Servikal Postür Gerçekten Ağrı ve Tüm Vücut Hizalanmasını Etkiler mi? Kesitsel Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, servikotorasik postürün ağrı ve tüm vücut hizalanmasını etkileyip etkilemediğini; üst ekstremite dinamik postüral kontrolü ve alt ekstremite yüklenme paternleri ile ilişkisini inceleyerek belirlemeyi amaçladı. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya 18–55 yaş aralığında 46 yetişkin katıldı. Kraniovertebral açısı (KVA) <54° olan bireyler ileri baş pozisyonu (İBP) grubu, KVA ≥54° olanlar kontrol grubu olarak sınıflandırıldı. Değerlendirmeler arasında ağrı (Görsel Analog Skala), postür (PostureScreen Mobile®), üst ekstremite dinamik postüral kontrolü (Upper Quarter Y Balance Test), fonksiyonel durum (Boyun Özürlülük Anketi), beden farkındalığı (Fremantle Boyun Farkındalık Anketi), plantar basınç (FreeMed® pedobarografi) ve yaşam kalitesi (SF-36) yer aldı. Bulgular: Gruplar demografik olarak benzerdi (p>0,05). İBP grubunda KVA anlamlı derecede daha düşüktü (51,33±2,4° vs. 61,78±3,7°; p<0,001). Ağrı ve FreNAQ skorları İBP grubunda daha yüksekti (p<0,05). BÖA, ÜEYDT ve SF-36 alt boyutlarında fark yoktu (p>0,05). Plantar basınç parametreleri arasında yalnızca “statik maksimum basınç–sol” kontrol grubunda daha yüksek bulundu (p=0,019). KVA; ağrı ile orta düzeyde negatif (r=−0,514; p<0,001), FreNAQ ile zayıf negatif (r=−0,395; p=0,007) ve statik maksimum basınç–sol ile zayıf pozitif (r=0,331; p=0,025) korelasyon gösterdi. Sonuç: İleri baş pozisyonu artmış ağrı ve azalmış boyun farkındalığı ile ilişkili olup plantar basınç değişiklikleri sınırlı düzeydeydi. Özürlülük, üst ekstremite dinamik kontrolü ve yaşam kalitesinde fark bulunmaması, daha büyük örneklemlerle yapılacak çalışmalara ihtiyaç olduğunu göstermektedir. Bulgular, postür değerlendirmelerinde yalnızca KVA’ya değil; ağrı, beden farkındalığı ve plantar yüklenme ölçümlerine de yer verilmesinin önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• Postür
• Boyun Ağrısı
• Propriyosepsiyon
• Postüral Denge
• Plantar Basınç.

DOES CERVICAL POSTURE REALLY AFFECT PAIN AND POSTURAL CONTROL ACROSS THE KINETIC CHAIN? A CROSS - SECTIONAL STUDY

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to examine whether cervicothoracic posture influences pain and postural control by exploring its relationship with upper extremity dynamic postural control and lower extremity loading patterns. Methods: Forty-six adults aged 18–55 years participated. Individuals with a craniovertebral angle (CVA) <54° were classified as the forward head posture (FHP) group, and those with CVA ≥54° as the control group. Assessments included pain (Visual Analog Scale (VAS)), posture (PostureScreen Mobile®), upper extremity dynamic postural control (Upper Quarter Y Balance Test (UQYBT)), functional status (Neck Disability Index (NDI)), neck awareness (Fremantle Neck Awareness Questionnaire (FreNAQ)), and plantar pressure (FreeMed® pedobarograph). Results: Groups were demographically comparable (p>0.05). The FHP group showed significantly lower CVA values (51.33±2.4° vs. 61.78±3.7°; p<0.001). Pain and FreNAQ scores were higher in the FHP group (p<0.05), while NDI, and UQYBT did not differ (p>0.05). Among plantar pressure parameters, only static maximum pressure–left was higher in controls (p=0.019). CVA demonstrated a moderate negative correlation with pain (r=−0.514; p<0.001), a weak negative correlation with FreNAQ (r=−0.395; p=0.007), and a weak positive correlation with static maximum pressure–left (r=0.331; p=0.025). Conclusion: FHP was observed to be associated with increased pain and reduced neck awareness, while differences in plantar pressure parameters were limited. The lack of group differences in disability, upper extremity dynamic control, and quality of life may be related to the sample size and study design. These findings suggest that pain, neck awareness, and plantar loading characteristics may be considered alongside CVA in postural evaluation.

Keywords

• Posture
• Neck Pain
• Proprioception
• Postural Balance
• Plantar Pressure.

References

1. Carini F, Mazzola M, Fici C, Palmeri S, Messina M, Damiani P, et al. Posture and posturology, anatomical and physiological profiles: overview and current state of art. Acta Biomed. 2017;88(1):11-16. doi:10.23750/abm.v88i1.5309.
2. Derakhshanrad N, Yekaninejad MS, Mehrdad R, Saberi H. Neck pain associated with smartphone overuse: cross-sectional report of a cohort study among office workers. Eur Spine J. 2021;30(2):461-467. doi:10.1007/s00586-020-06640-z.
3. Alpayci M, Şenköy E, Delen V, Şah V, Yazmalar L, Erden M, Toprak M, Kaplan Ş. Decreased neck muscle strength in patients with the loss of cervical lordosis. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2016;33:98-102. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.02.014.
4. Magee DJ. Orthopedic physical assessment. 7th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2021. p.1137-61.
5. Bogduk N. Functional anatomy of the spine. In: Handbook of Clinical Neurology. Vol.136. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2016. p.675-88. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53486-6.00032-6.
6. Nejati P, Lotfian S, Moezy A, Moezy A, Nejati M. The relationship of forward head posture and rounded shoulders with neck pain in Iranian office workers. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2014;28:26.
7. Singla D, Veqar Z. Association between forward head, rounded shoulders, and increased thoracic kyphosis: a review of the literature. J Chiropr Med. 2017;16(3):220-229. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2017.03.004.
8. Gonzalez HE, Manns A. Forward head posture: its structural and functional influence on the stomatognathic system, a conceptual study. Cranio. 1996;14(1):71-80. doi:10.1080/08869634.1996.11745952.

9. Lee HS, Chung HK, Park SW. Correlation between trunk posture and neck reposition sense among subjects with forward head neck postures. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:689610. doi:10.1155/2015/689610.
10. McLean L. The effect of postural correction on muscle activation amplitudes recorded from the cervicobrachial region. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2005;15(6):527-535. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2005.06.003.
11. Ishida H, Suehiro T, Kurozumi C, Ono K, Ando S, Watanabe S. Correlation between neck slope angle and deep cervical flexor muscle thickness in healthy participants. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2015;19(4):717-721. doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.04.001.
12. Yip CHT, Chiu TTW, Poon ATK. The relationship between head posture and severity and disability of patients with neck pain. Man Ther. 2008;13(2):148-154. doi:10.1016/j.math.2006.11.002.
13. Lau KT, Cheung KY, Chan KB, Chan MH, Lo KY, Chiu TTW. Relationships between sagittal postures of thoracic and cervical spine, presence of neck pain, neck pain severity and disability. Man Ther. 2010;15(5):457-462. doi:10.1016/j.math.2010.03.009.
14. Park YJ, Kim WM, Yu JH, Moon HH, Seo YG. Effects of combined exercise program on spinal curvature and balance ability in adolescents with kyphosis. Children (Basel). 2022;9(12):1999. doi:10.3390/children9121999.
15. Abdel-Aziem AA, Ameer MA, Al Abbad AM, Mahdi MA. Relationship between plantar pressure distribution and sagittal spinal curvatures among handball players: a cross-sectional study. Hong Kong Physiother J. 2025;45(1):45-55. doi:10.1142/S1013702525500040.
16. Cici H, Akcali O, Elvan A, Simsek IE. Balance control and plantar pressure distribution in hyperkyphotic adolescent and young adults. Turk Neurosurg. 2023;33(3):451-457. doi:10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.41580-22.2.
17. Güven M, Aksoy CC, Akdeniz Leblebicier M. Baş Önde Postür Bozukluğuna Sahip Bireylerde Suboksipital Gevşetmenin Kraniyovertebral Açı ve Servikal Hareket Hissine Anlık Etkisi. HUFHSJ. 2023;10(2):274-289. doi:10.21020/husbfd.1175568.
18. Modarresi S, Lukacs MJ, Ghodrati M, Salim S, MacDermid JC, Walton DM, et al. A systematic review and synthesis of psychometric properties of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale and the Visual Analog Scale for use in people with neck pain. Clin J Pain. 2021;38(2):132-148. doi:10.1097/AJP.0000000000000999.
19. Boland DM, Neufeld EV, Ruddell J, Dolezal BA, Cooper CB. Inter- and intra-rater agreement of static posture analysis using a mobile application. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(12):3398-3402. doi:10.1589/jpts.28.3398.
20. Westrick RB, Miller JM, Carow SD, Gerber JP. Exploration of the Y-balance test for assessment of upper quarter closed kinetic chain performance. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7(2):139-147.
21. Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14(7):409-415.
22. Aslan E, Karaduman A, Yakut Y, Aras B, Simsek IE, Yagli N. The cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of neck disability index in patients with neck pain: a Turkish version study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(11):E362-5. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817144e1.
23. Onan D, Gokmen D, Ulger O. The Fremantle Neck Awareness Questionnaire in chronic neck pain patients: Turkish version, validity and reliability study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45(3):E163-9. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000003207.
24. Rosenbaum D, Becker HP. Plantar pressure distribution measurements. Technical background and clinical applications. Foot and Ankle Surg. 1997;3(1):1-14. doi:10.1046/j.1460-9584.1997.00043.x.
25. Chu ECP, Lo FS, Bhaumik A. Plausible impact of forward head posture on upper cervical spine stability. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020;9(5):2517-2520. doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_95_20.
26. Ghamkhar L, Kahlaee AH. Is forward head posture relevant to cervical muscles performance and neck pain? A case-control study. Braz J Phys Ther. 2019;23(4):346-354. doi:10.1016/j.bjpt.2018.08.007.
27. Lin G, Zhao X, Wang W, Wilkinson T. The relationship between forward head posture, postural control and gait: a systematic review. Gait Posture. 2022;98:316-329. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2022.10.008.
28. Youssef H, Aydogdu O, Yildiz A. Altered body balance and plantar pressure distribution in young adults with forward head posture. J Orthop. 2025;59:68-75. doi:10.1016/j.jor.2024.07.016.
29. Kang JH, Park RY, Lee SJ, Kim JY, Yoon SR, Jung KI. The effect of the forward head posture on postural balance in long time computer based worker. Ann Rehabil Med. 2012;36(1):98-104. doi:10.5535/arm.2012.36.1.98.
30. Silva AG, Johnson MI. Does forward head posture affect postural control in human healthy volunteers? Gait Posture. 2013;38(2):352-353. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.11.014.