Comparison of core stabilization techniques on ultrasound imaging of the diaphragm, and core muscle thickness and external abdominal oblique muscle electromyography activity
Affiliations: [a] Sports Movement Artificial-Intelligence Robotics Technology (SMART) Institute, Department of Physical Therapy, Yonsei University, Wonju, Korea | [b] Department of Physical Therapy, Yonsei University, Wonju, Korea | [c] Department and Research Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea | [d] Brain Korea 21 PLUS Project for Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Sung (Joshua) H. You, Department of Physical Therapy, Yonsei University, and Director, Sports Movement Artificial-Intelligence Robotics Technology (SMART) Institute, 1 Yonseidae-gil, Wonju, Gangwon-do 26493, Korea. Tel.: +82 33 760 2476; Fax: +82 33 760 2496; E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: BACKGROUND: To restore core stability, abdominal drawing-in maneuver (ADIM), abdominal bracing (AB), and dynamic neuromuscular stabilization (DNS) have been employed but outcome measures varied and one intervention was not superior over another. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the differential effects of ADIM, AB, and DNS on diaphragm movement, abdominal muscle thickness difference, and external abdominal oblique (EO) electromyography (EMG) amplitude. METHODS: Forty-one participants with core instability participated in this study. The subjects performed ADIM, AB, and DNS in random order. A Simi Aktisys and Pressure Biofeedback Unit (PBU) were utilized to measure core stability, an ultrasound was utilized to measure diaphragm movement and measure abdominal muscles thickness and EMG was utilized to measure EO amplitude. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted at P< 0.05. RESULTS: Diaphragm descending movement and transverse abdominis (TrA) and internal abdominal oblique (IO) thickness differences were significantly increased in DNS compared to ADIM and AB (P< 0.05). EO amplitude was significantly increased in AB compared to ADIM, and DNS. CONCLUSIONS: DNS was the best technique to provide balanced co-activation of the diaphragm and TrA with relatively less contraction of EO and subsequently producing motor control for efficient core stabilization.
