Mean ROM at L1-3 in FE, LB, and AR
| Mean ROM (SD) (°) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Test condition | FE | LB | AR |
| Intact | 7.7 (1.4) | 12.8 (5.2) | 3.6 (1.1) |
| BF I | 14.6 (2.3)* | 19.9 (5.4)* | 7.4 (1.4) |
| BF I + SSPF + SF | 1.7 (0.4)* | 1.6 (0.7)* | 3.4 (1) |
| BF I + SSPF | 2.8 (1) | 3.2 (1.8)* | 4.8 (0.8) |
| BF I + LSPF | 1.4 (0.4)* | 0.4 (0.2)* | 3.9 (1) |
| BF II | 18.4 (8.4)* | 23.8 (6.9)* | 15 (5.5)* |
| BF II + SSPF + SF | 3.4 (1) | 4.6 (3.9)* | 6.9 (2.5)* |
| BF II + SSPF | 5.1 (2.4) | 4.8 (4.7)* | 9.2 (4.9) |
| BF II + LSPF | 3.1 (1.7) | 1.1 (1.1)* | 7 (3.5) |
NOTE. All of the instrumented constructs significantly reduced the mean ROM compared with stable (BF I) and unstable (BF II) constructs in FE and LB. No significant differences were found within the instrumented constructs in any of the loading conditions.
↵* Significant compared with intact condition.