Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the different levels of Sahrmann five-level core stability (levels 1-5) on the muscle activity of rectus abdominis (RA), external oblique (EO), and transverse abdominis/internal oblique (TrA/IO).
Methods: Twenty-two asymptomatic male participants aged 21.3
6
±
1
.59 years were recruited. Participants were instructed to perform maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) and five levels of Sahrmann five-level core stability test guided with a pressure biofeedback unit (PBU). The surface electromyography (EMG) data of each muscle during five levels of Sahrmann five-level core stability test were normalized as a percentage of MVC.
Results: Results showed significant differences in the normalized EMGs of RA [
χ
2
(4) = 64.80,
p
<
0
.001], EO [
χ
2
(4) = 58.11,
p
<
0
.001], and TrA/IO [
χ
2
(4) = 56.00,
p
<
0
.001] between the five levels of Sahrmann five-level core stability test. Post-hoc analysis revealed Sahrmann levels 5 and 3 have significantly higher abdominal EMG signals than levels 4, 2, and 1 (
p
<
0
.001).
Conclusion: In conclusion, the Sahrmann five-level core stability test differs according to the level of Sahrmann tests. Significantly higher abdominal muscle activities were observed during levels 3 and 5. Therefore, the classification exchange in levels 3 and 4 of the Sahrmann five-level core stability test should be reconsidered in the future.
MATERIALS & METHODS: Data were obtained retrospectively from all patients who underwent both CT examinations - brain (frontal bone), thorax (T7), abdomen (L3), spine (T7 & L3) or pelvis (left hip) - and DXA between 2014 and 2018 in our centre. To ensure comparability, the period between CT and DXA studies must not exceed one year. Correlations between HU values and t-scores were calculated using Pearson's correlation. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated, and the area under the curve (AUC) was used to determine threshold HU values for predicting osteoporosis.
RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by 1043 CT examinations (136 head, 537 thorax, 159 lumbar and 151 left hip). The left hip consistently provided the most robust correlations (r = 0.664-0.708, p 0.05.
CONCLUSION: HU values derived from the hip, T7 and L3 provided a good to moderate correlation to t-scores with a good prediction for osteoporosis. The suggested optimal thresholds may be used in clinical settings after external validations are performed.
Patients and Methods: Patients undergoing major open abdominal surgery were monitored continuously with FloTrac® to measure SVV and CI along with standard monitoring. Both SVV and CI were noted at baseline and every 10 min thereafter till the end of surgery and were observed for concurrence between the measurements.
Results: 1800 pairs of measurement of SVV and CI were obtained from 60 patients. Mean SVV and CI (of all patients) measured at different time points of measurement showed that as SVV increased with time, the CI dropped correspondingly. When individual readings of CI and SVV were plotted against each other, the scatter was found to be wide, reiterating the lack of agreement between the two parameters (R2 = 0.035). SVV >13% suggesting hypovolemia was found at 207 time points. Of these, 175 had a CI >2.5 L/min/m2 and only 32 patients had a CI <2.5 L/min/m2.
Conclusion: SVV, a dynamic index of fluid responsiveness can be used to monitor patients expected to have large fluid shifts during major abdominal surgery. It is very specific and has a high negative predictive value. When SVV increases, CI is usually maintained. Since many factors affect SVV and CI, any increase in SVV >13%, must be correlated with other parameters before administration of the fluid challenge.