What do physiotherapists consider to be the best sitting spinal posture?

University of Limerick, HS2-025, Health Sciences Building, Limerick, Ireland.
Manual therapy (Impact Factor: 1.76). 05/2012; 17(5):432-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2012.04.007
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT While sitting is a common aggravating factor in low back pain (LBP), the best sitting posture remains unclear. This study investigated the perceptions of 295 physiotherapists in four different European countries on sitting posture. Physiotherapists selected their perceived best sitting posture from a sample of nine options that ranged from slumped to upright sitting, as well as completing the back beliefs questionnaire (BBQ). 85% of physiotherapists selected one of two postures as best, with one posture being selected significantly more frequently than the remainder (p < 0.05). Interestingly, these two most frequently selected postures were very different from each other. Those who selected the more upright sitting posture had more negative LBP beliefs on the BBQ (p < 0.05). The choice of best sitting posture also varied between countries (p < 0.05). Overall, disagreement remains on what constitutes a neutral spine posture, and what is the best sitting posture. Qualitative comments indicated that sitting postures which matched the natural shape of the spine, and appeared comfortable and/or relaxed without excessive muscle tone were often deemed advantageous. Further research on the perceptions of people with LBP on sitting posture are indicated.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: [Purpose] The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between age and the maximum pelvic anteversion and retroversion angles, as well as the associated pelvic range of motion, measured in a sitting position with free knee movement. [Subjects] A total of 132 healthy volunteers (74 women, 58 men; age range, 20-79 years) were divided into six groups based on age (20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, and 70-79 years). [Methods] The maximum pelvic anteversion and retroversion angles were measured manually five times by a goniometer in a sitting position that allowed free movement of the knee joints. [Results] There was a significant effect of age group on the maximum pelvic anteversion and retroversion angles and pelvic range of motion (the difference between these angles). There was a significant correlation between age and the maximum pelvic anteversion angle, maximum pelvic retroversion angle, and pelvic range of motion. [Conclusion] The maximum pelvic anteversion and retroversion angles and pelvic range of motion were significantly correlated with age. The maximum pelvic anteversion angle and pelvic range of motion were most affected by age.
    Journal of Physical Therapy Science 12/2014; 26(12):1959-61. DOI:10.1589/jpts.26.1959 · 0.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prolonged awkward sitting postures may be associated with neck or back pain, but it is often unclear which specific postures cause most problems and which mechanisms that may underlie the pain. In order to increase the knowledge in this field, it seems crucial first of all to be able to analyse, in depth, different seated spinal postures. A problem is however the lack of reliable and direct measurement methods of the posture, especially for sitting. Recently developed systems with inertial sensor attached along the spine have potential for this purpose. The aim of the present study was therefore to test the reliability of using such a system to assess various seated postures. Inter- and intra-tester as well as intra-subject relative reliability was estimated with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Absolute reliability was estimated with standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC). Ten + ten healthy subjects and four testers participated. Three standardised unsupported seated postures (lumbar lordosis, lumbar kyphosis and neutral posture) and two standing postures (neutral and lumbar kyphosis) were evaluated using five sensors attached to the head, the thorax (high and low), the lumbar spine and the pelvis. The ICC for intra-tester reliability ranged from 0.37 to 0.90, SEM 2.5–12.0°, and SDC 7.1–33.3° where the largest measurement error was from the head. Intra-tester reliability was higher than inter-tester reliability but not as good as intra-subject reliability. The intra-tester absolute reliability was nevertheless not considered sufficient to distinguish smaller differences. The low reliability may depend on inertial sensor size and attachment but also on the tester's accuracy. This study shows that assessing unsupported seated spinal postures with inertial sensors could be performed with higher reliability if done by the same, rather than different, testers. Relevance to industry Prolonged awkward seated postures at work may be associated with back and neck pain and should therefore be analysed. Inertial sensor units is a promising tool to measure spinal posture. Smaller sensors attached by one skilled tester directly onto the body will most likely improve assessment in the future.
    International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 09/2014; 44(5):732–738. DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2014.06.002 · 1.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study design:Descriptive.Objective:To determine the wheelchair appropriateness in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI).Setting:National Rehabilitation Center in Ankara, Turkey.Methods:Twenty-seven (25 male, 2 female) SCI patients were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients were noted. All wheelchairs were evaluated considering each part (seat length, seat depth, seat height, back height, armrest, headrest, wheels and seat belt) by a physiatrist who had attended the wheelchair-training course. The wheelchair was declared as inappropriate if at least three parts of wheelchair were not appropriate.Results:The mean age of the patients was 32.9±9.3 years and mean duration of wheelchair use was 19.63±23.02 months. Among the patients, 21 (77.8%) were American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) A, 4 (3.7%) AIS B, 1 (3.7%) AIS C and 1 (3.7%) AIS D. Five (18.5%) wheelchairs were motorized and 22 (81.5%) were manual. Overall, 15 (55.6%) wheelchairs were inappropriate. Seat height, cushion and back height were the most common inappropriate parts.Conclusion:In light of our first and preliminary results, we can argue that 55% of the patients with SCI use inappropriate wheelchairs. In order to achieve better mobility; personally designed wheelchairs should be prescribed by the clinicians.Spinal Cord advance online publication, 12 August 2014; doi:10.1038/sc.2014.128.
    Spinal Cord 08/2014; DOI:10.1038/sc.2014.128 · 1.70 Impact Factor