Articles
Static trunk posture in sitting and standing during pregnancy and early postpartum,☆☆,,★★

https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2002.36069Get rights and content

Abstract

Gilleard WL, Crosbie J, Smith R. Static trunk posture in sitting and standing during pregnancy and early postpartum. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:1739-44. Objective: To investigate the postural alignment of the upper body in the sagittal plane during sitting and standing postures as pregnancy progressed and then in the postpartum period. Design: Longitudinal, repeated-measures design. Setting: Biomechanics laboratory in an Australian university. Participants: A volunteer convenience sample of 9 primiparous and multiparous women and 12 nulliparous women serving as a control group. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Subjects were filmed while sitting and during quiet standing at intervals throughout pregnancy and at 8 weeks postpartum. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to assess systematic changes in the alignment of the pelvic, thoracic, and head segments, and the thoracolumbar and cervicothoracic spines. Student t tests were used to compare the postpartum and nulliparous control groups. Results: There was no significant effect of pregnancy on the upper-body posture, although there was a tendency in some subjects for a flatter thoracolumbar spinal curve in sitting as pregnancy progressed. Postpartum during standing, the pelvic segment had a reduced sagittal plane anterior orientation, and the thoracolumbar spine was less extended, indicating a flatter spinal curve compared with the control group. Conclusions: There was no significant effect of pregnancy on upper-body posture during sitting and standing, although individuals varied in their postural response. A flatter spinal curve was found during standing postpartum. © 2002 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Section snippets

Methods

Nine maternal women (age range, 28–40y; height, 154–172.5cm; postpartum test mass, 51–81kg) and 12 nulliparous women (age range, 21–35y; height, 160–176.5cm; mass at third test, 52–75.5kg) volunteered and were included in the study, which was approved by the University of Sydney Ethics Committee. Maternal subjects included 5 primigravidas and 4 multigravidas. The maternal group was tested at 18 weeks or less, 24 weeks, 32 weeks, and 38 weeks of gestation and again at 8 weeks postpartum

Sitting

The sagittal plane postural alignment in sitting, as shown by the control group (table 2), showed that the right hip joint was flexed and that the sagittal plane orientation of the pelvic and head segments was slightly posterior, whereas the thoracic segment was slightly anteriorly aligned.The thoracolumbar and cervicothoracic spines were in slight flexion. The magnitude of the sagittal plane displacements for the segments was small, indicting that the thoracolumbar and cervicothoracic spines

Effect of pregnancy on upper-body posture during sitting

In early pregnancy and postpartum, the sagittal plane postural alignment of the upper body during sitting was similar to that of the control subjects. The control group postural alignments were also similar to those reported in previous studies.19, 20

As pregnancy progressed, small, nonsignificant changes were seen in the group mean from test to test, particularly for the pelvic segment (to a more posterior orientation) and for the thoracolumbar spine (which tended to become more flexed). The

Conclusions

There was no significant effect of pregnancy on the upper-body postural alignment in the sagittal plane during sitting and standing, although there was a tendency for a flatter spinal curve in sitting as pregnancy progressed. Poor repeatability with retesting may have affected the results for seated postural variables. Individuals may also vary in their postural response as pregnancy progresses. Postpartum, in standing, the pelvic segment had a smaller anterior orientation, and the

Acknowledgements

We thank Ray Patton, School of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Sydney, for technical assistance, and Dr. Roger Adams, School of Physiotherapy, University of Sydney, for advice concerning statistical analysis.

References (29)

  • ME Franklin et al.

    An analysis of posture and back pain in the first and third trimester of pregnancy

    J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

    (1998)
  • JE Bullock-Saxton

    Changes in posture associated with pregnancy and the early post-natal period measured in standing

    Physiother Theory Pract

    (1991)
  • CJ Snijders et al.

    Biomechanische modellen in het bestek van rugklachten tijdens de zwangerschap

    Tijdschr Soc Gezondheidsz

    (1984)
  • N Hirao et al.

    Seating for pregnant workers based on subjective symptoms and motion analysis

  • Cited by (51)

    • Shoulder and elbow requirements during sagittal reach as a result of changing anthropometry throughout pregnancy

      2021, Applied Ergonomics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Although this is inconsistent with some reports (Haddox et al., 2020; Whitcome et al., 2007), the literature surrounding gestational lordosis is equivocal. Our findings followed the same trends with other previous studies (Bivia-Roig et al., 2018; Gilleard et al., 2002; Moore et al., 1990), where no difference in gestational lordosis was observed when compared to a control group. Tracking thoracic and lumbar curvature earlier in pregnancy may have produced different results, as would adding a nongravid control (Haddox et al., 2020; Whitcome et al., 2007).

    • Estimation of inertial parameters of the lower trunk in pregnant Japanese women: A longitudinal comparative study and application to motion analysis

      2016, Applied Ergonomics
      Citation Excerpt :

      The center of mass (COM) location shifts and the alignment of the spine exhibits compensatory changes (Franklin and Conner-Kerr, 1998; Gaymer et al., 2009; Ostgaard et al., 1993). These changes in alignment differ between individuals (Gilleard et al., 2002) and can affect the musculoskeletal and postural control systems (Nagai et al., 2009; Ponnapula and Boberg, 2010), cause low back pain (Bastiaanssen et al., 2005; Cheng et al., 2009; Gutke et al., 2010; Lisi, 2006) and make it difficult for pregnant women to perform some activities of daily living (Garshasbi and Faghih Zadeh, 2005). Previous biomechanical studies involving pregnant women have assessed changes in postural control during pregnancy.

    • The pregnant "waddle": An evaluation of torso kinematics in pregnancy

      2014, Journal of Biomechanics
      Citation Excerpt :

      These results are supported by the findings of others. Gilleard et al. stated that pregnant subjects displayed 4.5° greater thoracic extension and 13° greater anterior pelvic tilt during quiet standing when compared to post-partum (Gilleard et al., 2002b). In gait, Foti et al. reported 4° greater maximum anterior pelvic tilt during pregnancy compared to post-partum (Foti et al., 2000).

    • Ground reaction forces during stair locomotion in pregnancy

      2013, Gait and Posture
      Citation Excerpt :

      Numerous anatomical, physiological, and hormonal alterations occur during pregnancy [1–6] and are related to modifications to gait [7], sit-to-stand biomechanics [8–10], and changes in mechanical loading and joint kinetics [4,11].

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the authors or upon any organization with which the authors are associated.

    ☆☆

    Correspondence to Wendy L. Gilleard, PhD, School of Exercise Science and Sport Management, Southern Cross University, PO Box 157, Lismore, 2480, NSW, Australia, e-mail: [email protected]. Reprints are not available.

    Supplier

    ★★

    a. Motion Analysis Corp, 3617 Westwind Blvd, Santa Rosa, CA 95403.

    View full text