The effect of sagittal hip angle on lumbar and hip coordination and pelvic posterior shift during forward bending

  • Sun-shil Shin
  • Won-gyu YooEmail author
Original Article



The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of dynamic sagittal hip angle on lumbar and hip coordination and pelvic posterior shift during forward bending.


A total of 44 asymptomatic younger female volunteers were recruited to this study. Following measurement of trunk forward bending, participants were divided into three groups based on hip flexion angle: group 1, < 30°; group 2, ≥ 30° and < 50°; and group 3, ≥ 50°. Lumbar spine and hip coordination and pelvic backward shift were recorded during trunk forward bending using a three-dimensional ultrasonic motion analysis system.


Pelvic and total angles increased with hip angle (group 3 > group 2 > group 1; p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively), whereas lumbar/hip and pelvic/hip angle ratios decreased significantly (p < 0.001). The degree of pelvic posterior shift increased to a limited extent, whereas the pelvic posterior shift/hip angle ratio decreased significantly (p < 0.05).


Asymptomatic subjects with limited hip flexion showed reduced total pelvic anterior rotation and greater relative proportion of pelvic motion than insufficient hip motion. These subjects tended to increase the pelvic posterior shift/hip angle ratio during trunk forward bending, possibly increasing passive tension by elongating the hamstring muscles to increase hip motion. The results of this study provide information that will improve the assessment of lumbar spine and hip coordination patterns and facilitate movement strategies by determining the specific requirements of individuals.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.


Forward bending Limited hip flexion Lumbar–hip coordination Pelvic posterior shift 



This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (No. 2017R1D1A1B03035485).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest related to the present article.

Supplementary material

586_2019_6129_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (134 kb)
Supplementary file1 (PPTX 133 kb)


  1. 1.
    Shum GL, Crosbie J, Lee RY (2005) Effect of low back pain on the kinematics and joint coordination of the lumbar spine and hip during sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit. Spine 30(7):1998–2004. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seay JF, Van Emmerik RE, Hamill J (2011) Low back pain status affects pelvis-trunk coordination and variability during walking and running. Clin Biomech 26(6):572–578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neumann DA (2010) Kinesiology of the musculoskeletal system: foundations for physical rehabilitation. New York, Mosby, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arjmand N, Plamondon A, Shirazi-Adl A, Larivière C, Parnianpour M (2011) Predictive equations to estimate spinal loads in symmetric lifting tasks. J Biomech 44(1):84–91. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Qu X, Hu X (2012) Lew FL (2012) Differences in lower extremity muscular responses between successful and failed balance recovery after slips. Int J Ind Ergon 42(5):499–504. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wong TK, Lee RY (2004) Effects of low back pain on the relationship between the movements of the lumbar spine and hip. Hum Mov Sci 23(1):21–34. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cailliet R (1968) Low back pain syndrome, 2nd edn. Philadelphia, F.A. Davis CoGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Esola MA, McClure PW, Fitzgerald GK, Siegler S (1996) Analysis of lumbar spine and hip motion during forward bending in subjects with and without a history of low back pain. Spine 21(1):71–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tafazzol A, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A, Parnianpour M (2014) Lumbopelvic rhythm during forward and backward sagittal trunk rotations: combined in vivo measurement with inertial tracking device and biomechanical modeling. Clin Biomech 29(1):7–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim SH, Kwon OY, Yi CH, Cynn HS, Ha SM, Park KN (2014) Lumbopelvic motion during seated hip flexion in subjects with low-back pain accompanying limited hip flexion. Eur Spine J 23(1):142–148. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sueki DG, Cleland JA, Wainner RS (2013) A regional interdependence model of musculoskeletal dysfunction: research, mechanisms, and clinical implications. J Man Manip Ther 21(2):90–102. Doi: 10.1179/2042618612Y.0000000027.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sahrmann SA (2002) Diagnosis and treatment of movement impairment syndromes. Mosby, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norris CM, Matthews M (2006) Correlation between hamstring muscle length and pelvic tilt range during forward bending in healthy individuals: an initial evaluation. J Bodyw Mov Ther 10(2):122–126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pal P, Milosavljevic S, Sole G, Johnson G (2007) Hip and lumbar continuous motion characteristics during flexion and return in young healthy males. Eur Spine J 16(6):741–747. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nelson JM, Walmsley RP, Stevenson JM (1995) Relative lumbar and pelvic motion during loaded spinal flexion/extension. Spine 20(2):199–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    López-Miñarro PA, Alacid F (2010) Influence of hamstring muscle extensibility on spinal curvatures in young athletes. Sci Sports 25(4):188–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hasebe K, Okubo Y, Kaneoka K, Takada K, Suzuki D, Sairyo K (2016) The effect of dynamic stretching on hamstrings flexibility with respect to the spino-pelvic rhythm. J Med Invest 63(1–2):85–90. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim MH, Yi CH, Kwon OY, Cho SH, Cynn HS, Kim YH, Hwang SH, Choi BR, Hong JA, Jung DH (2013) Comparison of lumbopelvic rhythm and flexion-relaxation response between 2 different low back pain subtypes. Spine 38(15):1260–1267. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott M (2010) Motor control: translating research into clinical practice, 4th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hahn ME, Chou LS (2004) Age-related reduction in sagittal plane center of mass motion during obstacle crossing. J Biomech 37(6):837–844. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alexandrov A, Frolov A (1998) Massion J (1998) Axial synergies during human upper trunk bending. Exp Brain Res 118(2):210–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sasaki S, Nagano Y, Kaneko S, Imamura S, Koabayshi T, Fukubayashi T (2015) The relationships between the center of mass position and the trunk, hip, and knee kinematics in the sagittal plane: a pilot study on field-based video analysis for female soccer players. J Hum Kinet 45:71–80. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leteneur S, Gillet C, Sadeghi H, Allard P, Barbier F (2009) Effect of trunk inclination on lower limb joint and lumbar moments in able men during the stance phase of gait. Clin Biomech 24(2):190–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chou LS, Kaufman KR, Brey RH, Draganich LF (2001) Motion of the whole body’s center of mass when stepping over obstacles of different heights. Gait Posture 13(1):17–26. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical Therapy, College of Healthcare Medical Science and EngineeringINJE UniversityGimhae-siRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations