) is regarded as the major stabilizing muscle of the spine. The effects of exercise therapy in low back pain (LBP) are attributed to this muscle. A current literature review is warranted, however, given the complexity of LM morphology and the inconsistency of anatomical descriptions in the literature. METHODS: Scoping review of studies on LM morphology including major anatomy atlases. All relevant studies were searched in PubMed (Medline) and EMBASE until June 2019. Anatomy atlases were retrieved from multiple university libraries and online. All studies and atlases were screened for the following LM parameters: location, imaging methods, spine levels, muscle trajectory, muscle thickness, cross-sectional area, and diameter. The quality of the studies and atlases was also assessed using a five-item evaluation system. RESULTS: In all, 303 studies and 19 anatomy atlases were included in this review. In most studies, LM morphology was determined by MRI, ultrasound imaging, or drawings – particularly for levels L4–S1. In 153 studies, LM is described as a superficial muscle only, in 72 studies as a deep muscle only, and in 35 studies as both superficial and deep. Anatomy atlases predominantly depict LM as a deep muscle covered by the erector spinae and thoracolumbar fascia. About 42% of the studies had high quality scores, with 39% having moderate scores and 19% having low scores. The quality of figures in anatomy atlases was ranked as high in one atlas, moderate in 15 atlases, and low in 3 atlases. DISCUSSION: Anatomical studies of LM exhibit inconsistent findings, describing its location as superficial (50%), deep (25%), or both (12%). This is in sharp contrast to anatomy atlases, which depict LM predominantly as deep muscle. Within the limitations of the self-developed quality-assessment tool, high-quality scores were identified in a majority of studies (42%), but in only one anatomy atlas. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a lack of standardization in the depiction and description of LM morphology. This could affect the precise understanding of its role in background and therapy in LBP patients. Standardization of research methodology on LM morphology is recommended. Anatomy atlases should be updated on LM morphology. BioMed Central 2020-05-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7236939/ /pubmed/32429944 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03257-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hofste, Anke
Soer, Remko
Hermens, Hermie J.
Wagner, Heiko
Oosterveld, Frits G. J.
Wolff, André P.
Groen, Gerbrand J.
Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review
title Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review
title_full Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review
title_fullStr Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review
title_short Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review
title_sort inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: a scoping review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7236939/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32429944
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03257-7
work_keys_str_mv AT hofsteanke inconsistentdescriptionsoflumbarmultifidusmorphologyascopingreview
AT soerremko inconsistentdescriptionsoflumbarmultifidusmorphologyascopingreview
AT hermenshermiej inconsistentdescriptionsoflumbarmultifidusmorphologyascopingreview
AT wagnerheiko inconsistentdescriptionsoflumbarmultifidusmorphologyascopingreview
AT oosterveldfritsgj inconsistentdescriptionsoflumbarmultifidusmorphologyascopingreview
AT wolffandrep inconsistentdescriptionsoflumbarmultifidusmorphologyascopingreview
AT groengerbrandj inconsistentdescriptionsoflumbarmultifidusmorphologyascopingreview