Background: The range of pelvic tilt is one of modifiable risk factors in preventing the lower back pain. Objects: The purpose of this study were to compare the range of pelvic tilt motion by testing position and sex. Methods: One hundred five young adults (61 females and 44 males) agreed to participate in measuring the anterior and posterior pelvic tilt with the PALM (Palpation Meter) in sitting and standing. The range of pelvic tilt motion was defined as the difference between the pelvic anterior and posterior tilt angles. Results: In general, the anterior pelvic tilt was greater (p < 0.01) in standing than in sitting and the posterior pelvic tilt was lesser (p < 0.01) in sitting than in standing. The anterior pelvic tilt in sitting and standing was greater (p < 0.01) in the females than in the males. However, the effect of sex on the posterior pelvic tilt was only significant in sitting (p < 0.01), but not in standing (p = 0.78). The range of pelvic tilt was greater (p = 0.03) in sitting but not significantly (p = 0.07) affected by the sex. Conclusion: The pelvic tilt motion in these young adults showed large variability and further studies are needed to understand better its relationship to the prevalence of the lower back disorders.

Background: In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), lumbar flexion exercise (LFE) is considered a standard therapeutic exercise that widens the space between the spinal canal and intervertebral foramen. However, some researchers have reported that lumbar extension exercise (LEE) may improve lumbar pain and functional ability in patients with LSS. Although exercise intervention methods for patients with LSS have been widely applied in clinical settings, few studies have conducted comparative analysis of these exercise methods. Objects: This study aimed to compare the effects of LFE, LEE, and lumbar flexion combined with lumbar flexion-extension exercise (LFEE) on pain, range of motion (ROM), pelvic tilt angle, and functional gait ability in patients with LSS. Methods: A total of 30 patients with LSS, LFE (n1=10), LEE (n2=10), and LFEE (n3=10) were assigned to each of the three exercise groups. The numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), modified-modified schober test (MMST)-flexion, MMST-extension, pelvic tilt inclinometer, and 6-minute walking test (6MWT) were measured. Results: After the intervention, statistically significant differences were observed in the NPRS (p=.043), MMST-flexion (p<.001), MMST-extension (p<.001), and 6MWT (p=.005) between groups. According to the post hoc test, the NPRS was statistically significant difference between the LFEE and LEE groups (p=.034). The MMST-flexion was statistically significantly different between the LFE and LEE (p=.000), LFE and LFEE (p=.001), and LEE and LFEE (p=.001) groups. The MMST-extension was statistically significantly different between the LFE and LEE (p<.001), LFE and LFEE (p=.002), and LEE and LFEE (p=.008) groups. The 6MWT was statistically significantly different between the LFE and LFEE (p=.042) and the LEE and LFEE (p=.004) groups. Conclusion: This study suggested that LFEE was the most effective exercise for pain and functional gait ability in patients with LSS, LFE was the most effective exercise for lumbar flexion ROM, and LEE was the most effective exercise for lumbar extension ROM.

Background: Uncontrolled lumbopelvic movement leads to asymmetric symptoms and causes pain in the lumbar and pelvic regions. So many patients have uncontrolled lumbopelvic movement. Passive support devices are used for unstable lumbopelvic patient. So, we need to understand that influence of passive support on lumbopelvic stability. It is important to examine that using the pelvic belt on abdominal muscle activity, pelvic rotation and pelvic tilt. Objects: This study observed abdominal muscle activity, pelvic rotation and tilt angles were compared during active straight leg raise (ASLR) with and without pelvic compression belt. Methods: Sixteen healthy women were participated in this study. ASRL with and without pelvic compression belt was performed for 5 sec, until their leg touched the target bar that was set 20 ㎝ above the base. Surface electromyography was recorded from rectus abdominis (RA), internal oblique abdominis (IO), and external oblique abdominis (EO) bilaterally. And pelvic rotation and tilt angles were measured by motion capture system. Results: There were significantly less activities of left EO (p=.042), right EO (p=.031), left IO (p=.039), right IO (p=.019), left RA (p=.044), and right RA (p=.042) and a greater right pelvic rotation angle (p=.008) and anterior pelvic tilt angle (p<.001) during ASLR with pelvic compression belt. Conclusion: These results showed that abdominal activity was reduced while the right pelvic rotation angle and anterior pelvic tilt angle were increased during ASLR with a pelvic compression belt. In other words, although pelvic compression belt could support abdominal muscle activity, it would be difficult to control pelvic movement. So pelvic belt would not be useful for controlled ASLR.

Although there have been various studies related to the body's movement from a sitting to a standing position (sit-to-stand task), there is limited information on the kinematic changes on the frontal and transverse planes. The purpose of this study was to ascertain how pelvic tilt affects kinematic changes in the frontal and transverse planes in the hip and knee joints during a sit-to-stand task. For this study, 33 healthy participants (13 female) were recruited. Each participant rose from a sitting to a standing posture at his or her preferred speed for each of three different pelvic tilt trials (anterior, posterior, and neutral), and the measured angles were analyzed using a 3-D motion analysis system. A one-way repeated measure analysis of variance was performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test. In addition, an independent t-test was carried out to determine the sex differences in hip and knee joint kinematic changes during the sit-to-stand tasks. The results were as follows: 1) The hip and knee joint angle in the frontal and transverse planes showed a significant difference between the different pelvic tilt postures during sitting in the pre-buttock lift-off phase (pre-LO) (p<.05). Compared to the posterior pelvic tilt posture, the anterior pelvic tilt posture involved significantly greater hip joint adduction and internal rotation, knee joint adduction, and reduced internal rotation of the knee joint. 2) Sex differences were found with significant differences for males in the initial and maximal angles in the frontal plane of the hip and knee joint (p<.05). Females had a significantly smaller initial abduction angle of the hip joint and a significantly greater maximal angle of the hip adduction joint. These results suggest that selecting a sit-to-stand exercise for pelvic tilt posture should be considered to control abnormal movement in the lower extremities.

This study investigated therapeutic effects of pelvic tilt exercise (PTE) on weight bearing and body sway during sit-to-stand (STS) on 18 hemiplegic patients who had visited the Hanyang University Seoul Hospital and Injae University Sanggyebek Hospital physiotherapy rooms. The study compared the patients with 18 normal adults. The subjects were sampled out from those who could get up independently, maintain a standing posture more than 10 seconds, understand the movements of this study and have no difficulty in performing the tasks. By executing STS in a natural way with habitual movements before and after PTE, the weight bearing was measured by using Mediance II. In order to compare the difference of weight distribution, weight bearing and body sway on affected and nonaffected sides during STS before and after PTE, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was used. The statistical significance level was based on p<.05. The results revealed that the difference of weight distribution in the hemiplegic group was significantly decreased (p<.05), whereas there was no significant difference in the healthy group (p>.05). Weight bearing loaded on the affected side was 42.53±7.65% and 44.20±6.32%, respectively, in the hemiplegic group during STS before and after PTE. Weight bearing during STS after PTE is increased significantly, as compared with weight bearing before PTE (p<.05). Body sway in the hemiplegic group was significantly decreased (p<.05). As mentioned, PTE proved to be effective for improvement in weight bearing on the affected side during STS of hemiplegic patients.