Next Article in Journal
Second-Child Fertility Intentions among Urban Women in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Policy for Controlling Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution in China: From a Perspective of Regional and Policy Measures Differences
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 4
10.3390/ijerph20043742
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effect of Two Types of Back Pillow Support on Transversus Abdominis and Internal Oblique Muscle Fatigue, Patient Satisfaction, and Discomfort Score during Prolonged Sitting

by
Rungthip Puntumetakul
1,2,
Thiwaphon Chatprem
1,2,*,
Pongsatorn Saiklang
3 and
Arisa Leungbootnak
4
1
Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Associated Medical Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
2
Research Center in Back, Neck, Other Joint Pain and Human Performance, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
3
Division of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Srinakharinwiroj University, Nakhon Nayok 26120, Thailand
4
Human Movement Sciences, Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Associated Medical Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(4), 3742; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043742
Submission received: 29 December 2022 / Revised: 13 February 2023 / Accepted: 15 February 2023 / Published: 20 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Health Behavior, Chronic Disease and Health Promotion)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Natural rubber is considered an economic plant in Thailand and is used to manufacture many products. Foam back pillows have proven to have various benefits for the lower back. However, no study has compared the effects of foam and rubber pillows. Therefore, the current study aimed to compare the efficacy of foam and rubber pillows on transversus abdominis and internal oblique muscle fatigue, patient satisfaction, and discomfort scores during 60 min of prolonged sitting. Thirty healthy participants were invited to the study and randomized into three sitting conditions over three consecutive days. The three groups were as follows: control, foam pillow, and rubber pillow. Our results revealed that the discomfort score increased with the sitting time in all three groups (p < 0.05). The control group had the highest discomfort when compared to the rubber pillow group at 30 min (T4; p = 0.007) and 60 min (T7; p = 0.0001), as well as the foam pillow group at 60 min (T7; p = 0.0001). Participants were more satisfied sitting with the two types of back pillows at the initial time (T1; p = 0.0001) and at 60 min (T7; p = 0.0001) when compared with the control group. Furthermore, the participants were more satisfied with using rubber pillows rather than foam pillows throughout the sitting period (p = 0.0001). The control group experienced more transversus abdominis and internal oblique muscle fatigue at 60 min (T7) of sitting compared to the initial time (T1) (p = 0.038). Thus, sitting with pillow support can decrease deep trunk muscle fatigue, and using a pillow made from natural rubber may ensure greater satisfaction and less discomfort for the user.

1. Introduction

Sedentary workers experience increased levels of inactivity, with a high proportion of prolonged sitting (≥30 min) [1,2]. Sedentary workers in Thailand reported recurring low back pain (LBP) and 63% reported that their LBP was aggravated by sitting during working hours [3]. Sitting for an extended period is considered to heighten the risk of LBP [4,5]. Furthermore, LBP may cause socioeconomic burdens such as prolonged loss of function, decreased work productivity, and increased medical costs [6,7].
Deep trunk muscles contribute to spinal stability [8] and are separated into superficial muscles or deep muscles [9,10]. Deep muscles compose the transverse abdominis (TrA), internal oblique (IO), and lumbar multifidus (LM). Furthermore, deep muscles are shorter in length, attached directly to the vertebrae, and primarily responsible for generating sufficient force for segmental spinal stability [9,10].
The TrA muscle initially arises from the iliac crest, the lower six ribs, and the middle and lateral raphe of the thoracolumbar fascia, and it passes medially to insert at the linea alba [11]. The TrA acts like a corset for the lumbar spine, tightens through the thoracolumbar fascia, and collaborates with the inferior IO muscle fibers to produce intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) during contraction [12]. The TrA and IO have been recognized as crucial in spinal unloading [13]. Fredericson and Moore (2005) reported that the TrA and IO are the primary stabilizers of the spine [14]. In healthy people, the TrA and IO have also been shown to contract 30 milliseconds before shoulder movement and 110 milliseconds before leg movement, and this is theoretically done to stabilize the lumbar spine [15,16].
Previous studies have reported that the continuous contraction of trunk muscles in prolonged seated postures could cause deep trunk muscle fatigue, and this is particularly true for the TrA and IO muscles [17]. Furthermore, prolonged sitting reduces the intervertebral disks’ ability to act as shock-absorbing hydraulic cushions [18,19,20]. Reductions in disk height could increase compressive stress on sensitive spinal structures [21,22] and may stimulate nociceptor activity, leading to pain [22]. Increasing deep trunk muscle fatigue can influence lumbar stability and ultimately lead to LBP [17,23,24].
According to McKenzie’s concept, LBP may stem from hypo-lordosis of the lumbar spine [25]. Therefore, appropriate curves are essential for reducing and preventing LBP symptoms. Active lumbar extension exercises have been shown in numerous trials to reduce LBP when sitting [13,22]. However, individuals may find it challenging to fit this exercise within their working hours.
Many studies have focused on supporting lumbar lordotic curves during prolonged sitting to relieve pain and maintain mobility in the lumbar spine region [26,27]. Prommanon et al. (2014) compared two interventions, and the results showed that back pillows (foam material) are more effective than physical therapy in reducing pain and enhancing lumbar range of motion [26]. Kompayak et al. (2016) also reported that back pillows (foam material) could superiorly reduce pain intensity, enhance quality of life, increase lumbar range of motion, reduce functional impairment, and increase patient satisfaction when compared to lumbar support in people with chronic LBP [27]. However, the back pillows in previous studies were made from foam, whereas other materials, such as rubber, may convey certain advantages, including enhanced softness, increased flexibility, and prolonged usage time; rubber is also considered an economic plant of Thailand [28].
To our knowledge, no studies have compared the immediate effects that back pillow supports made from foam and rubber materials have on the TrA and IO muscles during prolonged sitting. Therefore, the current study aimed to investigate the immediate effects of back pillow support (foam and rubber materials) on fatigue in the TrA and IO muscles, discomfort scores, and participant satisfaction during prolonged sitting.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethics Statement

This randomized crossover study was conducted at the Research Center in the Back, Neck, Other Joint Pain, and Human Performance (BNOJPH) laboratory at Khon Kaen University. The Khon Kaen University Ethics Committee (HE 632261, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 17 December 2020) approved the current study.

2.2. Study Population Recruitment

Between January 2021 and April 2021, 30 healthy participants were recruited via social media advertisements. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) without low LBP for at least the previous six months [29], (ii) between 20 and 69 years old [30], and (iii) a sedentary lifestyle (sitting more than two hours per day) [13,17]. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) had a neurological deficit, (ii) had any joint arthritis or inflammation, (iii) had spine pathology, or (iv) was pregnant [17]. Based on Hertzog’s (2008) guidelines for a pilot study’s sample size, the current study required at least 30 participants [31].

2.3. Procedure

A screening process was used to determine participants’ eligibility for the study, and demographic data were recorded through direct interviews. Thirty healthy participants were asked to sign informed consent forms before participating. Participants who met the inclusion criteria were then asked to visit the research laboratory on three consecutive days and were randomly selected to sit in three positions, as shown in Figure 1.
One researcher informed the participants throughout the study. Another researcher measured the outcomes, including trunk muscle fatigue, participant satisfaction, and discomfort scores. The assessment times for each outcome are shown in Figure 2.

2.4. Outcome Measurement

2.4.1. Discomfort Scores

For the assessment of discomfort scores, an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) was used. This scale was scored from 0 (without any discomfort) to 10 (extreme discomfort). The discomfort was scored three times, at T1, T4, and T7. Ferreira-Valente et al. (2011) claimed that this NRS can be used to determine specific indications [32], including discomfort differences between males and females [26,27,32]. In addition, this NRS is sensitive to variations in discomfort scores among chronic LBP patients [33]. The NRS used has excellent reliability and validity [32] and describes a technique that can be tested for both physical and cognitive disability, even in the elderly [34].

2.4.2. Patients’ Satisfaction

The global perceived effect (GPE) scale was selected to assess the participants’ satisfaction. The GPE is a 10-point scale ranging from −5 (worst symptom) to 0 (no change) to +5 (close to normal improvement). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the GPE was between 0.90 and 0.99, which was assessed as excellent [26,27,35].

2.4.3. Trunk Muscle Fatigue

The skin of each participant was cleaned with an alcohol pad before the researcher attached one pair of surface electromyography (sEMG) electrodes (EL 503), with an electrical contact surface area of 1 cm2 and a center-to-center spacing of 2.5 cm, on the dominant limb site of the TrA and IO muscles [36]. The locations for the attached sEMGs on the TrA and IO muscles were inferior to the anterior superior iliac spine.
The electromyography data were recorded at 2000 samples per second using the Wireless Bipolar Cometa Mini Wave Plus 16-channel EMG system (Cometa, Bareggio, Italy), with an online band-pass filter (10–500 Hz) and a 60 Hz notch filter (power line in Thailand). For the experimental task, participants performed the required sitting condition for 60 min (i) in a control condition (sitting without support), (ii) with a foam pillow (sitting with a back pillow made of foam material), and (iii) with a rubber pillow (sitting with a back pillow made of rubber material) in a random order on three consecutive days (Figure 1). The EMG data of the TrA and IO muscles were recorded seven times (T1–T7), as shown in Figure 2, and each time was captured for one minute.
The raw EMG signals were full-wave rectified and represented as median frequency (MF) values. EMG normalization was the method by which the magnitude of muscle activation was expressed as a percentage of the muscle’s activity during a calibrated test condition. The current study evaluated the maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of the trunk muscle utilizing the methods outlined by Imai et al. (2010) for normalizing data [37].
To determine the MVIC values in the TrA and IO muscles, three muscle tests were performed. A rest period of two minutes was allowed between the tests to avoid muscle fatigue [38,39,40]. The participants performed the tests in the supine position [36,37]. All the normalized MF values achieved during each test were expressed as a percentage of MVIC (%MVIC).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All analyses were performed using SPSS version 19.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Mean and standard deviation (SD) were used to assess the participants’ demographics. A Shapiro–Wilk test was performed to check the data distribution.
A paired t-test was used to compare patient satisfaction within the groups. The difference in trunk muscle fatigue (T1–T7) and discomfort scores (measured at T1, T4, and T7) within groups for nonnormally distributed data were analyzed using a Friedman test, and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for post-hoc analysis. The differences in trunk muscle fatigue, discomfort scores, and patient satisfaction between groups were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The significance level was p < 0.05.

3. Results

The participants’ demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1. Of the 30 participants, 17 (56.67%) were female. The mean age of all participants was 40.97 ± 13.77 years, and all participants had a normal body mass index (18.1 ± 2.14).

3.1. Discomfort Score

Three groups of participants who sat for 60 min were evaluated for their back comfort using a discomfort score. As shown in Figure 2, the back discomfort score was measured three times (at T1, T4, and T7), and the outcomes are displayed in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, when compared within groups, increased sitting time caused participants to experience a statistically significant increase in back discomfort in all experimental groups, particularly in the control group, who sat without a back pillow and had the highest discomfort score. When comparing the groups, it was found that the control group had significantly greater back discomfort than the rubber pillow group. The control group experienced greater back discomfort than the foam pillow group after 30 min and 60 min of sitting. The group using the foam pillow reported statistically significantly greater back discomfort than the group using the rubber pillow.
Participants experienced the most back discomfort while sitting without a back pillow at all time points. Furthermore, when participants used the rubber back pillow, they experienced the least back discomfort compared to the other groups, at a p-value of 0.0001.

3.2. Participants’ Satisfaction

The participants’ satisfaction was measured twice while they sat for 60 min (as shown in Figure 2), and the results are displayed in Table 3.
When comparing the patients’ satisfaction within groups, the satisfaction of the control group decreased significantly after 60 min of sitting. However, within the rubber group, there was a statistically significant increase in satisfaction when participants sat for 60 min.
Compared between groups, participants were more satisfied with back pillows (both types) than without back support at T1. Furthermore, at T1, it was revealed that the satisfaction of participants using rubber back pillows was statistically considerably higher than that of the participants using foam pillows.
The effect of satisfaction at T1 was consistent with that observed at T7, in that satisfaction was greater in the back pillow group than in the control group. Participants using rubber pillows reported significantly higher satisfaction levels than those using foam pillows.

3.3. Trunk Muscle Fatigue

Table 4 shows the participants’ trunk muscular fatigue while sitting for 60 min. This research focuses on the TrA and IO muscles. TrA and IO muscle fatigue were observed only in the control group at T7. In addition, there was no difference between the groups.

4. Discussion

The current study investigated the effect of using rubber pillows compared to foam pillows on TrA and IO muscle fatigue, discomfort scores, and participant satisfaction. Thirty healthy participants were asked to sit for 60 min on three consecutive days under three sitting conditions. The three conditions were (i) a control group (sitting without support), (ii) a foam pillow group (sitting with a foam pillow), and (iii) a rubber pillow group (sitting with a rubber pillow).
Patients’ discomfort scores increased in all groups while sitting for only 30 min, particularly in the control group, where participants sat without a back pillow and had the highest discomfort level compared with the other two pillow groups. Previous studies that showed prolonged sitting can induce discomfort, even in healthy individuals, supported these results [41,42].
After 30 and 60 min of sitting, the control group had more back discomfort than the foam and rubber pillow groups. The discomfort score was lower in the pillow group, and this finding was concordant with the study of Prommanon et al. (2015), which found decreased pain intensity in participants who received back pillows in addition to physical therapy [26]. Furthermore, Kompayak et al. (2016) demonstrated that using back pillows in addition to physical therapy was more effective at decreasing pain intensity than using lumbar support in addition to physical therapy [27].
Using a back pillow may have psychological effects and cause participants to maintain correct posture and good ergonomics [43], leading to minimized excessive movements of the spine and relieving impact on the lumbar joint, thereby straightening the spinal column and decreasing pressure within the spine [44]. Additionally, back pillows are designed to have a lumbar spinal curvature similar to that of normal individuals, which may result in the maintenance of lumbar spinal curvature. This can prevent irregularities from increasing tension in the structure of the lumbar spine, thus minimizing the risk of pain [45].
The foam pillow group had much higher back discomfort than the back rubber pillow group. This may be because the natural rubber pillow had higher resilience, which made participants feel better when using it. Thus, rubber is typically used in mattress and pillow production [46].
Regarding participant satisfaction, the current study discovered that participants who sat with a back support device were more satisfied than those without one at the initiation of sitting (T1) or after 60 min of sitting (T7). Participants were more satisfied with the rubber back pillow than with the foam pillow at both T1 and T7. Kompayak et al. (2016) compared patient satisfaction between the foam pillow and lumbar support, and they reported that participants who used the foam pillow achieved higher satisfaction than lumbar support users [27]. However, the current study compared two types of pillow materials—foam and rubber—that have never been studied. The current study’s results show that the natural rubber pillow achieved higher user satisfaction than the foam pillow, which may be due to its increased flexibility and elasticity, which can better fit lumbar curves [47].
The current study reported that participants without a back pillow (control group) had TrA and IO fatigue at T7 (sitting for 60 min). Sitting for prolonged periods may cause TrA and IO muscle fatigue due to the continuous contraction of the TrA and IO muscles in seated postures [17,20]. The lumbar multifidus is passively stretched during prolonged sitting, resulting in the TrA and IO muscles increasing their co-contraction activity to balance back muscle forces. Consequently, the TrA and IO muscles become fatigued over time [17,48]. A deficiency in the activation of the TrA and IO muscles reduces muscular support to the spine, causing impairment of motor coordination and increased stress on spinal structures [49]. Therefore, the control group experienced significantly increased discomfort during prolonged sitting.
However, the foam and rubber groups showed no difference in MDF values over 60 min of sitting. The TrA and IO muscles play a crucial stabilizing role in the lumbopelvic region and reduce stress on spinal structures [17,49]. Furthermore, the pillow groups induced a lumbar lordotic curve while sitting. Thus, these pillows can reduce the flexed posture associated with disk compression [22,50] and prolonged contraction of the TrA and IO muscles [17,48]. The findings from our study suggest that these pillows might be appropriate while sitting to prevent TrA and IO muscle fatigue in individuals who usually spend an extended period sitting. However, while the current study referenced the sample size guidelines for pilot studies, this may be a limitation. Thus, further studies should be conducted with larger sample sizes to confirm the results.

5. Conclusions

The current study was the first to compare the effects of foam and rubber pillows on TrA and IO muscle fatigue, discomfort scores, and patient satisfaction. The authors recommend that individuals who sit for prolonged periods during the day use back support to delay deep trunk muscle fatigue and reduce discomfort scores. Furthermore, rubber pillows may provide enhanced comfort due to their softness and flexibility compared to foam pillows.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.P.; Methodology, T.C. and P.S.; Formal analysis, T.C. and P.S.; Investigation, P.S. and A.L.; Data curation, A.L.; Writing—original draft, T.C. and A.L.; Writing—review & editing, R.P. and T.C.; Project administration, R.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This randomized crossover study was conducted at the Research Center in the Back, Neck, Other Joint Pain, and Human Performance (BNOJPH) laboratory at Khon Kaen University. The Khon Kaen University Ethics Committee (HE 632261, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 17 December 2020) approved the current study.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be available for anyone who wishes to access them for any purpose and contract should be made via the corresponding author (thiwch@kku.ac.th).

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participants for their willingness to participate in this study, and deepest thank to the Research Center in Back, Neck, Other Joint Pain and Human Performance (BNOJPH), Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hadgraft, N.T.; Healy, G.N.; Owen, N.; Winkler, E.A.; Lynch, B.M.; Sethi, P.; Eakin, E.G.; Moodie, M.; Lamontagne, A.D.; Wiesner, G.; et al. Office workers’ objectively assessed total and prolonged sitting time: Individual-level correlates and worksite variations. Prev. Med. Rep. 2016, 4, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Parry, S.; Straker, L. The contribution of office work to sedentary behaviour associated risk. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 296. Available online: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/296 (accessed on 22 November 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Montakarn, C.; Nuttika, N. Physical activity levels and prevalence of low back pain in Thai call-center operators. Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2016, 20, 125–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Hanna, F.; Daas, R.N.; El-Shareif, T.J.; Al-Marridi, H.H.; Al-Rojoub, Z.M.; Adegboye, O.A. The relationship between sedentary behavior, back pain, and psychosocial correlates among university employees. Front. Public Health 2019, 7, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chen, S.; Liu, M.; Cook, J.; Bass, S.; Lo, S.K. Sedentary lifestyle as a risk factor for low back pain: A systematic review. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2009, 82, 797–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Olafsson, G.; Jonsson, E.; Fritzell, P.; Hägg, O.; Borgström, F. A health economic lifetime treatment pathway model for low back pain in Sweden. J. Med. Econ. 2017, 20, 1281–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Balagué, F.; Mannion, A.F.; Pellisé, F.; Cedraschi, C. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet 2012, 379, 482–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Panjabi, M.M. Clinical spinal instability and low back pain. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2003, 13, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Faries, M.D.; Greenwood, M. Core Training: Stabilizing the confusion. Strength Cond. J. 2007, 29, 10–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bergmark, A. Stability of the lumbar spine: A study in mechanical engineering. Acta Orthop. 1989, 60, 1–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. McGill, S.M.; Grenier, S.; Kavcic, N.; Cholewicki, J. Coordination of muscle activity to assure stability of the lumbar spine. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2003, 13, 353–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Hodges, P.W.; Eriksson, A.E.; Shirley, D.; Gandevia, S.C. Intra-abdominal pressure increases stiffness of the lumbar spine. J. Biomech. 2005, 38, 1873–1880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Saiklang, P.; Puntumetakul, R.; Swangnetr, N.M.; Boucaut, R. The immediate effect of the abdominal drawing-in maneuver technique on stature change in seated sedentary workers with chronic low back pain. Ergonomics 2020, 64, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fredericson, M.; Moore, T. Core stabilization training for middle and long-distance runners. New Stud. Athl. 2005, 20, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hodges, P.W.; Richardson, C.A. Inefficient muscular stabilization of lumbar spine associated with low back pain: A motor evaluation of transversus abdominis. Spine 1996, 21, 2640–2650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hodges, P.; Cresswell, A.; Thorstensson, A. Preparatory trunk motion accompanies rapid upper limb movement. Exp. Brain Res. 1999, 124, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Waongenngarm, P.; Rajaratnam, B.S.; Janwantanakul, P. Internal oblique and transversus abdominis muscle fatigue induced by slumped sitting posture after 1 hour of sitting in office workers. Saf. Health Work. 2016, 7, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Vergroesen, P.P.A.; Van Der Veen, A.J.; Emanuel, K.S.; Van Dieën, J.H.; Smit, T.H. The poro-elastic behaviour of the intervertebral disc: A new perspective on diurnal fluid flow. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 857–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Izzo, R.; Guarnieri, G.; Guglielmi, G.; Muto, M. Biomechanics of the spine. Part II: Spinal instability. Eur. J. Radiol. 2013, 82, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Saiklang, P.; Puntumetakul, R.; Selfe, J.; Yeowell, G. An evaluation of an innovative exercise to relieve chronic low back pain in sedentary workers. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 2020, 64, 820–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Watanabe, S.; Kobara, K.; Yoshimura, Y.; Osaka, H.; Ishida, H. Influence of trunk muscle co-contraction on spinal curvature during sitting. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabilit. 2014, 27, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Fryer, J.C.J.; Quon, J.A.; Smith, F.W. Magnetic resonance imaging and stadiometric assessment of the lumbar discs after sitting and chair-care decompression exercise: A pilot study. Spine J. 2010, 10, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Holmes, M.W.R.; Carvalho, D.E.D.; Karakolis, T.; Callaghan, J.P. Evaluating abdominal and lower back muscle activity while performing core exercises on a stability ball and a dynamic office chair. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 2015, 57, 1149–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gregory, D.E.; Dunk, M.N.; Callaghan, J.P. Stability ball versus office chair: Comparisonof muscle activation and lumbar spine posture during prolonged sitting. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 2006, 48, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Santolin, S.M. McKenzie diagnosis and therapy in the evaluation and management of a lumbar disc derangement syndrome: A case study. J. Chiropr. Med. 2003, 2, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Prommanon, B.; Puntumetakul, R.; Puengsuwan, P.; Chatchawan, U.; Kamolrat, T.; Rittitod, T.; Yamauchi, Y. Effectiveness of a back care pillow as an adjuvant physical therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain treatment: A randomized controlled trial. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2015, 27, 2035–2038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Kompayak, S.; Puntumetakul, R.; Karukunchit, U.; Peungsuwan, P.; Kamonrat, T. A comparative study of the effectiveness of the use of a back care pillow and a lumbar support, as an adjuvant physical therapy in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. J. Med. Technol. Phys. Ther. 2016, 28, 116–176. Available online: https://he01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ams/article/view/67959 (accessed on 10 December 2022).
  28. Chuayprakong, S.; Chuchat, J.; Poruksa, T.; Soccio, M. Feasibility of using natural rubber (NR) Latex foam as a soft robotic finger: Role of foaming agent in morphology and dynamic properties of NR latex foam. Appl. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2021, 14, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chatchawan, U.; Jupamatangb, U.; Chanchitc, S.; Puntumetakul, R.; Donpunha, W.; Yamauchi, J. Immediate effects of dynamic sitting exercise on the lower back mobility of sedentary young adults. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2015, 27, 3359–3363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. PuntumetaKul, R.; Hiruntrakul, P.; Premchaisawat, W.; Puntumetakul, M.; Thavornpitak, Y. The measurement of lumbar spinal curvature in normal Thai population aged 20–69 years using flexible ruler. J. Med. Technol. Phy. Ther. 2012, 24, 308–317. Available online: https://he01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ams/article/view/66292 (accessed on 20 October 2022).
  31. Hertzog, M.A. Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Res. Nurs. Health 2008, 31, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Ferreira-Valente, M.A.; Pais-Ribeiro, J.L.; Jensen, M.P. Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain 2011, 152, 2399–2404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Grotle, M.; Brox, J.I.; Vøllestad, N.K. Concurrent comparison of responsiveness in pain and functional status measurements used for patients with low back pain. Spine 2004, 29, E492–E501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mannion, A.F.; Junge, A.; Fairbank, J.C.; Dvorak, J.; Grob, D. Development of a german version of the oswestry disability index. Part i: Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity. Eur. Spine J. 2005, 15, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Kamper, S.J.; Ostelo, R.W.; Knol, D.L.; Maher, C.G.; de Vet, H.C.; Hancock, M.J. Global perceived effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J. Clin. Epidemiology 2010, 63, 760–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Marshell, P.W.; Murphy, B.A. The validity and reliability of surface EMG to assess the neuromuscular response of the abdominal muscles to rapid limb movement. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2003, 13, 477–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Imai, A.; Kaneoka, K.; Okubo, Y.; Shiina, I.; Tatsumura, M.; Izumi, S.; Shiraki, H. Trunk muscle activity during lumbar stabilization exercises on both a stable and unstable surface. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2010, 40, 369–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Puntumetakul, R.; Areeudomwong, P.; Emasithi, A.; Yamauchi, J. Effect of 10-week core stabilization exercise training and detraining on pain-related outcomes in patients with clinical lumbar instability. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2013, 7, 1189–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Areeudomwong, P.; Puntumetakul, R.; Jirarattanaphochai, K.; Wanpen, S.; Kanpittaya, J.; Chatchawan, U.; Yamauchi, J. Core stabilization exercise improves pain intensity, functional disability and trunk muscle activity of patients with clinical lumbar instability: A pilot randomized controlled study. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2012, 24, 1007–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Ng, J.K.; Parnianpour, M.; Kippers, V.; Richardson, C.A. Reliability of electromyographic and torque measures during isometric axial rotation exertions of the trunk. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2003, 114, 2355–2361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Akkarakittichoke, N.; Janwantanakul, P. Seat pressure distributioncharacteristics during 1 hour sitting in office workers with andwithout chronic low back pain. Saf. Health Work. 2017, 8, 212–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Baker, R.; Coenen, P.; Howie, E.; Williamson, A.; Straker, L. The short term musculoskeletal and cognitive effects of prolonged sitting during office computer work. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Woldstad, J.C.; Sherman, B.R. The effects of a back belt on posture, strength, and spinal compressive force during static lift exertions. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 1998, 22, 409–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Anderson, C.K.; Chainm, D.B.; Herrin, G.D. A study of lumbosacral orientation under varied static loads. Spine 1986, 11, 456–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Adams, M.A.; May, S.; Freeman, B.J.; Morrison, H.P.; Dolan, P. Effects of backward bending on lumbar intervertebral discs. Relevance to physical therapy treatments for low back pain. Spine 2000, 25, 431–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sirikulchaikij, S.; Kokoo, R.; Khangkhanmano, M. Natural rubber latex foam production using air microbubbles: Microstructure and physical properties. Mater. Lett. 2020, 260, 126916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Schaefer, R.J. Mechanical Properties of Rubber in Harris Shock and Vibration Handbook; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 33.1–33.18. [Google Scholar]
  48. Areeudomwong, P.; Puntumetakul, R.; Kaber, D.B.; Wanpen, S.; Leelayuwat, N.; Chatchawan, U. Effects of handicraft sitting postures on lower trunk muscle fatigue. Ergonomics 2012, 55, 693–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tsao, H.; Druitt, T.R.; Schollum, T.M.; Hodges, P.W. Motor training of the lumbar paraspinal muscles induces immediate changes in motor coordination in patients with recurrent low back pain. J. Pain 2010, 11, 1120–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Phimphasak, C.; Swangnetr, M.; Puntumetakul, R.; Chatchawan, U.; Boucaut, R. Effects of seated lumbar extension postures on spinal height and lumbar range of motion during prolonged sitting. Ergonomics 2016, 59, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 20 03742 g001 550
Figure 1. Overview of the study.
Figure 1. Overview of the study.
Ijerph 20 03742 g001
Ijerph 20 03742 g002 550
Figure 2. The assessment times for each outcome.
Figure 2. The assessment times for each outcome.
Ijerph 20 03742 g002
Table
Table 1. General characteristics of 30 healthy participants.
Table 1. General characteristics of 30 healthy participants.
VariablesFrequency (%)Mean ± SD
Age (years) 40.97 ± 13.77
Gender, n (%)
▪
Male
▪
Female

13 (44.33)
17 (56.67)
BMI (kilogram/meter2) 18.1 ± 2.14
Education level
▪
High school
▪
Bachelor’s degree
▪
Master’s degree
14 (46.67)
8 (26.67)
8 (26.67)
Smoking
▪
Yes
▪
No

6 (20)
24 (80)
Underlying disease
▪
Yes
▪
No

8 (26.68)
22 (73.33)
Exercise status
▪
Yes
▪
No

16 (53.33)
14 (46.67)
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; BMI, Body Mass Index.
Table
Table 2. Comparison of discomfort scores in the back region within the group and between the experimental groups.
Table 2. Comparison of discomfort scores in the back region within the group and between the experimental groups.
GroupsDiscomfort Scorep-Value within Group
T1T4T7
Control0 (0–0) a,b,*1 (0–3) c,*3 (1.75–6)0.0001 *
Foam pillow0 (0–0) d,e,*0 (0–2) f,*2 (0–4.25) k,m,*0.0001 *
Rubber pillow0 (0–0) g,h,*0 (0–1) i,j,*0 (0–2.25) l,*0.0001 *
p-value between group0.2230.007 *0.0001 *
Note: Discomfort score reported as median (interquartile range); p-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. * p-value < 0.05; a statistically different from T4; b statistically different from T7; c statistically different from T7; d statistically different from T4; e statistically different from T7; f statistically different from T7; g statistically different from T4; h statistically different from T7; i statistically different from T7; j statistically different from the control group; k statistically different from the control group; l statistical different from the control group; m statistical different from the rubber pillow group.
Table
Table 3. The comparison of patients’ satisfaction within and between groups.
Table 3. The comparison of patients’ satisfaction within and between groups.
GroupsPatients’ Satisfactionp-Value within Group
T1T7
Control0 (0–0) a*b*(−2) (−4–0) d*e*0.002 *
Foam pillow1 (0–3.25) c*2 (0–4) f*0.389
Rubber pillow2.5 (0–4)3 (1.75–5)0.006 *
p-value between group0.0001 *0.0001 *
Note: Patient’s satisfaction reported as median (interquartile range); p-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. * p-value < 0.05; a statistically different from foam pillow; b statistically different from rubber pillow; c statistically different from rubber pillow; d statistically different from foam pillow; e statistically different from rubber pillow; f statistically different from rubber pillow.
Table
Table 4. Trunk muscle (TrA and IO) fatigue while sitting for 60 min.
Table 4. Trunk muscle (TrA and IO) fatigue while sitting for 60 min.
MuscleGroupsTimep-Value within Group
T1T2T3T4T5T6T7
TrA & IO (Hz)Control97.61 a*
(74.69–127.00)		94.5
(69.92–119.28)		93.2
(68.57–112.46)		91.91
(70.98–142.62)		88.53
(65.52–130.34)		87
(64.22–130.34)		80.8
(67.07–122.65)		0.038 *
Foam pillow84.5
(72.96–130.99)		87
(64.16–123.45)		90.35
(74.88–123.54)		92.44
(54.44–119.05)		93.71
(70.33–131.51)		87.82
(70.27–121.81)		81.56
(70.56–127.78)		0.392
Rubber pillow106.32
(82.85–142.25)		97.7
(84.11–132.65)		89.36
(77.80–111.17)		84.49
(69.87–130.75)		86.96
(77.13–131.17)		84.08
(71.73–128.94)		82.15
(64.65–128.13)		0.088
p-value between group0.1360.670.6480.7330.5870.6480.421
Note: Muscle fatigue was reported as median (interquartile range); p-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. * p-value < 0.05; a statistically different from T7.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Puntumetakul, R.; Chatprem, T.; Saiklang, P.; Leungbootnak, A. The Effect of Two Types of Back Pillow Support on Transversus Abdominis and Internal Oblique Muscle Fatigue, Patient Satisfaction, and Discomfort Score during Prolonged Sitting. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 3742. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043742

AMA Style

Puntumetakul R, Chatprem T, Saiklang P, Leungbootnak A. The Effect of Two Types of Back Pillow Support on Transversus Abdominis and Internal Oblique Muscle Fatigue, Patient Satisfaction, and Discomfort Score during Prolonged Sitting. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(4):3742. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043742

Chicago/Turabian Style

Puntumetakul, Rungthip, Thiwaphon Chatprem, Pongsatorn Saiklang, and Arisa Leungbootnak. 2023. "The Effect of Two Types of Back Pillow Support on Transversus Abdominis and Internal Oblique Muscle Fatigue, Patient Satisfaction, and Discomfort Score during Prolonged Sitting" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 4: 3742. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043742

APA Style

Puntumetakul, R., Chatprem, T., Saiklang, P., & Leungbootnak, A. (2023). The Effect of Two Types of Back Pillow Support on Transversus Abdominis and Internal Oblique Muscle Fatigue, Patient Satisfaction, and Discomfort Score during Prolonged Sitting. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), 3742. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043742

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop