Skip to main content
Log in

A pilot investigation into the effects of different office chairs on spinal angles

European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article



To investigate the effects of four office chairs on the postural angles of the lumbopelvic and cervical regions.

Research question

Which chair(s) produce an “ideal” spinal posture?


An experimental same subject design was used involving healthy subjects (n = 14) who conducted a typing task whilst sitting on four different office chairs; two “dynamic” chairs (Vari-Kneeler and Swopper), and two static chairs (Saddle and Standard Office with back removed). Data collection was via digital photogrammetry, measuring pelvic and lumbar angles, neck angle and head tilt which were then analysed within MatLab. A repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons was conducted.


Statistically significant differences were identified for posterior pelvic tilt and lumbar lordosis between the Vari-Kneeler and Swopper chairs (p = 0.006, p = 0.001) and the Vari-Kneeler and Standard Office chairs (p = 0.000, 0.000); and also for neck angle and head tilt between the Vari-Kneeler and Swopper chairs (p = 0.000, p = 0.000), the Vari-Kneeler and Saddle chairs (p = 0.002, p = 0.001), the Standard Office and Swopper chairs (p = 0.000, p = 0.000), and the Standard Office and Saddle chairs (p = 0.005, p = 0.001). This study confirms a within region association between posterior pelvic tilt and lumbar lordosis, and between neck angle and head tilt. It was noted that an ideal lumbopelvic position does not always result in a corresponding ideal cervical position resulting in a spinal alignment mismatch.


In this study, the most appropriate posture for the lumbopelvic region was produced by the Saddle chair and for the cervical region by both the Saddle and Swopper chairs. No chair consistently produced an ideal posture across all regions, although the Saddle chair created the best posture of those chairs studied. Chair selection should be based on individual need.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. Lis A, Black K, Kom H, Nordin M (2006) Association between sitting and low back pain. Eur Spine J 16(2):283–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pincus T, Vlaeyen J, Kendall N, Von Korff M, Kalauokalani D, Reis M (2002) Cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychosocial factors in low back pain: directions for the future. Spine 27(5):E133–E138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Airaksinen O, Brox J, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, Mannion A, Reis S, Staal J, Ursin H, Zanoli G (2004) European Guidelines for the Management of Chronic Non Specific Low Back Pain. Accessed 25 Jan 2012

  4. van Tulder M, Becker A, Bekkering T, Breen A, Teresa Gil del Real M, A, Hutchinson A, Koes B, Laerum E, Malmivaara A (2004) European Guidelines for the Management of Chronic Non Specific Low Back Pain in Primary Care. Accessed 25 Jan 2012

  5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009) Low Back Pain. Early management of persistent non-specific low back pain. Accessed 25 Jan 2012

  6. Silva A, Punt T, Sharples P, Vilas-Voas J, Johnson M (2009) Head posture assessment for patients with neck pain: is it useful? Int J Ther Rehabil 16(1):41–53

    Google Scholar 

  7. Health and Safety Executive (2011) Musculoskeletal disorders. Accessed 25 Jan 2012

  8. Szeto GPY, Straker L, Raine S (2002) A field comparison of neck and shoulder postures in symptomatic and asymptomatic office workers. Appl Ergonomics 33:75–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pynt J, Mackey MG, Higgs J (2008) Kyphosed seated postures: extending concepts of postural health beyond the office. J Occup Rehabil 18(1):35–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Panjabi M (1992) The stabilizing system of the spine. Part 1: function, dysfunction, application and enhancement. J Spinal Disord 5(4):383–389

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Panjabi M (1992) The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral Zone and Instability Hypothesis. J Spinal Disord 5(4):390–396

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Burnett A, O’Sullivan P, Ankarberg L, Gooding M, Nelis R, Offerman M, Persson J (2008) Lower lumbar spine axial rotation is reduced in end range sagittal postures when compared to a neutral spine posture. Man Ther 13:300–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gandavadi A, Ramsay JR, Burke FJ (2006) Assessment of dental student posture in two seating conditions using RULA methodology—a pilot study. Br Dent J 203(10):601–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gadge K, Innes E (2006) An investigation into the immediate effects on comfort, productivity and posture of the BambachTM saddle seat and a standard office chair. Work 29(3):189–203

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bettany-Saltikov J, Warren J, Jobson M (2008) Ergonomically designed kneeling chairs are they worth it?: Comparison of sagittal lumbar curvature in two different seating postures. Stud Health Technol Inform 140:103–106

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hicks C (1999) Research methods for clinical therapists: applied project design and analysis, 3rd edn. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  17. Saad K, Colombo A, Joao S (2009) Reliability and validity of photogrammetry for scoliosis evaluation: a cross sectional prospective study. J Manip Physiol Ther 32(6):423–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jones U, Sparkes V, Busse M, Enright S, van Deursen R. (2011) Reliability of digital analysis of thoracic, neck angle and head tilt measurements. J Bone Joint Surg B 93(Suppl IV):490

    Google Scholar 

  19. vanNiekerk S, Lowe Q, Vaughan C, Grimmer-Somers K, Shreve K (2008) Photographic measurement of upper body posture of high school students: a reliability and validity study. BMC Musculoskelet Disorders 9:113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sheeran L, Sparkes V (2006) The effect of core stability training on the spinal-pelvic stability during running and on the single leg-hop-for-distance performance test in female runners—preliminary study. Accessed 22 Dec 2011

Download references


Authors thank Back in Action (Bristol) for the loan of the Vari-Kneeler and Swopper and Bambach for loaning the Saddle and adjustable desk.

Conflict of interest


Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Annetts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Annetts, S., Coales, P., Colville, R. et al. A pilot investigation into the effects of different office chairs on spinal angles. Eur Spine J 21 (Suppl 2), 165–170 (2012).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: