P16. Biomechanical Assessments of the Spine During a 2000M Ergometer Row Test

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Ergometer rowing has gained popularity as a "low-impact" form of exercise. Lumbar spine injuries are the most common injury in rowers. Previous studies have shown ergometer training to be associated with an increased risk of injury. Muscular fatigue and spine range of motion may correlate to pain or injury in ergometer rowing. PURPOSE The purpose of the present study is to utilize 3D motion capture and electromyography (EMG) assessments to 1) evaluate how muscular activation relates to lumbar spine mechanics; 2) determine the impact of fatigue on back muscle activation and biomechanics. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Prospective analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE Seventeen rowers (M=8, F=9) with a mean age of 38 ± 9.1 years and a VO2 max of 44.4 ± 7.8 ml·kg·min-1. OUTCOME MEASURES Pull force, kinematics and muscle activation were recorded at 200m, 600m, 1000m, 1400m and 1800m distances. Spine flexion (degrees) was investigated. METHODS Seventeen rowers (m=8, F=9; age=38±9.1 years, VO2max=44.4±7.8 ml·kg·min-1) participated and performed a 2000-meter row on an ergometer. Pull force, kinematics and muscle activation were recorded using a load cell, motion capture system and a wireless EMG, respectfully. Data was recorded at 200m, 600m, 1000m, 1400m and 1800m distances. Spine flexion was calculated at three points in the sagittal plane and labeled as upper-, mid- and lower-spine. A mixed-model ANOVA repeated on row distance and a Tukey's post-hoc test was used to compare biomechanical assessments. Type-I error was set at a=0.05. RESULTS Average time to complete the test was 8.4 ± 1.0 min. Trapezius and mid-spinal erector activation was maintained through the row. A steady decrease in mean and peak latissimus dorsi activation was observed with increasing distance (p < 0.05), paired with an increase in peak lumbar spinal erector activation (p < 0.05), indicating fatigue of the upper back musculature followed by compensatory reliance on low back muscles to maintain/increase force. Upper spinal flexion (min and max) increased by 1000m, indicating an increase in the overall state of flexion with progressing distance (p < 0.05). Mid-spinal flexion demonstrated increased min flexion (indicating reduced peak extension) beginning at 1400m (P < 0.05). Lumbar spine flexion was maintained throughout the row, indicating that the primary mechanics fatigue change was a result of upper back rounding due to upper back muscle fatigue. Results indicate that low back pain and injuries associated with rowing may not be because of altered flexion/extension of the lumbar spine but rather, a result of increased workload placed on low back musculature to compensate fatiguing muscles and changes in the row mechanics of the upper and mid spine. Although ergometer rowing is often considered "low-impact," given the high number of contractions over a short time (<10min), it may be advisable for rowers to avoid multiple days of fatiguing row ergometer training per week. CONCLUSIONS The present findings will provide greater insight into the potential mechanisms of fatigue during ergometer rowing. Results will also give medical professionals a better understanding of the origins and presentation of soft tissue injuries in the spine in recreational rowers. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.