of 6
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
BioMedCentral Page 1 of 6 (page number not for citation purposes) Chiropractic & Osteopathy Open Access Review Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: A review and recommendation for clinical decision-making. Part II, the functional or unloaded leg-length asymmetry Gary A Knutson* Address: 840 W. 17th, Suite 5, Bloomington, IN, 47404, USA Email: Gary A Knutson* - * Corresponding author Leg-length inequalityfunctionallow back pain Abstract Background: Part II of
  BioMed Central Page 1 of 6 (page number not for citation purposes) Chiropractic & Osteopathy  Open Access Review Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: A review and recommendation for clinical decision-making. Part II, the functional or unloaded leg-length asymmetry GaryAKnutson*  Address: 840 W. 17th, Suite 5, Bloomington, IN, 47404, USA Email: GaryAKnutson** Corresponding author Leg-length inequalityfunctionallow back pain Abstract Background: Part II of this review examines the functional short leg or unloaded leg lengthalignment asymmetry, including the relationship between an anatomic and functional leg-lengthinequality. Based on the reviewed evidence, an outline for clinical decision making regardingfunctional and anatomic leg-length inequality will be provided. Methods: Online databases: Medline, CINAHL and Mantis. Plus library searches for the time frameof 1970–2005 were done using the term leg-length inequality . Results and Discussion: The evidence suggests that an unloaded leg-length asymmetry is adifferent phenomenon than an anatomic leg-length inequality, and may be due to suprapelvic musclehypertonicity. Anatomic leg-length inequality and unloaded functional or leg-length alignmentasymmetry may interact in a loaded (standing) posture, but not in an unloaded (prone/supine)posture. Conclusion: The unloaded, functional leg-length alignment asymmetry is a likely phenomenon,although more research regarding reliability of the measurement procedure and validity relative tospinal dysfunction is needed. Functional leg-length alignment asymmetry should be eliminatedbefore any necessary treatment of anatomic LLI. Review In Part I of this review, the literature regarding the preva-lence, magnitude, effects and clinical significance of ana-tomic leg-length inequality (LLI) was examined. Using data on leg-length inequality obtained by accurate andreliable x-ray methods, the prevalence of anatomic ine-quality was found to be 90%; the mean was 5.2 mm (SD4.1). The evidence suggested that, for most people, ana-tomic leg-length inequality is not clinically significant until the magnitude reaches ~20 mm (~3/4 ). The phe-nomenon of the functional short leg will be consideredin Part II of this review. The objective is to define func-tional short leg , how it differs from anatomic LLI andexplore any association with neuromuscular dysfunction.In addition we will review the apparent efficacy of heel Published: 20 July 2005 Chiropractic & Osteopathy   2005, 13 :12doi:10.1186/1746-1340-13-12Received: 31 May 2005Accepted: 20 July 2005This article is available from:© 2005 Knutson; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the srcinal work is properly cited.  Chiropractic & Osteopathy   2005, 13 :12 2 of 6 (page number not for citation purposes) lifts in some cases of mild anatomic LLI, plus muscular reactions to, and causes of, pelvic torsion. The functional short leg, or unloaded leg-length alignment asymmetry  The functional short leg, or unloaded leg-length align-ment asymmetry (hereafter abbreviated as LLAA) is itself a phenomenon much discussed and little understood.Essentially, when a subject lies prone or supine, unload-ing the pelvis, the feet are examined, most often at the welt (heel-sole interface), for the presence of a short leg or alignment asymmetry. Some hold the opinion that ana-tomic LLI can be measured in this way [1]. The examina-tion for unloaded leg-length alignment asymmetry as asign of neuromuscular dysfunction is a clinical test com-monly used by chiropractors [2,3]. Given the frequent useof this test as an indicator of a functional problem, it isimportant to know whether the unloaded leg check test isan indicator of an anatomic short leg, or whether the test is reliable and valid as an instrument to measure func-tional short leg and whether LLAA findings are contam-inated by anatomic LLI. Anatomic LLI is caused by a natural developmental asym-metry or a variety of other factors, including fracture, dis-ease, and complications of hip replacement surgery.Given the long-term loading, the lumbopelvic structuremay be expected to adapt via Heuter Volkmanns' law [4]and soft tissue changes [4,5], establishing the compen-sated structural changes as normal . This adaptiveresponse is seen in the change of lumbosacral facet anglesnoted by Giles [6]. A case study followed the effect of ana-tomic LLI caused by hip replacement surgery on subjectivesymptoms, unloaded LLAA checks and pelvic unleveling,reporting that adaptive changes occurred over a period of several months [7].Using a device to measure standing pelvic crest unlev-eling, Petrone et al found excellent intra and inter-exam-iner reliability, and validity (ICC, 0.89–0.90) relative toanatomic leg length inequality determined by x-ray meas-urement in asymptomatic subjects [8]. However, the cor-relation between the pelvic level and femoral head heights was substantially lower in a low back pain group. Thisindicates that some sort of functional pelvic tilt or torsion was present in the low back pain population that wasunrelated to their anatomic LLI. While the decreased cor-relation between pelvic tilt and LLI in the back pain group was not examined relative to a functional short leg, theconnection between back pain and the biomechanically unusual pelvic torsion stands out.Lumbar lateral flexion was studied in a group of subjects10 years after LLI caused by femoral fracture that occurred after they were skeletally mature [9]. Despite the compen-satory lumbar scoliosis, these subjects had symmetricallumbar lateral flexion, prompting the authors to com-ment that the ...acquired leg-length discrepancy pro-duced little permanent structural abnormality in thelumbar spine... [9]. Significant anatomic LLI acquiredafter skeletal maturity does not result in adaptive struc-tural changes within a 10-year period.However, another study from the same orthopedic center looked at the effects of significant (mean 3 cm) LLIacquired prior to skeletal maturity [10] in now mature sub-jects (17–38 years old, mean 28). In this group, there wasconsiderable asymmetry of lumbar lateral flexion after placing a lift under the short leg to level the pelvis. Thisindicates that the body had permanently compensated tothe structural changes in the spine/pelvis. This type of permanent compensation to pre skeletalmaturity LLI was also found in subjects with pelvic unlev-eling. Young et al [11] found that placing a lift under thefoot of a subject with no pelvic unleveling resulted ingreater lumbar lateral flexion towards the now high iliac crest side. In subjects with pelvic unleveling, when the lift  was put under the foot on the side of the low iliac crest inorder to level the crest, lateral flexion was increasedtowards the formerly low crest side. If the body remodelsand adapts to the pelvic unleveling/torsion caused by ana-tomic LLI, then by putting a lift under the side of the low iliac crest, one is actually raising what the body hasadapted to as level. In other words, the unlevel pelvis of those with anatomic LLI has been adapted to and is now  normal , and putting a lift under the low side has thesame effect as putting a lift under the leg of an even pelvis(Figure 1). These two studies [10,11] provide evidence that in pre-skeletal maturity subjects, LLI and pelvic torsion – whichdescribe the vast majority of LLI – adaptive changes takeplace in the muscles, ligaments, joints and bones to com-pensate for the imposed asymmetry. Because these adap-tive compensations to the LLI have become anatomic,they are not likely to change as the body moves from aloaded (standing) to an unloaded (supine, prone) posi-tion. The nervous system also appears to compensate asdemonstrated in the study by Murrell et al [12] in whichthere was no loss of stability in subjects with LLI, prompt-ing them to point to long-term adaptation by the neu-romuscular system . The persistence of pelvic torsion in subjects with anatomic LLI is supported by Klein [13] who found that such distor-tion remained in both standing and sitting positions. That pelvic torsion persists with the subjects' weight off thefemoral heads indicates such torsion has been incorpo-rated into the joints as the normal position. Rhodes et al  Chiropractic & Osteopathy   2005, 13 :12 3 of 6 (page number not for citation purposes) demonstrated that the side and magnitude of prone andespecially supine short legs were not significantly corre-lated with radiographic anatomic LLI, indicating they areseparate phenomena [14]. The studies noted above provide indirect evidence that thepelvic torsion associated with childhood-onset anatomic leg-length inequality is adapted for and incorporated asnormal. It follows then, that when an average person with Effects of a lift in level and unlevel compensated pelvis Figure 1 Effects of a lift in level and unlevel compensated pelvis.  Chiropractic & Osteopathy   2005, 13 :12 4 of 6 (page number not for citation purposes) an anatomic LLI and structurally compensatory pelvic tor-sion moves from a loaded (standing) to an unloaded(prone/supine) position, the torsion of the pelvis remainsintact and the leg length at the feet/shoes would appear  even on a visual check. The pelvis – joints, ligamentsand muscles – have adapted to the anatomic LLI, making any torsion structural. It is this putative biomechanicaladaptation that makes unloaded leg-length alignment asymmetry tests – the functional short leg tests – unreli-able as a measure of anatomic LLI [14].Unloaded LLAA is suspected to result from hypertonicity of suprapelvic muscles [15-17]. In a study of subjects withand without supine LLAA, Knutson & Owens found those with LLAA had significantly decreased endurance timesfor the erector (Biering-Sorensen test) and quadratus lum-borum muscles [18]. Further, the side of LLAA signifi-cantly correlated with the side of the QL muscle quickest to fatigue. One of the causes of increased susceptibility of muscles to fatigue is hypertonicity. These results stand incontrast to Mincer et al [19] who suspected altered musclefatigue profiles with anatomic leg-length inequality, but did not find such, providing further evidence that LLAA isa pathological process distinct from LLI. When standing, the actions of the QL depend on whether the spine or the pelvis is stabilized. If the pelvis is stabi-lized, QL contraction laterally flexes and extends the spine[1,20,21]. With the spine stable, QL contraction pullscephalically through its attachment to the posterior aspect of the hemipelvis [1,21]. This load on the posterior aspect of the iliac crest could act to rotate the ipsilateral anterior hemipelvis lower – an AS ilium – causing the pelvis totorque and having the opposite effect on the contralateralhemipelvis – a PI ilium. The degree of torsion (if any) would be dependent on the tension in the QL and thefreedom of movement of the pelvis, and any pre-existing pelvic torsion due to anatomic LLI. However, if the subject now adopts an unloaded posture – supine or prone – QL hypertonicity is freed from the load of the body and ableto lift the ipsilateral hemipelvis, hip and leg in thecephalic direction, producing leg-length alignment asym-metry at the feet. This model is in agreement with Travelland Simons who write, In recumbancy, active TrPs [trig-ger points] shorten the [quadratus lumborum] muscleand can thus distort pelvic alignment, elevating the pelvison the side of the tense muscle [1]. Clinical considerations Now we can return to the dilemma of how lifts may havea positive effect on back pain and muscle activity giventhat most anatomic LLI is not clinically significant. Tor-sion of the pelvis as an adaptive structural compensationin anatomic LLI has been shown to be limited. If a personhas pelvic torsion due to anatomic LLI near the limits of the body's ability to adapt, and QL hypertonicity with itsability to cause pelvic torsion is superimposed, muscular bracing reactions and pain could be the result. Indahl et al[22] found that stimulation of the sacroiliac joint capsule(in pigs) caused reflexive muscular responses, depending on what area of the joint (dorsal/ventral) was stimulated. They note that, Irritation of low threshold nerve endingsin the sacroiliac joint tissue may trigger a reflex activationof the gluteal and paraspinal muscles that become painfulover time . Interestingly, stimulation of the ventral area of the SI joint produced reflexive contraction of the quadra-tus lumborum. It may be that a positive feedback loopcould be established where QL hypertonicity leads to lum-bar curvature and pelvic torsion which stimulates the SIjoint leading to more QL hypertonicity, more lumbar cur- vature and pelvic torsion. It will be interesting to see if asimilar muscular reflex to SI stimulation is found inhumans.Based on their research, Allum et al [23] proposed that rotation of the trunk excites joint receptors in the lumbar spine triggering muscular contractions – paraspinal mus-cles – for balance correction. While these receptors likely have adapted to any pelvic/lumbar rotation caused by anatomic LLI, further pelvic torsion caused by QL hyper-tonicity may stimulate the balance receptors causing reflexive muscular contraction. A lift would reduce thepelvic torsion and lower the proprioceptive balance trig-gers below threshold, eliminating chronic, painful muscu-lar contraction.In a case of additive effects of anatomic LLI and QL/suprapelvic hypertonicity on pelvic torsion, a lift used tolevel the pelvis would take the strain off the sacroiliac andassociated joints and ligaments and decrease potentially painful muscular bracing. Thus, lifts can work to decreaseback pain in people with what seem to be clinically insig-nificant amounts of anatomic leg-length inequality. Of course, it would be important for the clinician to explorereasons for any quadratus lumborum and other suprapel- vic muscle hypertonicity and eliminate them to provide acomplete correction. On the other hand, pure anatomic LLI in the range of and above 20 mm – the upward limit for adaptive compensation – may stimulate sacroiliac and/or lumbar proprioceptors causing reflexive and ulti-mately painful muscular contractions that will only berelieved by a lift to level the pelvis.Reliable detection of LLI and LLAA is difficult, but not impossible. Research has shown the examination proce-dures for putative LLAA both prone [24] and supine [25]to have intra- and inter-examiner reliability. In a control-led setting, Cooperstein et al investigated the accuracy of a compressive prone leg check in subjects with proscribedamounts of artificial LLI [26]. They found the procedure
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks