Standard reference values of the upper body posture in healthy young female adults in Germany: an observational study

Abstract

ObjectiveClassifications of posture deviations are only possible compared with standard values. However, standard values have been published for healthy male adults but not for female adults.DesignObservational study.SettingInstitute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe-University Frankfurt/Main.Participants106healthy female volunteers (21–30 years old; 25.1±2.7 years) were included. Their body weight ranged from 46 to 106 kg (60.3±7.9 kg), the heights from 1.53 to 1.82 m (1.69±0.06 m) and the body mass index from 16.9 kg/m² to 37.6 kg/m² (21.1±2.6 kg/m²).Outcome measuresA three-dimensional back scan was performed to measure the upper back posture in habitual standing. The tolerance ranges and CI were calculated. Group differences were tested by the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test.ResultsIn normal posture, the spinal column was marginally twisted to the left, and the vertebrae were marginally rotated to the right. The kyphosis angle is larger than the lumbar angle. Consequently, a more kyphotic posture is observed in the sagittal plane. The habitual posture is slightly scoliotic with a rotational component (scapular depression right, right scapula marginally more dorsally, high state of pelvic right, iliac right further rotated anteriorly).ConclusionsHealthy young women have an almost ideally balanced posture with minimal ventral body inclination and a marginal scoliotic deviation. Compared with young males, women show only marginal differences in the upper body posture. These values allow a comparison to other studies, both for control and patient data, and may serve as guideline in both clinical practice and scientific studies.

Standard reference values of the upper body posture in healthy male adults aged between 41 and 50 years in Germany

“…Gender-and age-specific differences can be investigated by comparison with another study by Ohlendorf et al 22 on 106 female volunteers aged between 21 and 30 years using the same measurement system as in the present study. While most parameters (e.g.…”

“…In order to achieve optimum measurement of the back surface, for each test person six anatomical fixed points were provided, marked with a total of six self-adhesive, light-reflecting markers of 1 cm diameter. The ABW-BodyMapper back scanner has already been used successfully in studies to determine representative standard values for young men (18-35 years) 20 and women (21-30 years) 22 . Data analysis.…”

“…In order to be able to make a scientifically recognized statement about which values for the postural parameters are to be regarded as the norm, representative studies with a sufficiently large homogeneous group of test persons must be carried out. To this end, using the technique of video raster stereography, studies 20,21 have already included subject populations of 102 healthy men aged 18-35 years 20 and 106 healthy women aged 21-30 years 22 . For middle-aged groups over 35 years of age, no comparable unisexual study to formulate representative norm values with regard to upper body statics has been carried out to date.…”

Systematic changes of the static upper body posture with a symmetric occlusion condition

“…Gender influences a variety of biological functions like the pain threshold, hormone balance, connective tissue and muscularity [28][29][30][31]. The body composition of the two genders is distinct, men have wider shoulders and smaller pelves [32][33][34], the kyphosis angle is larger than the lordosis angle for male subjects [32][33][34] and the lordosis angle of the male subjects is about 8°smaller than in female subjects [32][33][34][35].…”

“…The clear benefit to a 2 dimensional photography [46] or video analysis [47,48] is the depth information calculated from the projected lines onto a curvature. With progress in image reconstruction algorithms, surface parameters of the upper body can be calculated [32,34,41,49]. Obviously, it cannot measure below the surface, therefore a quantification of spinal parameters is not possible.…”