Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spinal posture and pelvic position during pregnancy: a prospective rasterstereographic pilot study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Despite the high prevalence of low back pain during pregnancy there is still a lack in the understanding of its aetiology. Changes of the spinal posture due to the anatomical changes of the pregnant body seem to be in part responsible for the back pain. In this pilot study we assessed the potential to accurately measure the spinal posture and pelvic position during pregnancy without any harmful radiation using a spine and surface topography system.

Methods

Thirteen pregnant women were examined during the second and third trimester of their pregnancy, and postpartum. Twenty female, non-pregnant volunteers comprised the control group. The spinal posture and pelvic position were measured with a radiation-free spine and surface topography system.

Results

We found a significant increase in thoracic kyphosis during the course of pregnancy, but no increased lumbar lordosis. The lateral deviation of the spine also decreased significantly. However, we did not measure significant changes of the pelvic position during or after pregnancy.

Conclusions

The results of our study show that pregnancy has an effect on the spinal posture, and that spine and surface topography can be used to measure these changes three-dimensionally and without any harmful radiation. In future studies this technique could allow to further evaluate the relationship between posture and low back pain during pregnancy, helping to understand the aetiology of low back pain in pregnancy as well as to identify methods for its prevention and treatment.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Han IH (2010) Pregnancy and spinal problems. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 22(6):477–481. doi:10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283404ea1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ostgaard HC, Zetherstrom G, Roos-Hansson E (1997) Back pain in relation to pregnancy: a 6-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22(24):2945–2950

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Okanishi N, Kito N, Akiyama M, Yamamoto M (2012) Spinal curvature and characteristics of postural change in pregnant women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91(7):856–861. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01400.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Turner-Smith AR (1988) A television/computer three-dimensional surface shape measurement system. J Biomech 21(6):515–529

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Drerup B, Hierholzer E (1987) Movement of the human pelvis and displacement of related anatomical landmarks on the body surface. J Biomech 20(10):971–977

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Frerich JM, Hertzler K, Knott P, Mardjetko S (2012) Comparison of radiographic and surface topography measurements in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Open Orthop J 6:261–265. doi:10.2174/1874325001206010261

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Guidetti L, Bonavolonta V, Tito A, Reis VM, Gallotta MC, Baldari C (2013) Intra- and interday reliability of spine rasterstereography. Biomed Res Int 2013:745480. doi:10.1155/2013/745480

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mohokum M, Mendoza S, Udo W, Sitter H, Paletta JR, Skwara A (2010) Reproducibility of rasterstereography for kyphotic and lordotic angles, trunk length, and trunk inclination: a reliability study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(14):1353–1358. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cbc157

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hackenberg L, Hierholzer E, Liljenqvist U (2002) Accuracy of rasterstereography versus radiography in idiopathic scoliosis after anterior correction and fusion. Stud Health Technol Inform 91:241–245

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goh SPR, Leedman PJ, Singer KP (1999) Rasterstereographic analysis of the thoracic sagittal curvature: a reliability study. J Muscoskel Res 3(2):137–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Crawford RJ, Price RI, Singer KP (2009) The effect of interspinous implant surgery on back surface shape and radiographic lumbar curvature. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 24(6):467–472. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.04.003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kristiansson P, Svardsudd K, von Schoultz B (1996) Serum relaxin, symphyseal pain, and back pain during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(5):1342–1347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Aldabe D, Ribeiro DC, Milosavljevic S, Dawn Bussey M (2012) Pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain and its relationship with relaxin levels during pregnancy: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 21(9):1769–1776. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2162-x

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Franklin ME, Conner-Kerr T (1998) An analysis of posture and back pain in the first and third trimesters of pregnancy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28(3):133–138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Borg-Stein J, Dugan SA, Gruber J (2005) Musculoskeletal aspects of pregnancy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 84(3):180–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sipko T, Grygier D, Barczyk K, Eliasz G (2010) The occurrence of strain symptoms in the lumbosacral region and pelvis during pregnancy and after childbirth. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 33(5):370–377. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2010.05.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Whitcome KK, Shapiro LJ, Lieberman DE (2007) Fetal load and the evolution of lumbar lordosis in bipedal hominins. Nature 450(7172):1075–1078. doi:10.1038/nature06342

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ostgaard HC, Andersson GB, Schultz AB, Miller JA (1993) Influence of some biomechanical factors on low-back pain in pregnancy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18(1):61–65

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Moore K, Dumas G, Reid J (1990) Postural changes associated with pregnancy and their relationships with low back pain. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 5:169–174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dumas GA, Reid JG, Wolfe LA, Griffin MP, McGrath MJ (1995) Exercise, posture, and back pain during pregnancy. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 10(2):104–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Christie HJ, Kumar S, Warren SA (1995) Postural aberrations in low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76(3):218–224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ohlen G, Wredmark T, Spangfort E (1989) Spinal sagittal configuration and mobility related to low-back pain in the female gymnast. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 14(8):847–850

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Salminen JJ, Maki P, Oksanen A, Pentti J (1992) Spinal mobility and trunk muscle strength in 15-year-old schoolchildren with and without low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17(4):405–411

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Keskin EA, Onur O, Keskin HL, Gumus II, Kafali H, Turhan N (2012) Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation improves low back pain during pregnancy. Gynecol Obstet Invest 74(1):76–83. doi:10.1159/000337720

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sjodahl J, Gutke A, Oberg B (2013) Predictors for long-term disability in women with persistent postpartum pelvic girdle pain. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2716-6

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all women for participating in this study. We also thank the team of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the University Hospital Duesseldorf for their support. No funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany

    Marcel Betsch, Larissa Dor, Pascal Jungbluth & Mohssen Hakimi

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Marien Hospital Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany

    Regina Wehrle

  3. Department of Sports Medicine, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany

    Walter Rapp

  4. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Klinikum Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany

    Michael Wild

Authors
  1. Marcel Betsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Regina Wehrle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Larissa Dor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Walter Rapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pascal Jungbluth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mohssen Hakimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael Wild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcel Betsch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Betsch, M., Wehrle, R., Dor, L. et al. Spinal posture and pelvic position during pregnancy: a prospective rasterstereographic pilot study. Eur Spine J 24, 1282–1288 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3521-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3521-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation