BACKGROUND: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Previous research describes an inconsistent relation between temporal changes in transversus abdominis or lumbar multifidus and temporal changes in clinical outcomes. Unfortunately, a relevant systematic review is unavailable. As a result, this systematic review was designed to summarize evidence regarding the association between temporal changes in muscle morphometry and activity in response to treatment, and temporal changes in clinical outcomes. Candidate publications were identified from 6 electronic databases. Fifteen articles were included after scrutinization by 2 reviewers using predetermined selection criteria. The methodological quality of these articles was appraised using a standard tool. These methods revealed strong evidence that temporal alterations in transversus abdominis thickness change during contraction (as measured by B-mode or M-mode ultrasound) or feedforward activation of transversus abdominis (assessed via electromyography, tissue Doppler imaging, or M-mode ultrasound) were unrelated to temporal changes in low back pain (LBP)/LBP-related disability. There was limited evidence that temporal changes in transversus abdominis lateral sliding or lumbar multifidus endurance were unrelated to temporal changes in LBP intensity. Conflicting evidence was found for the relation between temporal changes in lumbar multifidus morphometry and temporal changes in LBP/LBP-related disability. This review highlights that temporal changes in transversus abdominis features tend to be unrelated to the corresponding LBP/LBP-related disability improvements, whereas the relation between multifidus changes and clinical improvements remains uncertain.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlighted that changes in morphometry or activation of transversus abdominis following conservative treatments tend not to be associated with the corresponding changes in clinical outcomes. The relation between posttreatment changes in characteristics of lumbar multifidus and clinical improvements remains uncertain.

Although individual reports suggest that baseline morphometry or activity of transversus abdominis or lumbar multifidus predict clinical outcome of low back pain (LBP), a related systematic review is unavailable. Therefore, this review summarized evidence regarding the predictive value of these muscular characteristics. Candidate publications were identified from 6 electronic medical databases. After review, 5 cohort studies were included. Although this review intended to encompass studies using different muscle assessment methods, all included studies coincidentally used ultrasound imaging. No research investigated the relation between static morphometry and clinical outcomes. Evidence synthesis showed limited evidence supporting poor baseline transversus abdominis contraction thickness ratio as a treatment effect modifier favoring motor control exercise. Limited evidence supported that high baseline transversus abdominis lateral slide was associated with higher pain intensity after various exercise interventions at 1-year follow-up. However, there was limited evidence for the absence of relation between the contraction thickness ratio of transversus abdominis or anticipatory onset of lateral abdominal muscles at baseline and the short- or long-term LBP intensity after exercise interventions. There was conflicting evidence for a relation between baseline percent thickness change of lumbar multifidus during contraction and the clinical outcomes of patients after various conservative treatments. Given study heterogeneity, the small number of included studies and the inability of conventional greyscale B-mode ultrasound imaging to measure muscle activity, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Further large-scale prospective studies that use appropriate technology (ie, electromyography to assess muscle activity) should be conducted to investigate the predictive value of morphometry or activity of these muscles with respect to LBP-related outcomes measures.