Skip to main content

Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review



Lumbar multifidus (LM) is regarded as the major stabilizing muscle of the spine. The effects of exercise therapy in low back pain (LBP) are attributed to this muscle. A current literature review is warranted, however, given the complexity of LM morphology and the inconsistency of anatomical descriptions in the literature.


Scoping review of studies on LM morphology including major anatomy atlases. All relevant studies were searched in PubMed (Medline) and EMBASE until June 2019. Anatomy atlases were retrieved from multiple university libraries and online. All studies and atlases were screened for the following LM parameters: location, imaging methods, spine levels, muscle trajectory, muscle thickness, cross-sectional area, and diameter. The quality of the studies and atlases was also assessed using a five-item evaluation system.


In all, 303 studies and 19 anatomy atlases were included in this review. In most studies, LM morphology was determined by MRI, ultrasound imaging, or drawings – particularly for levels L4–S1. In 153 studies, LM is described as a superficial muscle only, in 72 studies as a deep muscle only, and in 35 studies as both superficial and deep. Anatomy atlases predominantly depict LM as a deep muscle covered by the erector spinae and thoracolumbar fascia. About 42% of the studies had high quality scores, with 39% having moderate scores and 19% having low scores. The quality of figures in anatomy atlases was ranked as high in one atlas, moderate in 15 atlases, and low in 3 atlases.


Anatomical studies of LM exhibit inconsistent findings, describing its location as superficial (50%), deep (25%), or both (12%). This is in sharp contrast to anatomy atlases, which depict LM predominantly as deep muscle. Within the limitations of the self-developed quality-assessment tool, high-quality scores were identified in a majority of studies (42%), but in only one anatomy atlas.


We identified a lack of standardization in the depiction and description of LM morphology. This could affect the precise understanding of its role in background and therapy in LBP patients. Standardization of research methodology on LM morphology is recommended. Anatomy atlases should be updated on LM morphology.

Peer Review reports


Stabilizing therapy through muscle training is one of the main physiotherapeutic interventions for low back pain [1,2,3]. A uniform theoretical background for this treatment is lacking [4], however, and more recent studies report contradictory results following this treatment [5,6,7]. There are no explanations for how stabilizing therapy could have such opposing effects on patients with low back pain. Given that the lumbar multifidus (LM) is regarded as the major stabilizing muscle of the spine [5, 8,9,10,11,12,13,14], the anatomy and topography of this muscle might offer at least some explanation for the opposing effects of stabilizing therapy.

The morphology of the LM is complex, and several anatomical descriptions have appeared in the literature [15,16,17,18,19]. Anatomical studies have concluded that the LM has the largest cross-sectional area (CSA) of paraspinal muscles with short levers located at the most medial part of the spine between approximately L4 and S1 [16, 20, 21]. Important factors in spinal stabilization include CSA, deformation or stress in ligaments, and muscle type, activity pattern, force, mass, and length [8,9,10, 19, 22]. According to other studies, however, LM muscle mass is too small to play a substantial stabilizing role, and the primary stabilizing role should be attributed to the erector spinae (ES) [4]. Furthermore, an ongoing debate concerns the topography of the LM to the ES (i.e., deep vs superficial) [19, 23,24,25]. This discussion has led to many different approaches to investigating the morphology and functional characteristics of the LM. For example, LM muscle morphology has been quantified through ultrasound imaging (USI), MRI scanning, CT scanning, surgery, biopsy, and cadaver research. The outcomes of these methods have led to varying conclusions about CSA, muscle thickness, percentage of fat infiltration, fiber-bundle angle, and fiber length [19, 26,27,28,29]. Although each method has its own strengths and limitations [30], the results also depend on other variables, including population, spine-level measurement, and methodological quality.

At present, there is no clear overview of the similarities and differences between anatomy atlases and LM topography studies with regard to LM topography in humans. Such an overview is essential to improving understanding concerning the theoretical background of stabilizing therapies in the treatment of low back pain, as well as with regard to its role in basic anatomy training. The present study is therefore intended to review the literature on LM morphology.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted according to the guidelines formulated by Arksey and O’Malley 2005 and by Grudniewicz et al. 2016 [31, 32], using the following five-step framework: (1) identification of the research question, (2) identification of relevant literature, (3) study selection, (4) data extraction, and (5) collation, summary, and reporting of results. The identification of the research question (1) is explained in the Background section. Steps 2, 3, and 4 are explained in this Materials & Methods section, and Step 5 is discussed in the Results section.

(2) Identification of relevant literature

Search strategy

To identify relevant studies on LM morphology, two databases—PubMed (Medline) and EMBASE—were searched, as well as gray literature (anatomy atlases) until June 2019. Search strategies were built, consisting of a combination of database-specific MeSH terms, title/abstract, free text, “wild cards” (words truncated by using “*”), and Boolean operators (“AND”, “OR”). The search string is provided in Additional file 1. The snowball method was used to identify additional papers from the reference lists of studies that were included.


All of the studies included were reviewed in terms of population, method, and outcome. To be included, studies had to be published in English and be based on studies of adult humans or human cadavers. A supplemental search of the Dutch literature did not reveal any relevant studies. Letters to the editor, abstract-only articles, and review papers were excluded. The initial search identified an extensive number of studies and gray literature. To minimize the inclusion of low-quality studies, we limited inclusion to peer-reviewed studies. All of the studies included were screened for the methods used to measure LM morphology: USI, MRI, CT scanning, modeling (biomechanical model of muscles), and cadaver studies. Furthermore, the parameters by which LM morphology was defined were described for each study (i.e., images, photos, drawings, models, trajectory descriptions, thickness or CSA, spine levels, and location of the LM).

(3) Study selection

The selection procedure started with the identification of studies in the databases and the elimination of duplicates using the duplicate function in Endnote X9. Further, studies were screened according to title, abstract, and full-text, and additional papers were identified from reference lists of the included studies. Two authors (AH and RS) independently selected and assessed studies for quality and subsequently discussed them to reach consensus. When no consensus was achieved, a third reviewer was consulted (GJG).

Anatomy atlases were included as well, given their importance as basic anatomical introductions to LM topography. The anatomy atlases were selected through a university library system, followed by a snowball procedure, as they were not included in medical databases. Major anatomy atlases available in English, Dutch, and German were retrieved from the university libraries (including specialized medical libraries) of the University Medical Center Groningen and Saxion University of Applied Sciences, as well as from online resources. The results of anatomical studies and atlases are presented separately.

(4) Data extraction

All studies and atlases were extracted according to the following LM parameters: location (deep/superficial), imaging methods, spine levels, muscle trajectory (origin and insertion), muscle diameter (anteroposterior diameter), and CSA. The risk of bias assessment was not determined, as it primarily has to do with the methodology of studies [33]. Instead, a quality-assessment tool was developed to rate the quality of the descriptions of LM morphology. The tool consists of five items, each worth one point, with a maximum score of five (Table 1). The reliability of LM morphology descriptions was assessed by checking for the presence of an image and determining whether this image was an original photograph (as opposed to a model or drawing) [34]. Furthermore, the validity of the images was assessed by checking for the labelling of the LM, depiction of spinal levels, and description of planes. Descriptions scoring 5/5 were regarded as being of high quality, with scores of (3-4)/5 representing moderate quality and scores (≤ 2)/5 representing low quality. The inter-rater reliability (% agreement) of the two reviewers was calculated using a kappa value. In cases where the LM location was not described explicitly despite the presence of adequate imaging, the LM location was determined in consensus by the authors (AH, RS and GG).

Table 1 Quality assessment tool


Study selection

The search yielded 2450 original studies, 299 of which were ultimately included, along with 4 additional studies. In addition, 19 anatomy atlases were identified that described parameters of LM morphology (Additional file 2) [25, 55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. The study-selection procedure is depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Flowchart of the selection process for the literature review

LM parameters in studies

The characteristics of the studies included are presented in Additional file 3 [17,18,19,20, 22, 26, 27, 29, 34,35,36,37, 39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53, 71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80, 82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,283,284,285,286,287,288,289,290,291,292,293,294,295,296,297,298,299,300,301,302,303,304,305,306,307,308,309,310,311,312,313,314,315,316,317,318,319,320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332,333,334,335,336,337,338,339,340,341,342,343]. In descriptions of moderate to high quality, the most frequently applied methods for measuring or visualizing LM morphology were MRI (51%), USI (36%), and drawings (8%).


In 153 of the 303 studies, LM was presented only as a superficial muscle at one or more levels between L4–S1. In 72 studies, it was presented only as a deep muscle and, in 35 studies, it was presented as both a superficial and a deep muscle. We were unable to identify the precise location of LM in 43 studies (Additional file 3).

Origin and insertion

The origin of the LM is described at the spinous process of L4 and L5 [35]. In some studies, however, LM origin was also described at the caudal and dorsal surface of each lamina (L1–L5) (Table 2) [23]. Whereas some studies described LM insertion as being at the lateral or medial side of the dorsal foramen of the sacrum [23, 35], others stated that the superficial LM muscle fibers are inserted at the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) [19, 23].

Table 2 Studies describing the fiber trajectory of LM

Muscle thickness and cross-sectional area (CSA)

We identified a variety of methods of measuring the CSA of LM. These methods include USI, CT scanning, and/or MRI at various levels of the lumbar spine (Additional file 3) between L1 and S1 (Fig. 2). This focus on L4 and L5 measurements was found in nearly all studies on different locations (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

Overview of spine levels at which LM is measured in all studies (Total), in studies of moderate to high quality referring to deep LM (Deep), in studies referring to superficial LM (Superficial), and in studies referring to deep and superficial LM (Deep & Superficial). Deep muscles lie closer to bone or internal organs, and superficial muscles are close to the surface of the skin

The CSA of LM has been measured in a variety of populations, resulting in an extensive range of LM CSA outcomes [27, 47, 48]. The total range in square millimeters varied between 9.08 and 2500 mm2, possibly due to the incorrect description of corresponding units of value. Variations in LM thickness were found with regard to the level of measurement (L3/L4, L4/L5, or L5/S1) and LM activation conditions (rest vs (sub)maximal voluntary contraction), as well as in terms of body position (e.g., prone vs standing position) (Additional file 4) [38, 47,48,49,50,51,52,53, 51,52,53, 74, 75, 98, 108, 113, 115, 127, 131, 135, 136, 144, 151, 159, 162, 163, 168, 175, 187, 203, 211,212,213, 233, 235, 236, 239, 253, 259, 263, 286, 301, 305, 308, 309, 311, 317,318,319,320,321,322, 325, 326, 335, 336, 340] [48,49,50,51,52,53]. The total range in LM thickness in millimeters varied between 2.4 and 41.1 mm [53, 54].

LM parameters in anatomy atlases

Within the anatomy atlases, we observed variations in the description and presentation of LM (Table 5), although the majority of atlases showed the same configuration of the LM. In 16 of the 19 atlases reviewed, the LM was depicted as a deep back muscle [24, 25, 55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62, 64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71], either covered by the thoracolumbar fascia and/or as being covered by the ES. Moreover, LM imaging varied in terms of the presence of spine levels (cervical-sacrum), imaging planes (transversal, dorsal, sagittal), and of whether it was with or without other low back muscles in a single figure.

Location and muscle diameter

Variations were found with regard to the location, diameter, and topography of the LM. In one anatomy atlas (Gray’s Anatomy) [61], the superficial part of the LM extended from T11 cranially to S3 caudally as a wide (large anterior-posterior diameter) muscle next to the median sacral crest. In a Radiology Anatomy Atlas Viewer [63], the LM was depicted in the axial spinal cross-sections, albeit with inconsistent labelling of the LM.

Variations were found in the diameter of the LM between the various lumbar levels. The location of the widest part of the LM varied between the level of PSIS [55, 58, 60, 61] and L5–S1 [25, 56, 57, 69]. In some atlases, however, the widest part of the LM was undefined, due to the overlying low back muscles [24, 67].

Various origins and insertions of the LM were identified in the anatomy atlases (Table 3), with the (lumbar) multifidus extending between the dorsal part of the sacrum [69] and the transverse processes of T1 [24, 25, 55,56,57,58, 60, 65, 67, 70, 71], and as attaching to the iliac [68] or ischium [55, 60] part of the pelvis.

Table 3 Atlases describing the fiber trajectory of lumbar multifidus

Overall, deep LM trajectories were consistently described between L1 and S5 [25, 56,57,58, 60, 61, 67, 70], although some superficial LM fibers were illustrated as originating from the spinous process of T10 [69] or T12 [61, 70]. Furthermore, some atlases did not illustrate the origin and insertion of the LM, as other muscles were more superficially presented and/or because these features were not described [24, 59, 62, 64, 66, 68].

Quality assessment

Quality scores were determined for each description and anatomical image of the LM in the literature. The per-item quality scores for descriptions and anatomical images are presented in Table 4. The agreement between the reviewers of the quality assessment had a kappa value of 0.67, and all differences were resolved in a consensus meeting. There were no major differences between the descriptions and anatomical images of the LM in the literature with regard to the presence of images. The most difficult item to score was clear labeling.

Table 4 Total scores for quality items, in numbers and percentages

The total quality scores of the studies varied between 1 and 5 (out of 5). The highest score [5/5] was found in 43% of the studies (129/303), with moderate scores [[2,3,4]/5] found in 39% of the studies (117/303) and low scores [(≤2)/5] found in 19% of the studies (57/303). In the studies with quality scores of 5/5 and 4/5, MRI and USI were the most commonly used methods for visualizing the LM muscle (Fig. 3). More detailed data are presented in Additional file 3. The majority of atlases were rated as being of moderate quality [(3–4)/5] (79%, 15/19) or low quality [(≤2)/5] (16%, 3/19). Only one atlas was found to be of high quality [5/5] (Table 5) [55].

Fig. 3

Overview of the percentage of total scores on the quality-assessment tool (inside ring) and the associated percentage of techniques used (outside ring). Scores per study are presented in Additional file 3

Table 5 Data extraction of the atlases included (n=19), sorted by quality score


Substantial contradictory results were found across a large number of anatomy studies included in the review, and there appears to be no general consensus concerning the trajectory and muscle description of the LM [19, 23, 25, 29, 35]. Particularly with regard to the descriptions of “fiber trajectory” and “location”, major differences were found between the studies by Macintosh and Bogduk (1986), Rosatelli et al. (2008), and Moseley et al. (2002), and those by Kim et al. (2015), Bojadsen et al. (2000), and De Foa et al. (1989) [17,18,19, 29, 36, 40]. Discrepancies were also identified with regard to LM diameter, especially the distance between the spinous process and the lateral margin of the LM at levels L4–S1 [46, 72] and its location relative to the ES [46, 72, 73].

Each method that is used in literature to measure LM characteristics has its own strengths and limitations [30]. The architecture and function of the LM has been studied predominantly according to morphological and imaging methods. One disadvantage of cadaver studies [15, 17, 22, 29, 36, 40, 46, 74] is that the studies do not clearly identify the type and amount of structures (skin, fat, fascia, and muscle) that were removed from the cadaver. In these studies, it could be difficult to describe the exact location of the LM relative to other lumbar muscles and structures. The MRI and USI methods offer the advantage of being able to present undisturbed anatomy. This finding could have positive implications for clinical practice, given that USI is a user-friendly and affordable way to measure LM morphology in physiotherapy practice.

In anatomy atlases, the LM was depicted primarily as a relatively small deep muscle, in contrast to some research studies that refer to its large size and the presence of superficial slips at L4–S2 levels. Differences in LM images were identified even within anatomy atlases [25, 60, 61, 68]. In Wolf-Heidegger’s Atlas of Human Anatomy, LM insertion is depicted at the ventral side of the sacrum, in contrast to Gray’s Anatomy, in which it is depicted at the dorsal side of the sacrum [61, 68]. Furthermore, in some atlases, the diameter and location of the LM is undefined, due to the overlying low back muscles [24, 67]. Overall, anatomy atlases reflect no consensus about the fiber trajectory of the LM, thus making it difficult for therapists, clinicians, and students to know and learn what is correct about LM morphology.

The inconsistencies in the descriptions and imaging of LM morphology in studies and atlases could be due to the differences in many parameters. Some of these variables are related to methodology (Fig. 2), spine levels, and/or type of population [26, 36, 75, 76]. Of particular note are the variations we found between LM images in anatomy atlases and those in studies. In some large studies [15, 26, 77, 78], the location and presentation of the LM differ from those in the most recent anatomy atlases [24, 25, 55]. One consistent finding in the anatomy atlases was that they all depict the LM as a deep lumbar muscle, whereas most studies presented it as a superficial lumbar muscle at the levels of L4–S1. We nevertheless identified some consistency in studies based on a USI LM protocol that had been developed in an earlier study (e.g., by Belavy et al.) [79,80,81]. The same protocol, which referred to similar images, has been used in different studies based on different research questions to present new knowledge about LM morphology.


One possible limitation of this study could be that it might have overlooked some anatomy atlases, due to the lack of a database of anatomy atlases. Another limitation could be related to the reliability and validity of the quality-assessment tool that was developed and used by three authors of the current study. This quality-assessment tool was developed for lack of an existing “risk-of-bias assessment tool” with which to assess the quality of descriptions of LM morphology. It would be advisable to improve this assessment tool by conducting a validation and/or reliability study, as well as by expanding the tool beyond the current five items [34]. Any validation study regarding this quality-assessment tool will nevertheless be hampered by the current lack of a gold standard.

Variations in the images and measurement of LM morphology could be influenced by a number of potentially confounding factors, including research methods, level, side of measurement, population, intra-individual differences, intervention, research objectives, measurement technique (e.g., with or without contraction), and the relative experience of the assessors and/or practitioners creating the images. The variation that we observed in LM morphology emphasizes the importance of correct reference to morphology, although no gold standard for LM morphology has been developed to date. To reduce some of the existing variation, the authors call for improvement in the standardization of research protocols (e.g., in studies using EMG, USI, or MRI). The proper measurement of LM function could allow measurement of the contribution of the LM to spine movements in patients with non-specific LBP or other conditions. This knowledge could help clinicians and therapists to improve their diagnosis of patients.

Clinical implications

Remarkable differences in the reporting of LM morphology were found within anatomical studies, as well as between anatomical studies and anatomy atlases, especially with regard to trajectories of the musculature and its location relative to the ES. Such differences in the reporting of LM could have implications for clinical practice, given that knowledge of morphology provides the foundation for the diagnosis and treatment of patients by physiotherapists. For example, if the topography of a low back muscle (in terms of origin, insertion, deep/superficial) is clear, it should provide a clearer indication of the function of this low back muscle. This could make it easier to identify a cause or diagnosis of low back function or muscle impairment. For therapists or clinicians, these inconsistencies make it difficult to conclude which results are correct. Once therapists or clinicians know the correct LM morphology, this will clarify the function of the LM. Such knowledge could enhance understanding concerning the role of the LM in patients with LBP. It could also enhance the quality and consistency of decision-making by specialists concerning treatments for patients with LBP. Although a recent review on the effects of stabilizing therapy compared to usual care identified significant benefits of stabilizing therapy on pain and disability, these differences were not interpreted as clinically important [82]. Improved diagnosis may allow better sub-grouping, possibly enhancing the therapeutic effects for patients with LBP.


We identified a lack of standardization in the depiction and description of LM morphology, which may affect the precise understanding of its role in the background and therapy for patients with LBP. Standardization of research methodology with regard to LM morphology is recommended. Anatomy atlases should be updated on LM morphology.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.



Cross-sectional area


Erector spinae


Lumbar multifidus


Posterior superior iliac spine


Ultrasound imaging


  1. 1.

    Ko KJ, Ha GC, Yook YS, Kang SJ. Effects of 12-week lumbar stabilization exercise and sling exercise on lumbosacral region angle, lumbar muscle strength, and pain scale of patients with chronic low back pain. J Phys Ther Sci. 2018;30(1):18–22.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bagheri R, Takamjani IE, Dadgoo M, Sarrafzadeh J, Ahmadi A, Pourahmadi MR, et al. A protocol for clinical trial study of the effect of core stabilization exercises on spine kinematics during gait with and without load in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. Chiropr Man Ther. 2017;25:31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Sung PS, Yoon B, Lee DC. Lumbar spine stability for subjects with and without low back pain during one-leg standing test. Spine. 2010;35(16):E753–60.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wirth K, Hartmann H, Mickel C, Szilvas E, Keiner M, Sander A. Core stability in athletes: a critical analysis of current guidelines. Sports Med. 2017;47(3):401–14.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Hicks GE, Fritz JM, Delitto A, McGill SM. Preliminary development of a clinical prediction rule for determining which patients with low back pain will respond to a stabilization exercise program. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(9):1753–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Macedo LG, Latimer J, Maher CG, Hodges PW, McAuley JH, Nicholas MK, et al. Effect of motor control exercises versus graded activity in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Physical Ther. 2012;92(3):363–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Fritz JM, Delitto A, Erhard R. Comparison of classification-based physical therapy with therapy based on clinical practice guidelines for patients with acute low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. Spine. 2003;28(13):1363–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Solomonow M, Zhou BH, Harris M, Lu Y, Baratta RV. The ligamento-muscular stabilizing system of the spine. Spine. 1998;23(23):2552–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Wilke HJ, Wolf S, Claes LE, Arand M, Wiesend A. Stability increase of the lumbar spine with different muscle groups. A biomechanical in vitro study. Spine. 1995;20(2):192–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Wagner H, Anders C, Puta C, Petrovitch A, Mörl F, Schilling N, et al. Musculoskeletal support of lumbar spine stability. Pathophysiology. 2005;12(4):257–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hay EM, Dunn KM, Hill JC, Lewis M, Mason EE, Konstantinou K, et al. A randomised clinical trial of subgrouping and targeted treatment for low back pain compared with best current care. The STarT Back Trial Study Protocol. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:58.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hill JC, Dunn KM, Main CJ, Hay EM. Subgrouping low back pain: a comparison of the STarT Back Tool with the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. Eur J Pain. 2010;14(1):83–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hill JC, Whitehurst DG, Lewis M, Bryan S, Dunn KM, Foster NE, et al. Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9802):1560–71.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Stanton TR, Hancock MJ, Apeldoorn AT, Wand BM, Fritz JM. What characterizes people who have an unclear classification using a treatment-based classification algorithm for low back pain? A cross-sectional study. Phys Ther. 2013;93(3):345–55.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Deng X, Zhu Y, Wang S, Zhang Y, Han H, Zheng D, et al. CT and MRI determination of intermuscular space within lumbar paraspinal muscles at different intervertebral disc levels. PLoS One. 2015;10(10).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fortin M, Macedo LG. Multifidus and paraspinal muscle group cross-sectional areas of patients with low back pain and control patients: a systematic review with a focus on blinding. Phys Ther. 2013;93(7):873–88.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Macintosh JE, Valencia F, Bogduk N, Munro RR. The morphology of the human lumbar multifidus. Clin Biomech. 1986;1(4):196–204.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Kim YE, Choi HW. Effect of disc degeneration on the muscle recruitment pattern in upright posture: a computational analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. 2015;18(15):1622–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Moseley GL, Hodges PW, Gandevia SC. Deep and superficial fibers of the lumbar multifidus muscle are differentially active during voluntary arm movements. Spine. 2002;27(2):E29–36.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Battie MC, Niemelainen R, Gibbons LE, Dhillon S. Is level- and side-specific multifidus asymmetry a marker for lumbar disc pathology? Spine J. 2012;12(10):932–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Kjaer P, Bendix T, Sorensen JS, Korsholm L, Leboeuf-Yde C. Are MRI-defined fat infiltrations in the multifidus muscles associated with low back pain? BMC Med. 2007;5:2.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Ward SR, Kim CW, Eng CM, Gottschalk LJ, Tomiya A, Garfin SR, et al. Architectural analysis and intraoperative measurements demonstrate the unique design of the multifidus muscle for lumbar spine stability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):176–85.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Bogduk N. Clinical anatomy of the lumbar spine and sacrum. 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Paulsen F, Waschke J. Sobotta 1 Algemene anatomie en bewegingsapparaat: Atlas van de menselijke anatomie: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2011.

  25. 25.

    Schünke M, Schulte E, Schumacher U, Voll M, Wesker K, MediLingua. Prometheus: anatomische atlas / Algemene anatomie en bewegingsapparaat / [vert. uit het Duits: MediLingua]. 2nd ed. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Beneck GJ, Kulig K. Multifidus atrophy is localized and bilateral in active persons with chronic unilateral low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(2):300–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Zhao WP, Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Kanamori M, Kimura T. Histochemistry and morphology of the multifidus muscle in lumbar disc herniation: Comparative study between diseased and normal sides. Spine. 2000;25(17):2191–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bajek S, Bobinac D, Bajek G, Vranic TS, Lah B, Dragojevic DM. Muscle fiber type distribution in multifidus muscle in cases of lumbar disc herniation. Acta Med Okayama. 2000;54(6):235–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Rosatelli AL, Ravichandiran K, Agur AM. Three-dimensional study of the musculotendinous architecture of lumbar multifidus and its functional implications. Clin Anat. 2008;21(6):539–46.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Gibbons LE, Latikka P, Videman T, Manninen H, Battié MC. The association of trunk muscle cross-sectional area and magnetic resonance image parameters with isokinetic and psychophysical lifting strength and static back muscle endurance in men. J Spinal Disord. 1997;10(5):398–403.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Grudniewicz A, Nelson M, Kuluski K, Lui V, Cunningham HV, Nie XJ, et al. Treatment goal setting for complex patients: protocol for a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2016;6(5):e011869.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Kim SY, Park JE, Lee YJ, Seo HJ, Sheen SS, Hahn S, et al. Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(4):408–14.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Henry BM, Tomaszewski KA, Ramakrishnan PK, Roy J, Vikse J, Loukas M, et al. Development of the Anatomical Quality Assessment (AQUA) Tool for the quality assessment of anatomical studies included in meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Clin Anat. 2017;30(1):6–13.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Bogduk N, Macintosh JE, Pearcy MJ. A universal model of the lumbar back muscles in the upright position. Spine. 1992;17(8):897–913.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Bojadsen TWA, Silva ES, Rodrigues AJ, Amadio AC. Comparative study of Mm. Multifidi in lumbar and thoracic spine. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000;10(3):143–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Creze M, Nyangoh Timoh K, Gagey O, Rocher L, Bellin MF, Soubeyrand M. Feasibility assessment of shear wave elastography to lumbar back muscles: A Radioanatomic Study. Clin Anat. 2017;30(6):774–80.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Creze M, Soubeyrand M, Nyangoh Timoh K, Gagey O. Organization of the fascia and aponeurosis in the lumbar paraspinal compartment. Surg Radiol Anat. 2018;40(11):1231–42.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Creze M, Soubeyrand M, Gagey O. The paraspinal muscle-tendon system: Its paradoxical anatomy. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0214812.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    De Foa JL, Forrest W, Biedermann HJ. Muscle fibre direction of longissimus, iliocostalis and multifidus: landmark-derived reference lines. J Anat. 1989;163:243–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Jemmett RS, Macdonald DA, Agur AM. Anatomical relationships between selected segmental muscles of the lumbar spine in the context of multi-planar segmental motion: a preliminary investigation. Man Ther. 2004;9(4):203–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Kader DF, Wardlaw D, Smith FW. Correlation between the MRI changes in the lumbar multifidus muscles and leg pain. Clin Radiol. 2000;55(2):145–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Kramer M, Katzmaier P, Eisele R, Ebert V, Kinzl L, Hartwig E. Surface electromyography-verified muscular damage associated with the open dorsal approach to the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 2001;10(5):414–20.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Macintosh JE, Bogduk N. The biomechanics of the lumbar multifidus. Clin Biomech. 1986;1(4):205–13.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Lonnemann ME, Paris SV, Gorniak GC. A morphological comparison of the human lumbar multifidus by chemical dissection. J Man Manipulative Ther. 2008;16(4):E84–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Vialle R, Court C, Khouri N, Olivier E, Miladi L, Tassin JL, et al. Anatomical study of the paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(4):366–71.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Hides J, Gilmore C, Stanton W, Bohlscheid E. Multifidus size and symmetry among chronic LBP and healthy asymptomatic subjects. Man Ther. 2008;13(1):43–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Djordjevic O, Konstantinovic L, Miljkovic N, Bijelic G. Relationship between electromyographic signal amplitude and thickness change of the trunk muscles in patients with and without low back pain. Clin J Pain. 2015;31(10):893–902.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Fortin M, Gibbons LE, Videman T, Battie MC. Do variations in paraspinal muscle morphology and composition predict low back pain in men? Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(6):880–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Zapata KA, Wang-Price S, Sucato DJ, Dempsey-Robertson M. Ultrasonographic measurements of paraspinal muscle thickness in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison and reliability study. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2015;27(2):119–25.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Le Cara EC, Marcus RL, Dempsey AR, Hoffman MD, Hebert JJ. Morphology versus function: The relationship between lumbar multifidus intramuscular adipose tissue and muscle function among patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(10):1846–52.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Sions JM, Velasco TO, Teyhen DS, Hicks GE. Ultrasound imaging: intraexaminer and interexaminer reliability for multifidus muscle thickness assessment in adults aged 60 to 85 years versus younger adults. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(6):425–34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Cho M. The effects of modified wall squat exercises on average adults’ deep abdominal muscle thickness and lumbar stability. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013;25(6):689–92.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Lariviere C, Gagnon D, De Oliveira E Jr, Henry SM, Mecheri H, Dumas JP. Ultrasound measures of the lumbar multifidus: effect of task and transducer position on reliability. PM R. 2013;5(8):678–87.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Giles LGF, Singer KP. Clinical anatomy and management of low back pain. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Gilroy AM, Schünke M, Voll M, Braches K. Anatomische Atlas. Tweede editie. ed. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, Springer Media; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Schünke M, Schulte E, Schumacher U, Rude J Jr, Ross LM, Lamperti ED, et al. Thieme atlas of anatomy / [Vol. 1], General anatomy and musculoskeletal system. [Corr. reprint]. ed. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Moore KL, Dalley AF II, Agur AMR. Clinically oriented anatomy. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Rohen JW, Yokochi C, Lütjen-Drecoll E. Color atlas of anatomy: a photographic study of the human body. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Moore KL, Agur AMR, Dalley AF. Essential clinical anatomy. 4th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011. p. 703.

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Standring S, Gray H. Gray’s anatomy : the anatomical basis of clinical practice. 40th ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Torsten BM, Emil R. Book: Pocket atlas of sectional anatomy, pocket atlas of sectional anatomy. Neuroradiol J. 2007;20(3):383–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Livingston R. Radiology anatomy atlas viewer: Bearboat SP; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Abrahams PH. McMinn and Abrahams’ clinical atlas of human anatomy. 7th ed. Edinburgh: Mosby; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Drake RL, Vogl W, Mitchell AWM, Gray H. Gray’s anatomy for students. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Khoury GY, Montgomery WJ. Sectional anatomy by MRI and CT. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Platzer W, Spitzer G, en Burger S. Sesam Atlas van de anatomie / Dl. 1, Bewegingsapparaat / door Werner Platzer ; ill. Gerhard Spitzer ; [m.m.v. Stefanie Gay ... et al. ; vert. uit het Duits: Burger & Schwarz]. 22e, geheel herz. dr. ed. Amersfoort: ThiemeMeulenhoff; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Wolf-Heidegger G, Köpf-Maier P. Wolf-Heidegger’s atlas of human anatomy. 5th, completely rev. and supplemented ed. / ed. Basel: Karger; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Tank PW, Gest TR, Burkel WE, Lippincott W. Wilkins. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins atlas of anatomy. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Dauber W, Feneis H, Gribnau AAM. Feneis’ geïllustreerd anatomisch zakwoordenboek. 4th ed. Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Donkelaar HJ, Lohman AHM. Klinische anatomie en embryologie / Dl. 2. 3rd ed. Maarssen: Elsevier gezondheidszorg; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Palmer DK, Allen JL, Williams PA, Voss AE, Jadhav V, Wu DS, et al. Multilevel magnetic resonance imaging analysis of multifidus-longissimus cleavage planes in the lumbar spine and potential clinical applications to Wiltse’s paraspinal approach. Spine. 2011;36(16):1263–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Li H, Yang L, Chen J, Xie H, Tian W, Cao X. Magnetic resonance imaging-based anatomical study of the multifidus-longissimus cleavage planes in the lumbar spine. Am J Transl Res. 2016;8(1):109–16.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Rantanen J, Rissanen A, Kalimo H. Lumbar muscle fiber size and type distribution in normal subjects. Eur Spine J. 1994;3(6):331–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Koppenhaver SL, Hebert JJ, Fritz JM, Parent EC, Teyhen DS, Magel JS. Reliability of Rehabilitative Ultrasound Imaging of the Transversus Abdominis and Lumbar Multifidus Muscles. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(1):87–94.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Kiesel KB, Underwood FB, Matacolla C, Nitz AJ, Malone TR. A comparison of select trunk muscle thickness change between subjects with low back pain classified in the treatment-based classification system and asymptomatic controls. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(10):596–607.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Kim WH, Lee SH, Lee DY. Changes in the cross-sectional area of multifdus and psoas in unilateral sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2011;50(3):201–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Yoo JS, Min SH, Yoon SH, Hwang CH. Paraspinal muscle changes of unilateral multilevel minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9:130.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Belavy DL, Bansmann PM, Bohme G, Frings-Meuthen P, Heer M, Rittweger J, et al. Changes in intervertebral disc morphology persist 5 mo after 21-day bed rest. J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(5):1304–14.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Belavy DL, Armbrecht G, Felsenberg D. Real-time ultrasound measures of lumbar erector spinae and multifidus: reliability and comparison to magnetic resonance imaging. Physiol Meas. 2015;36(11):2285–99.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Belavy DL, Gast U, Felsenberg D. Exercise and Transversus Abdominis Muscle Atrophy after 60-d Bed Rest. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49(2):238–46.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Smith BE, Littlewood C, May S. An update of stabilisation exercises for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:416.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Abbas J, Slon V, May H, Peled N, Hershkovitz I, Hamoud K. Paraspinal muscles density: a marker for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17(1):422.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Altinkaya N, Cekinmez M. Lumbar multifidus muscle changes in unilateral lumbar disc herniation using magnetic resonance imaging. Skelet Radiol. 2016;45(1):73–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Annaswamy TM, Bierner SM, Doppalapudi H. Does lumbar dorsal ramus syndrome have an objective clinical basis? PM R. 2013;5(12):996–1006.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Bang WS, Lee DH, Kim KT, Cho DC, Sung JK, Han IB, et al. Relationships between vitamin D and paraspinal muscle: human data and experimental rat model analysis. Spine J. 2018;18(6):1053–61.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Banno T, Yamato Y, Hasegawa T, Kobayashi S, Togawa D, Oe S, et al. Assessment of the cross-sectional areas of the psoas major and multifidus muscles in patients with adult spinal deformity. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(7):E968–E73.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Berry DB, Padwal J, Johnson S, Parra CL, Ward SR, Shahidi B. Methodological considerations in region of interest definitions for paraspinal muscles in axial MRIs of the lumbar spine. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):135.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Bresnahan LE, Smith JS, Ogden AT, Quinn S, Cybulski GR, Simonian N, et al. Assessment of paraspinal muscle cross-sectional area after lumbar decompression. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(3):E162–E8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Cawley DT, Alexander M, Morris S. Multifidus innervation and muscle assessment post-spinal surgery. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(2):320–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Chang DG, Healey RM, Snyder AJ, Sayson JV, Macias BR, Coughlin DG, et al. Lumbar spine paraspinal muscle and intervertebral disc height changes in astronauts after long-duration spaceflight on the international space station. Spine. 2016;41(24):1917–24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Chatani K. A novel surgical approach to the lumbar spine involving hemilateral split-off of the spinous process to preserve the multifidus muscle: technical note. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(5):694–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Chon J, Kim HS, Lee JH, Yoo SD, Yun DH, Kim DH, et al. Asymmetric atrophy of paraspinal muscles in patients with chronic unilateral lumbar radiculopathy. Ann Rehabil Med. 2017;41(5):801–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Clark BC, Walkowski S, Conatser RR, Eland DC, Howell JN. Muscle functional magnetic resonance imaging and acute low back pain: a pilot study to characterize lumbar muscle activity asymmetries and examine the effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment. Osteopath Med Prim Care. 2009;3:7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Coldron Y, Stokes M, Cook K. Lumbar multifidus muscle size does not differ whether ultrasound imaging is performed in prone or side lying. Man Ther. 2003;8(3):161–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Creze M, Soubeyrand M, Yue JL, Gagey O, Maitre X, Bellin MF. Magnetic resonance elastography of the lumbar back muscles: A preliminary study. Clin Anat. 2018;31(4):514–20.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Cuellar WA, Blizzard L, Callisaya ML, Hides JA, Jones G, Ding C, et al. Test-retest reliability of measurements of abdominal and multifidus muscles using ultrasound imaging in adults aged 50-79 years. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2016;28:79–84.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Danneels LA, Vanderstraeten GG, Cambier DC, Witvrouw EE, Bourgois J, Dankaerts W, et al. Effects of three different training modalities on the cross sectional area of the lumbar multifidus muscle in patients with chronic low back pain. Br J Sports Med. 2001;35(3):186–91.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Deng X, Zhu Y, Wang S, Zhang Y, Han H, Zheng D, et al. CT and MRI determination of intermuscular space within lumbar paraspinal muscles at different intervertebral disc levels. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140315.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    D'Hooge R, Cagnie B, Crombez G, Vanderstraeten G, Dolphens M, Danneels L. Increased intramuscular fatty infiltration without differences in lumbar muscle cross-sectional area during remission of unilateral recurrent low back pain. Man Ther. 2012;17(6):584–8.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    D'Hooge R, Cagnie B, Crombez G, Vanderstraeten G, Achten E, Danneels L. Lumbar muscle dysfunction during remission of unilateral recurrent nonspecific low-back pain: evaluation with muscle functional MRI. Clin J Pain. 2013;29(3):187–94.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Dickx N, Cagnie B, Achten E, Vandemaele P, Parlevliet T, Danneels L. Differentiation between deep and superficial fibers of the lumbar multifidus by magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(1):122–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Dickx N, Cagnie B, Achten E, Vandemaele P, Parlevliet T, Danneels L. Changes in lumbar muscle activity because of induced muscle pain evaluated by muscle functional magnetic resonance imaging. Spine. 2008;33(26):E983–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Dickx N, D'Hooge R, Cagnie B, Deschepper E, Verstraete K, Danneels L. Magnetic resonance imaging and electromyography to measure lumbar back muscle activity. Spine. 2010;35(17):E836–E42.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao F, Zhao X, Huang Y, Fang X. Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: Minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(2):316–24.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Farshad M, Gerber C, Farshad-Amacker NA, Dietrich TJ, Laufer-Molnar V, Min K. Asymmetry of the multifidus muscle in lumbar radicular nerve compression. Skelet Radiol. 2014;43(1):49–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Gellhorn AC, Suri P, Rundell SD, Olafsen N, Carlson MJ, Johnson S, et al. Lumbar muscle cross-sectional areas do not predict clinical outcomes in adults with spinal stenosis: A longitudinal study. PM R. 2017;9(6):545–55.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Ghiasi MS, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A, Farahmand F, Hashemi H, Bagheri S, et al. Cross-sectional area of human trunk paraspinal muscles before and after posterior lumbar surgery using magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(3):774–82.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Gibbon KC, Debuse D, Hibbs A, Caplan N. Reliability and precision of sonography of the lumbar multifidus and transversus abdominis during dynamic activities. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36(3):571–81.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Gildea JE, Hides JA, Hodges PW. Size and symmetry of trunk muscles in ballet dancers with and without low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43(8):525–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Hides JA, Cooper DH, Stokes MJ. Diagnostic ultrasound imaging for measurement of the lumbar multifidus muscle in normal young adults. Physiother Theory Pract. 1992;8(1):19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Hides J, Stanton W, McMahon S, Sims K, Richardson C. Effect of stabilization training on multifidus muscle cross-sectional area among young elite cricketers with low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38(3):101–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Hides JA, Brown CT, Penfold L, Stanton WR. Screening the lumbopelvic muscles for a relationship to injury of the quadriceps, hamstrings, and adductor muscles among elite Australian Football League players. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;41(10):767–75.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Hides JA, Stanton WR, Mendis MD, Franettovich Smith MM, Sexton MJ. Small multifidus muscle size predicts football injuries. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014;2(6).

  115. 115.

    Hides JA, Lambrecht G, Stanton WR, Damann V. Changes in multifidus and abdominal muscle size in response to microgravity: possible implications for low back pain research. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:175–82.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Hides JA, Oostenbroek T, Franettovich Smith MM, Mendis MD. The effect of low back pain on trunk muscle size/function and hip strength in elite football (soccer) players. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(24):2303–11.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Hides JA, Walsh JC, Smith MMF, Mendis MD. Self-managed exercises, fitness and strength training, and multifidus muscle size in elite footballers. J Athl Train. 2017;52(7):649–55.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Hiepe P, Gussew A, Rzanny R, Anders C, Walther M, Scholle HC, et al. Interrelations of muscle functional MRI, diffusion-weighted MRI and (31) P-MRS in exercised lower back muscles. NMR Biomed. 2014;27(8):958–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Hiepe P, Gussew A, Rzanny R, Kurz E, Anders C, Walther M, et al. Age-related structural and functional changes of low back muscles. Exp Gerontol. 2015;65:23–34.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Hyun JK, Lee JY, Lee SJ, Jeon JY. Asymmetric atrophy of multifidus muscle in patients with unilateral lumbosacral radiculopathy. Spine. 2007;32(21):E598–602.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Jiang J, Wang H, Wang L, Zhang B, Guo Q, Yuan W, et al. Multifidus degeneration, a new risk factor for lumbar spinal stenosis: A case-control study. World Neurosurg. 2017;99:226–31.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Johnson GM, Zhang M. Regional differences within the human supraspinous and interspinous ligaments: A sheet plastination study. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(4):382–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Kader D, Radha S, Banaszkiewicz PA, Stocker M, Dunbar-Smith L, Smith FW. Gym ball exercise leads to recruitment and increased water content of the paraspinal muscles: An MRI pilot study. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2008;21(2):77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Kamaz M, Kiresi D, Oguz H, Emlik D, Levendoglu F. CT measurement of trunk muscle areas in patients with chronic low back pain. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2007;13(3):144–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Kang CH, Shin MJ, Kim SM, Lee SH, Lee CS. MRI of paraspinal muscles in lumbar degenerative kyphosis patients and control patients with chronic low back pain. Clin Radiol. 2007;62(5):479–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Kang JI, Kim SY, Kim JH, Bang H, Lee IS. The location of multifidus atrophy in patients with a single level, unilateral lumbar radiculopathy. Ann Rehabil Med. 2013;37(4):498–504.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Katsu M, Ohba T, Ebata S, Haro H. Comparative study of the paraspinal muscles after OVF between the insufficient union and sufficient union using MRI. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):143.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Kiesel KB, Uhl TL, Underwood FB, Rodd DW, Nitz AJ. Measurement of lumbar multifidus muscle contraction with rehabilitative ultrasound imaging. Man Ther. 2007;12(2):161–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Kiesel KB, Uhl T, Underwood FB, Nitz AJ. Rehabilitative ultrasound measurement of select trunk muscle activation during induced pain. Man Ther. 2008;13(2):132–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Koppenhaver SL, Fritz JM, Hebert JJ, Kawchuk GN, Parent EC, Gill NW, et al. Association between history and physical examination factors and change in lumbar multifidus muscle thickness after spinal manipulation in patients with low back pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012;22(5):724–31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Kulig K, Scheid AR, Beauregard R, Popovich JM Jr, Beneck GJ, Colletti PM. Multifidus morphology in persons scheduled for single-level lumbar microdiscectomy: Qualitative and quantitative assessment with anatomical correlates. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88(5):355–61.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Lariviere C, Gagnon DH, Henry SM, Preuss R, Dumas JP. The effects of an 8-week stabilization exercise program on lumbar multifidus muscle thickness and activation as measured with ultrasound imaging in patients with low back pain: An exploratory study. PM R. 2018;10(5):483–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Lee HI, Lee ST, Kim M, Ryu JS. Sex differences in predicting chronicity of low-back pain after acute trauma using lumbar muscle area. Am J Phys Med Rehabil Assoc Acad Phys. 2014;94(2):123–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Lee SH, Park SW, Kim YB, Nam TK, Lee YS. The fatty degeneration of lumbar paraspinal muscles on computed tomography scan according to age and disc level. Spine J. 2017;17(1):81–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Liu IS, Chai HM, Yang JL, Wang SF. Inter-session reliability of the measurement of the deep and superficial layer of lumbar multifidus in young asymptomatic people and patients with low back pain using ultrasonography. Manual Ther. 2013;18(6):481–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Macdonald DA, Dawson AP, Hodges PW. Behavior of the lumbar multifidus during lower extremity movements in people with recurrent low back pain during symptom remission. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;41(3):155–64.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    Masaki M, Ikezoe T, Fukumoto Y, Minami S, Tsukagoshi R, Sakuma K, et al. Association of sagittal spinal alignment with thickness and echo intensity of lumbar back muscles in middle-aged and elderly women. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2015;61(2):197–201.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Masse-Alarie H, Beaulieu LD, Preuss R, Schneider C. Corticomotor control of lumbar multifidus muscles is impaired in chronic low back pain: concurrent evidence from ultrasound imaging and double-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation. Exp Brain Res. 2016;234(4):1033–45.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Oh J, Jung JY, Ko YJ. Can diffusion tensor imaging and tractography represent cross-sectional area of lumbar multifidus in patients with LUMBAR spine disease? Muscle Nerve. 2018;57(2):200–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Paalanne N, Niinimaki J, Karppinen J, Taimela S, Mutanen P, Takatalo J, et al. Assessment of association between low back pain and paraspinal muscle atrophy using opposed-phase magnetic resonance imaging: a population-based study among young adults. Spine. 2011;36(23):1961–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    Pressler JF, Heiss DG, Buford JA, Chidley JV. Between-day repeatability and symmetry of multifidus cross-sectional area measured using ultrasound imaging. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(1):10–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Ranson CA, Burnett AF, Kerslake R, Batt ME, O'Sullivan PB. An investigation into the use of MR imaging to determine the functional cross sectional area of lumbar paraspinal muscles. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(6):764–73.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Ranson C, Burnett A, O'Sullivan P, Batt M, Kerslake R. The lumbar paraspinal muscle morphometry of fast bowlers in cricket. Clin J Sport Med. 2008;18(1):31–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Sakai W, Nakane S, Urasaki E, Toyoda K, Sadakata E, Nagaishi A, et al. The cross-sectional area of paraspinal muscles predicts the efficacy of deep drain stimulation for camptocormia. J Park Dis. 2017;7(2):247–53.

    Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Sions JM, Velasco TO, Teyhen DS, Hicks GE. Reliability of ultrasound imaging for the assessment of lumbar multifidi thickness in older adults with chronic low back pain. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2015;38(1):33–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Sions JM, Teyhen DS, Hicks GE. Criterion validity of ultrasound imaging: assessment of multifidi cross-sectional area in older adults with and without chronic low back pain. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2017;40(2):74–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    Sitilertpisan P, Hides J, Stanton W, Paungmali A, Pirunsan U. Multifidus muscle size and symmetry among elite weightlifters. Phys Ther Sport. 2012;13(1):11–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Smuck M, Crisostomo RA, Demirjian R, Fitch DS, Kennedy DJ, Geisser ME. Morphologic changes in the lumbar spine after lumbar medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy: a quantitative radiological study. Spine J. 2015;15(6):1415–21.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Stokes M, Rankin G, Newham DJ. Ultrasound imaging of lumbar multifidus muscle: normal reference ranges for measurements and practical guidance on the technique. Man Ther. 2005;10(2):116–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Storheim K, Berg L, Hellum C, Gjertsen Ã, Neckelmann G, Espeland A, et al. Fat in the lumbar multifidus muscles - predictive value and change following disc prosthesis surgery and multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc: 2-year follow-up of a randomized trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1).

  151. 151.

    Suh DW, Kim Y, Lee M, Lee S, Park SJ, Yoon B. Reliability of histographic analysis for paraspinal muscle degeneration in patients with unilateral back pain using magnetic resonance imaging. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabilit. 2017;30(3):403–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Sweeney N, O'Sullivan C, Kelly G. Multifidus muscle size and percentage thickness changes among patients with unilateral chronic low back pain (CLBP) and healthy controls in prone and standing. Man Ther. 2014;19(5):433–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Tabaraee E, Ahn J, Bohl DD, Phillips FM, Singh K. Quantification of multifidus atrophy and fatty infiltration following a minimally invasive microdiscectomy. Int J Spine Surg. 2015;9:25.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  154. 154.

    Teichtahl AJ, Urquhart DM, Wang Y, Wluka AE, Wijethilake P, O'Sullivan R, et al. Fat infiltration of paraspinal muscles is associated with low back pain, disability, and structural abnormalities in community-based adults. Spine J. 2015;15(7):1593–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. 155.

    Teichtahl AJ, Urquhart DM, Wang Y, Wluka AE, O'Sullivan R, Jones G, et al. Physical inactivity is associated with narrower lumbar intervertebral discs, high fat content of paraspinal muscles and low back pain and disability. Arthritis Res Ther. 2015;17:114.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  156. 156.

    Teyhen DS, Childs JD, Stokes MJ, Wright AC, Dugan JL, George SZ. Abdominal and lumbar multifidus muscle size and symmetry at rest and during contracted States. Normative reference ranges. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31(7):1099–110.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  157. 157.

    Urrutia J, Besa P, Lobos D, Andia M, Arrieta C, Uribe S. Is a single-level measurement of paraspinal muscle fat infiltration and cross-sectional area representative of the entire lumbar spine? Skelet Radiol. 2018;47(7):939–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. 158.

    Van K, Hides JA, Richardson CA. The use of real-time ultrasound imaging for biofeedback of lumbar multifidus muscle contraction in healthy subjects. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(12):920–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  159. 159.

    Wallwork TL, Hides JA, Stanton WR. Intrarater and interrater reliability of assessment of lumbar multifidus muscle thickness using rehabilitative ultrasound imaging. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(10):608–12.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  160. 160.

    Wallwork TL, Stanton WR, Freke M, Hides JA. The effect of chronic low back pain on size and contraction of the lumbar multifidus muscle. Man Ther. 2009;14(5):496–500.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  161. 161.

    Wan Q, Lin C, Li X, Zeng W, Ma C. MRI assessment of paraspinal muscles in patients with acute and chronic unilateral low back pain. Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1053):20140546.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  162. 162.

    Watanabe K, Ohashi M, Hirano T, Katsumi K, Shoji H, Mizouchi T, et al. The influence of lumbar muscle volume on curve progression after skeletal maturity in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A long-term follow-up study. Spine Deform. 2018.

  163. 163.

    Wilson A, Hides JA, Blizzard L, Callisaya M, Cooper A, Srikanth VK, et al. Measuring ultrasound images of abdominal and lumbar multifidus muscles in older adults: A reliability study. Man Ther. 2016;23:114–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  164. 164.

    Worsley PR, Smith N, Warner MB, Stokes M. Ultrasound transducer shape has no effect on measurements of lumbar multifidus muscle size. Man Ther. 2012;17(2):187–91.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  165. 165.

    Yagi M, Hosogane N, Watanabe K, Asazuma T, Matsumoto M. The paravertebral muscle and psoas for the maintenance of global spinal alignment in patient with degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine J. 2016;16(4):451–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. 166.

    Yanik B, Keyik B, Conkbayir I. Fatty degeneration of multifidus muscle in patients with chronic low back pain and in asymptomatic volunteers: quantification with chemical shift magnetic resonance imaging. Skelet Radiol. 2013;42(6):771–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. 167.

    Zielinski KA, Henry SM, Ouellette-Morton RH, DeSarno MJ. Lumbar multifidus muscle thickness does not predict patients with low back pain who improve with trunk stabilization exercises. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(6):1132–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  168. 168.

    Zotti MGT, Boas FV, Clifton T, Piche M, Yoon WW, Freeman BJC. Does pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar multifidus muscle predict clinical outcomes following lumbar spinal decompression for symptomatic spinal stenosis? Eur Spine J. 2017;26(10):2589–97.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  169. 169.

    Azadinia F, Ebrahimi Takamjani I, Kamyab M, Kalbassi G, Sarrafzadeh J, Parnianpour M. The effect of lumbosacral orthosis on the thickness of deep trunk muscles using ultrasound imaging: A randomized controlled trial in patients with chronic low back pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabilit. 2019.

  170. 170.

    Banno T, Arima H, Hasegawa T, Yamato Y, Togawa D, Yoshida G, et al. The effect of paravertebral muscle on the maintenance of upright posture in patients with adult spinal deformity. Spine Deform. 2019;7(1):125–31.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  171. 171.

    Belavy DL, Quittner M, Ridgers ND, Ling Y, Connell D, Trudel G, et al. Beneficial intervertebral disc and muscle adaptations in high-volume road cyclists. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(1):211–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  172. 172.

    Berry DB, Padwal J, Johnson S, Englund EK, Ward SR, Shahidi B. The effect of high-intensity resistance exercise on lumbar musculature in patients with low back pain: a preliminary study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):290.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  173. 173.

    Burkhart K, Allaire B, Bouxsein ML. Negative effects of long-duration spaceflight on paraspinal muscle morphology. Spine. 2019;44(12):879–86.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  174. 174.

    Crawford RJ, Volken T, Mhuiris ÁN, Bow CC, Elliott JM, Hoggarth MA, et al. Geography of lumbar paravertebral muscle fatty infiltration: The influence of demographics, low back pain, and disability. Spine. 2019.

  175. 175.

    Emami F, Yoosefinejad AK, Razeghi M. Correlations between core muscle geometry, pain intensity, functional disability and postural balance in patients with nonspecific mechanical low back pain. Med Eng Phys. 2018;60:39–46.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  176. 176.

    Fortin M, Rizk A, Frenette S, Boily M, Rivaz H. Ultrasonography of multifidus muscle morphology and function in ice hockey players with and without low back pain. Phys Ther Sport. 2019;37:77–85.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  177. 177.

    Hanimoglu H, Cevik S, Yilmaz H, Kaplan A, Calis F, Katar S, et al. Effects of modic type 1 changes in the vertebrae on low back pain. World Neurosurg. 2019;121:e426–e32.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  178. 178.

    Huang CWC, Tseng IJ, Yang SW, Lin YK, Chan WP. Lumbar muscle volume in postmenopausal women with osteoporotic compression fractures: quantitative measurement using MRI. Eur Radiol. 2019.

  179. 179.

    Lindstrom I, Khan N, Vanttinen T, Peltokangas M, Sillanpaa N, Oksala N. Psoas muscle area and quality are independent predictors of survival in patients treated for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg. 2019;56:183–93 e3.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  180. 180.

    Liu Y, Liu Y, Hai Y, Liu T, Guan L, Chen X. Fat infiltration in the multifidus muscle as a predictor of prognosis after decompression and fusion in patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: An ambispective cohort study based on propensity score matching. World Neurosurg. 2019.

  181. 181.

    Mannil M, Burgstaller JM, Thanabalasingam A, Winklhofer S, Betz M, Held U, et al. Texture analysis of paraspinal musculature in MRI of the lumbar spine: analysis of the lumbar stenosis outcome study (LSOS) data. Skeletal Rad. 2018;47(7):947–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. 182.

    Menezes-Reis R, Bonugli GP, Salmon CEG, Mazoroski D, Da Silva Herrero CFP, Nogueira-Barbosa MH. Relationship of spinal alignment with muscular volume and fat infiltration of lumbar trunk muscles. PLoS One. 2018;13(7).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  183. 183.

    Minetto MA, Gamerro G, Gays G, Vigo S, Caresio C, Gorji NE, et al. Effectiveness of an innovative mattress overlay for improving rehabilitation in low back pain: A pilot randomized controlled study. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2018;31(6):1075–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  184. 184.

    Quittner M, Rantalainen T, Ridgers ND, Trudel G, Sheikh A, Connell D, et al. Intervertebral disc status is associated with vertebral marrow adipose tissue and muscular endurance. Eur Spine J. 2018.

  185. 185.

    Rezazadeh F, Taheri N, Okhravi SM, Hosseini SM. The relationship between cross-sectional area of multifidus muscle and disability index in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. Musculoskel Sci Pract. 2019;42:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  186. 186.

    Sarafraz H, Hadian MR, Ayoobi Yazdi N, Olyaei G, Bagheri H, Jalaei S, et al. Neuromuscular morphometric characteristics in low back pain with unilateral radiculopathy caused by disc herniation: An ultrasound imaging evaluation. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019;40:80–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  187. 187.

    Sadeghi S, Quinlan K, Eilertson KE, Billy GG, Bible J, Sions JM, et al. Changes in shear modulus of the lumbar multifidus muscle during different body positions. J Biomech Eng. 2019;141(8).

  188. 188.

    Shadani A, Mohseni Bandpei MA, Rahmani N, Bassampour SA. A comparison of the abdominal and lumbar multifidus muscle size in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis and healthy patients at rest and during contraction using ultrasonography. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2018;41(8):691–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. 189.

    Sions JM, Crippen DC, Hicks GE, Alroumi AM, Manal TJ, Pohlig RT. Exploring neuromuscular electrical stimulation intensity effects on multifidus muscle activity in adults with chronic low back pain: An ultrasound imaging-informed investigation. Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;12:1179544119849570.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  190. 190.

    Smyers Evanson A, Myrer JW, Eggett DL, Mitchell UH, Johnson AW. Multifidus muscle size and symmetry in ballroom dancers with and without low back pain. Int J Sports Med. 2018.

  191. 191.

    Takashima H, Takebayashi T, Ogon I, Yoshimoto M, Morita T, Imamura R, et al. Analysis of intra and extramyocellular lipids in the multifidus muscle in patients with chronic low back pain using MR spectroscopy. Br J Radiol. 2018;91(1083):20170536.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  192. 192.

    Wagner SC, Sebastian AS, McKenzie JC, Butler JS, Kaye ID, Morrissey PB, et al. Severe lumbar disability is associated with decreased psoas cross-sectional area in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Glob Spine J. 2018;8(7):716–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  193. 193.

    Wesselink E, de Raaij E, Pevenage P, van der Kaay N, Pool J. Fear-avoidance beliefs are associated with a high fat content in the erector spinae: a 1.5 tesla magnetic resonance imaging study. Chiropr Man Ther. 2019;27:14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. 194.

    Alejaldre A, Diaz-Manera J, Ravaglia S, Tibaldi EC, D'Amore F, Moris G, et al. Trunk muscle involvement in late-onset Pompe disease: study of thirty patients. Neuromuscular Dis. 2012;22(Suppl 2):S148–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  195. 195.

    Arocho-Quinones EV, Kolimas A, LaViolette PS, Kaufman BA, Foy AB, Zwienenberg M, et al. Split laminotomy versus conventional laminotomy: postoperative outcomes in pediatric patients. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2018;21(6):615–25.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  196. 196.

    Atci IB, Yilmaz H, Samanci MY, Baran O, Yaman M. Rare case of complete fatty degeneration of the paraspinal muscle in a patient with low back pain. J Clin Analytical Med. 2016;7(2):276–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. 197.

    Baek SO, Ahn SH, Jones R, Cho HK, Jung GS, Cho YW, et al. Activations of deep lumbar stabilizing muscles by transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation of lumbar paraspinal regions. Ann Rehabil Med. 2014;38(4):506–13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  198. 198.

    Baek SO, Cho HK, Jung GS, Son SM, Cho YW, Ahn SH. Verification of an optimized stimulation point on the abdominal wall for transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation for activation of deep lumbar stabilizing muscles. Spine J. 2014;14(9):2178–83.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  199. 199.

    Baek SO, Cho HK, Kim SY, Jones R, Cho YW, Ahn SH. Changes in deep lumbar stabilizing muscle thickness by transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation in patients with low back pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2017;30(1):121–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  200. 200.

    Battaglia PJ, Maeda Y, Welk A, Hough B, Kettner N. Reliability of the Goutallier classification in quantifying muscle fatty degeneration in the lumbar multifidus using magnetic resonance imaging. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2014;37(3):190–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  201. 201.

    Belavy DL, Hides JA, Wilson SJ, Stanton W, Dimeo FC, Rittweger J, et al. Resistive simulated weightbearing exercise with whole body vibration reduces lumbar spine deconditioning in bed-rest. Spine. 2008;33(5):E121–31.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  202. 202.

    Belavy DL, Armbrecht G, Gast U, Richardson CA, Hides JA, Felsenberg D. Countermeasures against lumbar spine deconditioning in prolonged bed rest: resistive exercise with and without whole body vibration. J Appl Physiol. 2010;109(6):1801–11.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  203. 203.

    Belavy DL, Armbrecht G, Richardson CA, Felsenberg D, Hides JA. Muscle atrophy and changes in spinal morphology: is the lumbar spine vulnerable after prolonged bed-rest? Spine. 2011;36(2):137–45.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  204. 204.

    Brenner AK, Gill NW, Buscema CJ, Kiesel K. Improved activation of lumbar multifidus following spinal manipulation: a case report applying rehabilitative ultrasound imaging. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(10):613–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  205. 205.

    Campbell WW, Vasconcelos O, Laine FJ. Focal atrophy of the multifidus muscle in lumbosacral radiculopathy. Muscle Nerve. 1998;21(10):1350–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  206. 206.

    Chen YY, Pao JL, Liaw CK, Hsu WL, Yang RS. Image changes of paraspinal muscles and clinical correlations in patients with unilateral lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(5):999–1006.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  207. 207.

    Chen ZN, Yao XM, Lv Y, He BJ, Ye JC, Shao RX, et al. Morphology of the lumbar multifidus muscle in lumbar disc herniation at different durations and at different ages. Exp Ther Med. 2018;15(5):4119–26.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  208. 208.

    Chung S, Lee J, Yoon J. Effects of stabilization exercise using a ball on mutifidus cross-sectional area in patients with chronic low back pain. J Sports Sci Med. 2013;12(3):533–41.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  209. 209.

    Danneels LA, Vanderstraeten GG, Cambier DC, Witvrouw EE, De Cuyper HJ, Danneels L. CT imaging of trunk muscles in chronic low back pain patients and healthy control subjects. Eur Spine J. 2000;9(4):266–72.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  210. 210.

    Danneels L, Cagnie B, D’hooge R, de Deene Y, Crombez G, Vanderstraeten G, et al. The effect of experimental low back pain on lumbar muscle activity in people with a history of clinical low back pain: A muscle functional MRI study. J Neurophysiol. 2016;115(2):851–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  211. 211.

    De Ridder EM, Van Oosterwijck JO, Vleeming A, Vanderstraeten GG, Danneels LA. Muscle functional MRI analysis of trunk muscle recruitment during extension exercises in asymptomatic individuals. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(2):196–204.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  212. 212.

    Debuse D, Birch O, St Clair Gibson A, Caplan N. Low impact weight-bearing exercise in an upright posture increases the activation of two key local muscles of the lumbo-pelvic region. Physiother Theory Pract. 2013;29(1):51–60.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  213. 213.

    Dickx N, Cagnie B, Parlevliet T, Lavens A, Danneels L. The effect of unilateral muscle pain on recruitment of the lumbar multifidus during automatic contraction. An experimental pain study. Man Ther. 2010;15(4):364–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  214. 214.

    Djordjevic O, Djordjevic A, Konstantinovic L. Interrater and intrarater reliability of transverse abdominal and lumbar multifidus muscle thickness in subjects with and without low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(12):979–88.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  215. 215.

    Dreyfuss P, Stout A, Aprill C, Pollei S, Johnson B, Bogduk N. The significance of multifidus atrophy after successful radiofrequency neurotomy for low back pain. PM R. 2009;1(8):719–22.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  216. 216.

    Ekin EE, Kurtul Yildiz H, Mutlu H. Age and sex-based distribution of lumbar multifidus muscle atrophy and coexistence of disc hernia: an MRI study of 2028 patients. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2016;22(3):273–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  217. 217.

    Fischer MA, Nanz D, Shimakawa A, Schirmer T, Guggenberger R, Chhabra A, et al. Quantification of muscle fat in patients with low back pain: comparison of multi-echo MR imaging with single-voxel MR spectroscopy. Radiology. 2013;266(2):555–63.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  218. 218.

    Fortin M, Videman T, Gibbons LE, Battie MC. Paraspinal muscle morphology and composition: a 15-yr longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging study. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(5):893–901.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  219. 219.

    Fortin M, LazÃiry Ã, Varga PP, MC BÃ. Association between paraspinal muscle morphology, clinical symptoms and functional status in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(10):2543–51.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  220. 220.

    Goubert D, De Pauw R, Meeus M, Willems T, Cagnie B, Schouppe S, et al. Lumbar muscle structure and function in chronic versus recurrent low back pain: a cross-sectional study. Spine J. 2017;17(9):1285–96.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  221. 221.

    Hides JA, Stanton WR. Predicting football injuries using size and ratio of the multifidus and quadratus lumborum muscles. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017;27(4):440–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  222. 222.

    Hides JA, Richardson CA, Jull GA. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography of the lumbar multifidus muscle. Comparison of two different modalities. Spine. 1995;20(1):54–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  223. 223.

    Hides JA, Lambrecht G, Richardson CA, Stanton WR, Armbrecht G, Pruett C, et al. The effects of rehabilitation on the muscles of the trunk following prolonged bed rest. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(5):808–18.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  224. 224.

    Hussein M, Hussein T. Effect of autologous platelet leukocyte rich plasma injections on atrophied lumbar multifidus muscle in low back pain patients with monosegmental degenerative disc disease. Sicot J. 2016;2:12.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  225. 225.

    Kanchiku T, Imajo Y, Suzuki H, Yoshida Y, Nishida N, Taguchi T. Percutaneous radiofrequency facet joint denervation with monitoring of compound muscle action potential of the multifidus muscle group for treating chronic low back pain: a preliminary report. J Spinal Dis Techniques. 2014;27(7):E262–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  226. 226.

    Koppenhaver SL, Parent EC, Teyhen DS, Hebert JJ, Fritz JM. The effect of averaging multiple trials on measurement error during ultrasound imaging of transversus abdominis and lumbar multifidus muscles in individuals with low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39(8):604–11.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  227. 227.

    Koppenhaver SL, Fritz JM, Hebert JJ, Kawchuk GN, Childs JD, Parent EC, et al. Association between changes in abdominal and lumbar multifidus muscle thickness and clinical improvement after spinal manipulation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;41(6):389–99.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  228. 228.

    Larrie-Baghal M, Bakhtiary AH, Rezasoltani A, Hedayati R, Ghorbani R. Multiplying linear dimension techniques may predict the cross-sectional area of multifidus muscle at all levels of lumbar spine. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2012;25(3):171–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  229. 229.

    Lee SW, Chan CK, Lam TS, Lam C, Lau NC, Lau RW, et al. Relationship between low back pain and lumbar multifidus size at different postures. Spine. 2006;31(19):2258–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  230. 230.

    Mayer JM, Nuzzo JL. Worksite back and core exercise in firefighters: Effect on development of lumbar multifidus muscle size. Work. 2015;50(4):621–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  231. 231.

    Mangum LC, Sutherlin MA, Saliba SA, Hart JM. Reliability of ultrasound imaging measures of transverse abdominis and lumbar multifidus in various positions. PM R. 2016;8(4):340–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  232. 232.

    McKiernan S, Chiarelli P, Warren-Forward H. The content of a training package in diagnostic ultrasound for physiotherapists. Sonography. 2015;2(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  233. 233.

    Nabavi N, Mosallanezhad Z, Haghighatkhah HR, Ali Mohseni Bandpeid M. Reliability of rehabilitative Ultrasonography to measure transverse abdominis and multifidus muscle dimensions. Iran J Radiol. 2014;11(3).

  234. 234.

    Nuzzo JL, Mayer JM. Body mass normalisation for ultrasound measurements of lumbar multifidus and abdominal muscle size. Man Ther. 2013;18(3):237–42.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  235. 235.

    Nuzzo JL, Haun DW, Mayer JM. Ultrasound measurements of lumbar multifidus and abdominal muscle size in firefighters. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2014;27(4):427–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  236. 236.

    Partner SL, Sutherlin MA, Acocello S, Saliba SA, Magrum EM, Hart JM. Changes in muscle thickness after exercise and biofeedback in people with low back pain. J Sport Rehabil. 2014;23(4):307–18.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  237. 237.

    Scott IR, Vaughan ARS, Hall J. Swiss ball enhances lumbar multifidus activity in chronic low back pain. Phys Ther Sport. 2015;16(1):40–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  238. 238.

    Sebro R, O'Brien L, Torriani M, Bredella MA. Assessment of trunk muscle density using CT and its association with degenerative disc and facet joint disease of the lumbar spine. Skelet Radiol. 2016;45(9):1221–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  239. 239.

    Seung JH, Young BK, Yang SK, Seung WP, Taek KN, Hyun JH, et al. Postoperative changes in paraspinal muscle volume: Comparison between paramedian interfascial and midline approaches for lumbar fusion. J Korean Med Sci. 2007;22(4):646–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  240. 240.

    Shafaq N, Suzuki A, Matsumura A, Terai H, Toyoda H, Yasuda H, et al. Asymmetric degeneration of paravertebral muscles in patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine. 2012;37(16):1398–406.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  241. 241.

    Shahidi B, Parra CL, Berry DB, Hubbard JC, Gombatto S, Zlomislic V, et al. Contribution of lumbar spine pathology and age to paraspinal muscle size and fatty infiltration. Spine. 2017;42(8):616–23.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  242. 242.

    Shahtahmassebi B, Hebert JJ, Hecimovich MD, Fairchild TJ. Associations between trunk muscle morphology, strength and function in older adults. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):10907.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  243. 243.

    Stokes MJ, Cooper RG, Morris G, Jayson MIV. Selective changes in multifidus dimensions in patients with chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 1992;1(1):38–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  244. 244.

    Tonomura H, Hatta Y, Mikami Y, Ikeda T, Harada T, Nagae M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of the effects of surgical invasiveness on paravertebral muscles after Muscle-preserving Interlaminar Decompression (MILD). Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(2):E76–e82.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  245. 245.

    Urrutia J, Besa P, Lobos D, Campos M, Arrieta C, Andia M, et al. Lumbar paraspinal muscle fat infiltration is independently associated with sex, age, and inter-vertebral disc degeneration in symptomatic patients. Skelet Radiol. 2018;47(7):955–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  246. 246.

    Valentin S, Licka T, Elliott J. Age and side-related morphometric MRI evaluation of trunk muscles in people without back pain. Man Ther. 2015;20(1):90–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  247. 247.

    Valentin S, Yeates TD, Licka T, Elliott J. Inter-rater reliability of trunk muscle morphometric analysis. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2015;28(1):181–90.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  248. 248.

    Watson T, McPherson S, Starr K. The association of nutritional status and gender with cross-sectional area of the multifidus muscle in establishing normative data. J Man Manipulative Ther. 2008;16(4):E93–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  249. 249.

    Willemink MJ, van Es HW, Helmhout PH, Diederik AL, Kelder JC, van Heesewijk JP. The effects of dynamic isolated lumbar extensor training on lumbar multifidus functional cross-sectional area and functional status of patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Spine. 2012;37(26):E1651–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  250. 250.

    Winslow J, Getzin A, Greenberger H, Silbert W. Fatty infiltrate of the lumbar multifidus muscles predicts return to play in young athletes with extension-based low back pain. Clin J Sport Med. 2017.

  251. 251.

    Wong AY, Parent EC, Kawchuk GN. Reliability of 2 ultrasonic imaging analysis methods in quantifying lumbar multifidus thickness. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43(4):251–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  252. 252.

    Woodham M, Woodham A, Skeate JG, Freeman M. Long-term lumbar multifidus muscle atrophy changes documented with magnetic resonance imaging: a case series. J Radiol Case Rep. 2014;8(5):27–34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  253. 253.

    Aboufazeli M, Akbari M, Jamshidi AA, Jafarpisheh MS. Comparison of selective local and global muscle thicknesses in females with and without chronic low back pain. Ortopedia Traumatol Rehabilitacja. 2018;20(3):197–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  254. 254.

    Agten A, Verbrugghe J, Stevens S, Boomgaert L, B OE, Timmermans A, et al. Feasibility, accuracy and safety of a percutaneous fine-needle biopsy technique to obtain qualitative muscle samples of the lumbar multifidus and erector spinae muscle in persons with low back pain. J Anat. 2018;233(4):542–51.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  255. 255.

    Creze M, Bedretdinova D, Soubeyrand M, Rocher L, Gennisson JL, Gagey O, et al. Posture-related stiffness mapping of paraspinal muscles. J Anat. 2019;234(6):787–99.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  256. 256.

    Izumoto Y, Kurihara T, Suga T, Isaka T. Bilateral differences in the trunk muscle volume of skilled golfers. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0214752.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  257. 257.

    Lorbergs AL, Allaire BT, Yang L, Kiel DP, Cupples LA, Jarraya M, et al. A longitudinal study of trunk muscle properties and severity of thoracic kyphosis in women and men: The Framingham Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018.

  258. 258.

    Murillo C, Falla D, Sanderson A, Rushton A, Heneghan NR. Shear wave elastography investigation of multifidus stiffness in individuals with low back pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2019;47:19–24.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  259. 259.

    Pishnamaz M, Schemmann U, Herren C, Horst K, Hildebrand F, Kobbe P, et al. Limitations in clinical outcome after posterior stabilization of thoracolumbar fractures do not correlate with dynamic trunk muscle dysfunction: an ultrasound controlled prospective cohort study. Eur J Med Res. 2018;23(1):26.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  260. 260.

    Xiao Y, Fortin M, Battie MC, Rivaz H. Population-averaged MRI atlases for automated image processing and assessments of lumbar paraspinal muscles. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(10):2442–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  261. 261.

    Xie D, Zhang J, Ding W, Yang S, Yang D, Ma L, et al. Abnormal change of paravertebral muscle in adult degenerative scoliosis and its association with bony structural parameters. Eur Spine J. 2019.

  262. 262.

    Yaltirik K, Gudu BO, Isik Y, Altunok C, Tipi U, Atalay B. Volumetric muscle measurements indicate significant muscle degeneration in single-level disc herniation patients. World Neurosurg. 2018.

  263. 263.

    Yoshiko A, Kaji T, Sugiyama H, Koike T, Oshida Y, Akima H. Muscle quality characteristics of muscles in the thigh, upper arm and lower back in elderly men and women. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2018;118(7):1385–95.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  264. 264.

    Yurdakul OV, Beydoğan E, Yalçınkaya EY. Effects of physical therapy agents on pain, disability, quality of life, and lumbar paravertebral muscle stiffness via elastography in patients with chronic low back pain. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;65(1):30–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  265. 265.

    Zhang Y, Zhou Z, Wang C, Cheng X, Wang L, Duanmu Y, et al. Reliability of measuring the fat content of the lumbar vertebral marrow and paraspinal muscles using MRI mDIXON-Quant sequence. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2018;24(5):302–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  266. 266.

    Zhu HF, Wang GL, Zhou ZJ, Fan SW. Prospective study of long-term effect between multifidus muscle bundle and conventional open approach in one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Surg. 2018;10(4):296–305.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  267. 267.

    Akgul O, Gulkesen A, Akgol G, Ozgocmen S. MR-defined fat infiltration of the lumbar paravertebral muscles differs between non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis and established ankylosing spondylitis. Mod Rheumatol. 2013;23(4):811–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  268. 268.

    Anaya A, Plantmason L, Dhaliwal G. Back attack. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(1):255–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  269. 269.

    Barker KL, Shamley DR, Jackson D. Changes in the cross-sectional area of multifidus and psoas in patients with unilateral back pain: the relationship to pain and disability. Spine. 2004;29(22):E515–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  270. 270.

    Bouche KGW, Vanovermeire O, Stevens VK, Coorevits PL, Caemaert JJ, Cambier DC, et al. Computed tomographic analysis of the quality of trunk muscles in asymptomatic and symptomatic lumbar discectomy patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12.

  271. 271.

    Cai C, Kong PW. Low back and lower-limb muscle performance in male and female recreational runners with chronic low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45(6):436–43.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  272. 272.

    Fan SW, Hu ZJ, Fang XQ, Zhao FD, Huang Y, Yu HJ. Comparison of paraspinal muscle injury in one-level lumbar posterior inter-body fusion: modified minimally invasive and traditional open approaches. Orthop Surg. 2010;2(3):194–200.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  273. 273.

    Gala-Alarcon P, Calvo-Lobo C, Serrano-Imedio A, Garrido-Marin A, Martin-Casas P, Plaza-Manzano G. Ultrasound evaluation of the abdominal wall and lumbar multifidus muscles in participants who practice pilates: A 1-year follow-up case series. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2018.

  274. 274.

    Gilbert F, Heintel TM, Jakubietz MG, KÃstler H, Sebald C, Meffert RH, et al. Quantitative MRI comparison of multifidus muscle degeneration in thoracolumbar fractures treated with open and minimally invasive approach. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1).

  275. 275.

    Hadar H, Gadoth N, Heifetz M. Fatty replacement of lower paraspinal muscles: normal and neuromuscular disorders. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983;141(5):895–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  276. 276.

    Han JS, Ahn JY, Goel VK, Takeuchi R, McGowan D. CT-based geometric data of human spine musculature. Part I. Japanese patients with chronic low back pain. J Spinal Disord. 1992;5(4):448–58.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  277. 277.

    Hides JA, Stanton WR, Mendis MD, Gildea J, Sexton MJ. Effect of motor control training on muscle size and football games missed from injury. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(6):1141–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  278. 278.

    Hildebrandt M, Fankhauser G, Meichtry A, Luomajoki H. Correlation between lumbar dysfunction and fat infiltration in lumbar multifidus muscles in patients with low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):12.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  279. 279.

    Hung CW, Wu MF, Hong RT, Weng MJ, Yu GF, Kao CH. Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with conventional and cortical bone trajectory. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;145:41–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  280. 280.

    Junhui L, Zhengbao P, Wenbin X, Lu H, Shengyun L, Shunwu F, et al. Comparison of pedicle fixation by the Wiltse approach and the conventional posterior open approach for thoracolumbar fractures, using MRI, histological and electrophysiological analyses of the multifidus muscle. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(5):1506–14.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  281. 281.

    Kalichman L, Hodges P, Li L, Guermazi A, Hunter DJ. Changes in paraspinal muscles and their association with low back pain and spinal degeneration: CT study. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(7):1136–44.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  282. 282.

    Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK, Lee HY. Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine. 2005;30(1):123–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  283. 283.

    Kim H, Lee CK, Yeom JS, Lee JH, Cho JH, Shin SI, et al. Asymmetry of the cross-sectional area of paravertebral and psoas muscle in patients with degenerative scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(6):1332–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  284. 284.

    Koppenhaver S, Kniss J, Lilley D, Oates M, FernÃndez-de-las-PeÃas C, Maher R, et al. Reliability of ultrasound shear-wave elastography in assessing low back musculature elasticity in asymptomatic individuals. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2018;39:49–57.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  285. 285.

    MacDonald D, Moseley GL, Hodges PW. Why do some patients keep hurting their back? Evidence of ongoing back muscle dysfunction during remission from recurrent back pain. Pain. 2009;142(3):183–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  286. 286.

    Skeie EJ, Borge JA, Leboeuf-Yde C, Bolton J, Wedderkopp N. Reliability of diagnostic ultrasound in measuring the multifidus muscle. Chiropractic Man Ther. 2015;23:15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  287. 287.

    Sugawara K, Katayose M, Watanabe K. The variation in the lumbar facet joint orientation in an adult Asian population and its relationship with the cross-sectional area of the multifidus and erector spinae. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(5):886–92.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  288. 288.

    Tucker KJ, Fels M, Walker SR, Hodges PW. Comparison of location, depth, quality, and intensity of experimentally induced pain in 6 low back muscles. Clin J Pain. 2014;30(9):800–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  289. 289.

    Wiltse LL, Spencer CW. New uses and refinements of the paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine. Spine. 1988;13(6):696–706.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  290. 290.

    Andersen K, Baardsen R, Dalen I, Larsen JP. Impact of exercise programs among helicopter pilots with transient LBP. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):269.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  291. 291.

    Arts M, Brand R, van der Kallen B, à Nijeholt GL, Peul W. Does minimally invasive lumbar disc surgery result in less muscle injury than conventional surgery? A randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J 2011;20(1):51–57.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  292. 292.

    Bae SH, Lee HG, Kim YE, Kim GY, Jung HW, Kim KY. Effects of trunk stabilization exercises on different support surfaces on the cross-sectional area of the trunk muscles and balance ability. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013;25(6):741–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  293. 293.

    Bailey JF, Miller SL, Khieu K, O'Neill CW, Healey RM, Coughlin DG, et al. From the international space station to the clinic: how prolonged unloading may disrupt lumbar spine stability. Spine J. 2018;18(1):7–14.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  294. 294.

    Chan ST, Fung PK, Ng NY, Ngan TL, Chong MY, Tang CN, et al. Dynamic changes of elasticity, cross-sectional area, and fat infiltration of multifidus at different postures in men with chronic low back pain. Spine J. 2012;12(5):381–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  295. 295.

    Haig AJ, Harris A, Quint DJ. Baastrup’s disease correlating with diffuse lumbar paraspinal atrophy: a case report. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(2):250–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  296. 296.

    Hebert J, Koppenhaver S, Fritz J, Parent E. Clinical prediction for success of interventions for managing low back pain. Clin Sports Me. 2008;27(3):463–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  297. 297.

    Hebert JJ, Kjaer P, Fritz JM, Walker BF. The relationship of lumbar multifidus muscle morphology to previous, current, and future low back pain: A 9-year population-based prospective cohort study. Spine. 2014;39(17):1417–25.