What do physiotherapists consider to be the best sitting spinal posture?
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.
SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[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
[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: In a precursory work, an intelligent sensing chair prototype was developed to classify 12 standardized sitting postures using 8 pneumatic bladders (4 in the chair's seat and 4 in the backrest) connected to piezoelectric sensors to measure inner pressure. A Classification of around 80% was obtained using Neural Networks. This work aims to demonstrate how algorithmic optimization can be applied to a newly developed prototype to improve posture classification performance. The aforementioned optimization is based on the split of users by sex and use two different previously trained Neural Networks (one for Male and the other for Female). Results showed that the best neural network parameters had an overall classification 89.0% (from the 92.1% for Female Classification and 85.8% for Male, which translates into an overall optimization of around 8%). Automatic separation of these sets was achieved with Decision Trees with an overall classification optimization of 87.1%.Bioengineering (ENBENG), 2015 IEEE 4th Portuguese Meeting on, Porto; 02/2015