RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) motion has been documented using invasive and noninvasive kinematic techniques. No study has explored SIJ angular positions in functional postures using noninvasive techniques. The purpose of this study was to quantify SIJ positioning among different seated postures in a healthy population. METHODS: Twelve female and 11 male healthy young participants participated. Left and right anterior and posterior superior iliac spines were manually digitized during standing, neutral sitting and four different seated postures. Rigid bodies recorded the kinematics of the lumbar spine. Angles calculated included transverse sacroiliac angle, innominate sagittal angle, sacral tilt, lumbar flexion-extension, lumbar lateral bend and lumbar axial twist. FINDINGS: The observed range of angular positions was approximately 3 to 4 degrees across the SIJ-related angles. The main effect of seated posture was observed for all angles measured. The main effect of sex was observed for all angles except lumbar lateral bending. Females consistently experienced more posterior sacral tilt than males. Interaction effects between sex and posture were only observed at the right-transverse sacroiliac angle and sacral tilt. Previous sitting posture affected the subsequent neutral sitting posture for the right-transverse sacroiliac angle and lumbar spine angle. INTERPRETATION: SIJ angular position differences among the seated postures were similar in magnitude to motions previously reported in participants undergoing prone passive hip abduction and external rotation. Sex differences, including greater sacral posterior tilt observed in females, likely reflect underlying morphological and physiological differences. Future studies should explore SIJ positioning during functional tasks in pathological populations to help elucidate the underlying causes of SIJ pain and inform treatment strategies.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review is to determine if and how sex and gender have been incorporated into low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPG), and if sex and gender terms have been used properly. METHODS: CPGs were searched on MEDLINE, Embase, NICE, TRIP and PEDro from 2010 to 2020. The inclusion criteria were English language, CGPs within physiotherapy scope of practice and for adult population with LBP of any type or duration. Three pairs of independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full texts. Guidelines were searched for sex/gender-related terms and recommendations were extracted. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) was used to evaluate the quality of the CPGs. RESULTS: Thirty-six CPGs were included, of which 15 were test-positive for sex or gender terms. Only 33% (n=5) of CPGs incorporated sex or gender into diagnostic or management recommendations. Sixty percent of guidelines (n=9) only referenced sex or gender in relation to epidemiology, risk factors or prognostic data, and made no specific recommendations. Overall, there was no observable relationship between guideline quality and likeliness of integrating sex or gender terms. The majority of guidelines used sex and gender terms interchangeably, and no guidelines defined sex or gender. CONCLUSION: CPGs did not consistently consider sex and gender differences in assessment, diagnosis or treatment of LBP. When it was considered, sex and gender terms were used interchangeably, and considerations were primarily regarding pregnancy. Researchers should consider the importance of including sex-based and/or gender-based recommendations into future LBP CPGs.
