Research Report

The Effects of Lumbo-pelvic Stabilization on Hip Flexion Range of Motion Measurement

Sung-hoon Jung1, Sung-min Ha2
Author Information & Copyright
1Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University, South Korea
2Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Sangji University, South Korea
hsm98@sangji.ac.kr, Sung-min Ha, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Sangji University, South Korea

© Copyright 2019, Academy of KEMA. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Sep 27, 2019 ; Revised: Sep 27, 2019 ; Accepted: Oct 24, 2019

Published Online: Dec 31, 2019

ABSTRACT

Background

It is important to regain range of motion (ROM) in a joint is one of the first phases of injury rehabilitation in low back pain with limited hip flexion. Through rehabilitation period, it is necessary to measure accurate hip flexion ROM to confirm patient’s progress and condition or therapeutic effectiveness.

Purpose

We investigate the difference between measurement of hip flexion ROM with lumbo-pelvic stabilization (HFwLS) and without lumbo-pelvic stabilization (HFwNLS) and to identify the test-retest reliability of HFwLS.

Study design

Comparative repeated design, Test-retest measures.

Methods

Twenty one students at Yonsei University participated and Forty one legs recruited in this study. Hip flexion ROM was measured using Smart KEMA motion sensor. Data from the motion sensor were recorded at a 25-Hz sampling frequency and transmitted to an Android tablet running Smart KEMA software. During HFwLS, the subject flexes the hip joint of the measurement side in the supine position with maintaining initial pressure of PBU. PBU is placed on the lumbar spine of the subject in supine position, and the initial value is set to 40 mmHg. Paired t-tests were conducted to compare differences between measurement of hip flexion ROM and HFwLS. Intra-class correlation coefficients [ICCs (3,1)] were used to determine the test-retest reliability of HFwLS.

Results

There are significant different between HFwNLS and HFwLS (t=10.04; p<0.01). And the test-retest ICC of the HFwLS was 0.97 (CI range from 0.95–0.99) between first and second measurement.

Conclusions

We suggested that the lumbo-pelvic stabilization could be provided for accurate or reliable measurement of hip flexion ROM measurement without compensatory lumbo-pelvic motion.

Keywords: Bio-feedback; Hip flexion ROM; Lumbo-pelvic stabilization; Monitor; Rehabilitation

Key Points

Question What does lumbo-pelvic stabilization affect hip flexion ROM measurements?

Findings Hip flexion ROM was significantly in HFwLS lower than HFwNLS. And test-retest ICC of the HFwLS was excellent between first and second measurement.

Meaning Lumbo-pelvic stabilization could be provided for accurate or reliable measurement of hip flexion ROM measurement without compensatory lumbo-pelvic motion.


INTRODUCTION

Hip flexion movement occurs in an anterior direction around coronal axis, which full range through is approximately 120 degree.1 Hip flexion is necessary to complete a squat, forward bend, or even initiate the swing phase of gait.2-4 Due to various injuries and soft tissue shortening surrounding a hip joint, limited hip flexion may affect lumbo-pelvic position and motion, and have been implicated as one of the indicators to low back pain.5 Additionally, prolonged sitting and chronic lumbar flexion posturing, many individuals lack adequate hip flexion. These people will move into early lumbar flexion when attempting hip movements (forward bending or squatting).6

It is important to regain range of motion (ROM) in a joint is one of the first phases of injury rehabilitation in low back pain with limited hip flexion.7 Through rehabilitation period, it is necessary to measure hip flexion ROM to confirm patient’s progress and condition or therapeutic effectiveness.8 Previous studies reported that flexion of hip is tested in the supine position and normally 120 degree with knee flexed.9 For the accurate measurement of hip flexion ROM, if the anterior superior iliac spine begins to move, the movement is stopped as pelvic rotation is occurring rather than hip flexion.8 However, we have difficulties of preventing or detecting the motion of lumbo-pelvic motion through traditional testing.

A pressure biofeedback unit (PBU) is made up of an inflatable plastic bag that is combined with a pressure gage displaying feedback on pressure for spine stabilization. To monitor stabilization of the lumbo-pelvic during exercise, a PBU has been commonly used in various biofeedback methods.10-13 However, a PBU has not been used to stabilize the lumbar during measurement of hip flexion ROM. If PBU is used for hip flexion ROM measurement to detect the motion of lumbo-pelvic, a net hip flexion angle without compensatory motion of lumbo-pelvic can be measured. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the difference between measurement of hip flexion ROM with lumbo-pelvic stabilization (HFwLS) and hip flexion ROM without lumbo-pelvic stabilization (HFwNLS), and to identify the test-retest reliability of HFwLS.

METHODS

Subjects

21 students at Yonsei University participated and 41 legs recruited in this study (A date of one side leg has been lost). General characteristics of subjects are shown in Table 1. Inclusion criteria included no history of neurological disease, arthritis, connective tissue disorder, or hip joint injury or surgery. Exclusion criteria consisted of reported hip joint pain at the time of data collection, recent hip joint surgery for which the participant was still receiving care, or ongoing hip joint rehabilitation program. Before the study, the principal tester explained the experimental protocol to the subjects in detail. All subjects signed an informed consent form, and this study was approved by the Yonsei University Wonju Institutional Review Board (approval number: 1041849-201701-BM-008-02).

Table 1. Comparison of subject characteristics
Characteristics Experimental group (n=20) Control group (n=20) p-value
Gender (male/female) 8/12 9/11 None
Age (years) 21.05±1.61 21.15±1.76 0.40
Body mass (kg) 60.05±13.07 60.55±12.33 0.72
Height (cm) 168.25±6.90 169.30±6.93 0.88

Data are expressed as mean±SD.

Download Excel Table
Instrumentation

Hip flexion ROM was measured using Smart KEMA motion sensor (KOREATECH Co, Ltd, Seoul, Korea). The inertial measurement unit (IMU) contained a tri-axillar gyroscope, a magnetometer, and an accelerometer. Data from the motion sensor were recorded at a 25-Hz sampling frequency and transmitted to an Android tablet running Smart KEMA software. The one sensor attached to the midline of the lateral midline of the thigh using an adjustable belt. The PBU (Stabilizer, Chattanooga Group Inc., Hixson, TN, USA) was used to detect the motion of lumbo-pelvic. The PBU is an inflatable air-filled pressure sensor that is placed behind the subject’s lumbar spine.

Procedure

Before the measurement, the subjects were instructed to perform measurement HFwNLS and HFwLS. For measurement of HFwNLS, the subject flexes the hip joint of the measurement side in the supine position (Figure 1A). During HFwLS, the subject flexes the hip joint of the measurement side in the supine position with maintaining initial pressure of PBU (Figure 1B). PBU is placed on the lumbar spine of the subject in supine position, and the initial value is set to 40mmHg. Changes in the PBU pressure during hip flexion ROM movement reflect the lumbo-pelvic motion, resulting in uncontrolled movement and excessive hip flexion ROM.

jkema-3-2-49-g1
Figure 1. Measurement posture (A) hip flexion ROM and (B) HFwLS. ROM, range of motion; HFwLS, hip flexion ROM with lumbo-pelvic stabilization.
Download Original Figure
Statistical analysis

SPSS version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for the statistical analyses, which was treated as a de-scriptive analysis (i.e., using means and standard deviation; SD). The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to check the data normality. Paired t-tests were conducted to compare differences between measurement of HFwNLS and HFwLS. Intra-class correlation coefficients [ICCs (3,1)] were used to determine the test-retest reliability of HFwLS. The test-retest reliability was calculated across results from the test sessions. Degree of reliability bases on ICCs was defined using the following criteria: .69 or less=poor, .70–.79= moderate, .80–.89=good, and .90–.99=excellent.14

RESULTS

The mean and SD values of measurement of hip flexion ROM and HFwLS are presented in Table 2. There are signifi-cant different between HFwNLS and HFwLS (t=10.04; p<0.01). And the test-retest ICC of the HFwLS was 0.971 (CI range from 0.95–0.99) between two session (Table 3).

Table 2. Value of between measurement of hip flexion ROM and HFwLS
Measurement of hip flexion ROM HFwLS t p
Angle 124.70±12.89 104.61±15.23 10.04 <0.01

Data are expressed as mean±SD. ROM, range of motion; HFwLS, measurement of hip flexion ROM with lumbo-pelvic stabilization.

Download Excel Table
Table 3. Test-retest reliability of the measurement of HFwLS
ICC (95% CI) SEM (°) MDD95 (°)
HFwLS 0.97 2.59 7.19

HFwLS, measurement of hip flexion ROM with lumbo-pelvic stabilization; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; CI, confidence interval; MDD95, minimal detectable difference; SEM, standard error of measurement.

Download Excel Table

DISCUSSION

Hip joint range of motion (ROM) is a basic clinical parameter for diagnosing hip diseases, such as osteoarthritis or femoroacetabular impingement, and for monitoring the efficacy of a treatment.15 Various measurement tools such as goniometer, inclinometer, and electromagnetic sensor used to measure hip joint ROM. These measurement have a difficulties for corrective measure by uncontrolled lumbo-pelvic movement, especially hip flexion ROM. For corrective measurement, it necessary to control or stabilize lumbo-pelvic motion. This study investigated the effects of lumbar stabilization on hip flexion ROM measurement.

Our study showed that the HFwLS was significantly in lower than HFwNLS. And test-retest ICC of the HFwLS was excellent between first and second measurement. There are possible explanations for our results. During the mea-surement of the HFwNLS, the hip flexion ROM value is accompanied by lumbo-pelvic motion. Therefore, accurate hip flexion ROM measurements were not made because of compensatory movements of lumbo-pelvic part. In the HFwLS, the hip flexion ROM could be measured with minimal lumbo-pelvic motion due to lumbo-pelvic stabilization using PBU. Lumbo-pelvic stabilization minimizes the factors affecting hip flexion ROM measurement, resulting in high measurement reliability.

Previous study reported that hip flexion measurement using a goniometer can be attributed to pelvic tilt, leading to an immense misinterpretation of this movement due to the insensitivity of manual goniometers for secondary pelvic movement.16 Elson and Aspinall suggested an alternative method for measuring hip flexion ROM by palpating the lumbosacral junction to allow early identification of lumbar spine flexion which accompanies hip flexion.17 During hip flexion ROM measurement, control or stabilization of lumbo-pelvic motion is difficult because it is difficult to detect lumbo-pelvic motion. For this reason, feedback information or tools are commonly used. A PBU is a non-invasive method that is economical, and it can be easily used anywhere since it is portable.18 Furthermore, a PBU has been used to monitor the motion of the lumbo-pelvic region.19-20 Therefore, lumbo-pelvic stabilization using a PBU is important considerations for precise measurement and may help to minimize measurement error during hip flexion ROM measurement. We believe that using a digital measuring device and PBU rather than a goniometer measurement without lumbo-pelvic stabilization improves the accuracy of the measurement in our study.

The present study had limitations. First, the generalization of the present study is limited because our subjects were young and small sample size. Therefore, further research is needed to examine in different age group. Additionally, other hip joint ROM is needed to examine for identifying the effectiveness of lumbo-pelvic stabilization on hip joint ROM. Second, we did not measure abnormal or compensatory movement for lumbo-pelvic motion. Further study is needed to examine the kinematic data for lumbo-pelvic motion.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study examined the effects of lumbo-pelvic stabilization on hip flexion ROM measurement. Based on the results, we suggested that the lumbo-pelvic stabilization could be provided for accurate or reliable measurement of hip flexion ROM measurement without compensatory lumbo-pelvic motion. This study provides useful information that can help physical therapist and health care related experts to examine accurate or reliable ROM measurement.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

None.

Funding/Support

None.

Acknowledgment

None.

Ethic Approval

Ethic Approval: This study received the approval of the Yonsei University Wonju Institutional Review Board (number: 1041849-201701-BM-008-02).

REFERENCES

1.

Roach KE, Miles TP. Normal hip and knee active range of motion: the relationship to age. Phys Ther. 1991; 71(9):656-665

2.

Hemmerich A, Brown H, Smith S, et al. Hip, knee, and ankle kinematics of high range of motion activities of daily living. J Orthop Res. 2006; 24(4):770-781

3.

Burnett AF, Cornelius MW, Dankaerts W, et al. Spinal kinematics and trunk muscle activity in cyclists: a com-parison between healthy controls and non-specific chronic low back pain subjects-a pilot investigation. Man Ther. 2004; 9(4):211-219

4.

McHardy A, Pollard H, Fernandez M. Triathlon injuries: a review of the literature and discussion of potential injury mechanisms. Clinical Chiropractic. 2006; 9:129-138

5.

Janice MM. The effect of limited hip mobility on the lumbar spine in a young adult population. Waterloo: UWSpace. 2010

6.

Sahrmann S. Diagnosis and treatment of movement impairment syndromes. 1st ed. Mosby Inc. 2002

7.

Kim SH, Kwon OY, Yi CH, et al. Lumbopelvic motion during seated hip flexion in subjects with low-back pain accompanying limited hip flexion.. Eur Spine J. 2014; 23(1):142-148

8.

Magee DJ. Orthopedic physical assessment. 6th ed. Elsevier. 2014

9.

Norkin CC, White DJ. Measurement of joint motion: a guide to goniometry. 2nd ed. F. A. Davis. 1995

10.

Cairns MC, Harrison K, Wright C. Pressure biofeedback: a useful tool in the quantification of abdominal muscular dysfunction?. Physiotherapy. 2000; 86(3):127-138

11.

Chiu TT, Law EY, Chiu TH. Performance of the craniocervical flexion test in subjects with and without chronic neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005; 35(9):567-571

12.

Hudswell S, Von MM, Lucas N. The cranio-cervical flexion test using pressure biofeedback: a useful measure of cervical dysfunction in the clinical setting?. Int J Osteopath Med. 2005; 8(3):98-105

13.

Park KN, Cynn HS, Kwon OY, et al. Effects of the abdominal drawing-in maneuver on muscle activity, pelvic motions, and knee flexion during active prone knee flexion in patients with lumbar extension rotation syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92(9):1477-1483

14.

T’Jonck L, Lysens R, Grasse G. Measurements of scapular position and rotation: a reliability study. Physiother Res Int. 1996; 1(3):148-158

15.

Nussbaumer S, Leunig M, Glatthorn JF, et al. Validity and test-retest reliability of manual goniometers for measuring passive hip range of motion in femoroa-cetabular impingement patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010; 11(1):1-194

16.

Bohannon RW, Gajdosik RL, LeVeau BF. Relationship of pelvic and thigh motions during unilateral and bilateral hip flexion. Phys Ther. 1985; 65(10):1501-1504

17.

Elson RA, Aspinall GR. Measurement of hip range of flexion-extension and straight-leg raising. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466(2):281-286

18.

Park DJ, Lee SK. What is a suitable pressure for the abdominal drawing-in maneuver in the supine position using a pressure biofeedback unit?. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013; 25(5):527-530

19.

Cynn HS, Oh JS, Kwon OY. Effects of lumbar stabilization using a pressure biofeedback unit on muscle activity and lateral pelvic tilt during hip abduction in sidelying. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 87(11):1454-1458

20.

Von Garnier K, Koveker K, Rackwitz B. Reliability of a test measuring transversus abdominis muscle recruitment with a pressure biofeedback unit. Physiotherapy. 2009; 95(1):8-14

한국연구재단 등재후보학술지 선정

KEMA학회 학술지인 'JMST(Journal of Musculoskeletal Science and Technology)'가 2020년 한국연구재단의 학술지평가에서 등재후보학술지로 선정되었습니다.

등재후보지 선정을 위해 수고하고 애써주신 모든 분들에게 감사를 드리며, 아낌없는 헌신과 협조에 감사드립니다.

이번 등재후보학술지 선정을 새로운 도약점으로 등재학술지로의 승격을 위해 저희 KEMA학회는 더욱 노력하겠습니다.

현재 JMST는 연구자들의 부담을 줄이기 위해 논문 심사료와 게재료를 받지 않고 있사오니, 많은 관심과 양질의 논문 투고를 부탁드립니다.

감사합니다.  

I don't want to open this window for a day.