Should a standing or seated reference posture be used when normalizing seated spine kinematics?

Abstract

Currently in the literature there is no consensus on which procedure for normalizing seated spine kinematics is most effective. The objective of this study was to examine the changes in the range of motion (ROM) of seated posture trials when expressed as a percent of maximum standing and seated ROM. A secondary purpose was to determine whether the typical maximum planar calibration movements (flexion, lateral-bend, and axial twist) elicited the respective maximum ROM values for each spine region versus postures with specific movement instruction. Thirteen male participants completed seven different movement trials. These consisted of the maximum planar movement trials, with the remaining four postures being combinations of specific lumbar and thoracic movements. Global and relative angles for the upper-thoracic, mid-thoracic, lower-thoracic, and lumbar regions were calculated and normalized to both a seated and standing reference posture. When normalizing both global and relative angles the standing reference appears optimal for flexion, twisting and lateral bend angles in all spine regions, with the exception of relative flexion angle in the mid-thoracic region. The maximum planar movement trials captured the greatest ROM for each global angle, relative lower-thoracic angle and relative lumbar flexion angle, but did not for all other relative angles in the upper-thoracic, mid-thoracic, and lumbar regions. If future researchers can only collect one reference posture these results recommend that a standing reference posture be collected for normalizing seated spine kinematics, although a seated reference posture should be collected if examining relative flexion angles at the mid-thoracic region.