Skip to main content
Download PDF

Hip biomechanics in patients with low back pain, what do we know? A systematic review

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 25, Article number: 415 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Biomechanical alterations in patients with low back pain (LBP), as reduced range of motion or strength, do not appear to be exclusively related to the trunk. Thus, studies have investigated biomechanical changes in the hip, due to the proximity of this joint to the low back region. However, the relationship between hip biomechanical changes in patients with LBP is still controversial and needs to be summarized. Therefore, the aim of this study was to systematically review observational studies that used biomechanical assessments in patients with non-specific LBP.

Methods

The search for observational studies that evaluated hip biomechanical variables (i.e., range of motion, kinematic, strength, and electromyography) in adults with non-specific acute, subacute, and chronic LBP was performed in the PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and Sportdiscus databases on February 22nd, 2024. Four blocks of descriptors were used: 1) type of study, 2) LBP, 3) hip and 4) biomechanical assessment. Two independent assessors selected eligible studies and extracted the following data: author, year of publication, country, study objective, participant characteristics, outcomes, and results. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Epidemiological Appraisal Instrument and classified as low, moderate, and high. Due to the heterogeneity of the biomechanical assessment and, consequently, of the results among eligible studies, a descriptive analysis was performed.

Results

The search strategy returned 338 articles of which 54 were included: nine articles evaluating range of motion, 16 evaluating kinematic, four strength, seven electromyography and 18 evaluating more than one outcome. The studies presented moderate and high methodological quality. Patients with LBP, regardless of symptoms, showed a significant reduction in hip range of motion, especially hip internal rotation, reduction in the time to perform functional activities such as sit-to-stance-to-sit, sit-to-stand or walking, greater activation of the hamstrings and gluteus maximus muscles and weakness of the hip abductor and extensor muscles during specific tests and functional activities compared to healthy individuals.

Conclusion

Patients with LBP present changes in range of motion, task execution, activation, and hip muscle strength when compared to healthy individuals. Therefore, clinicians must pay greater attention to the assessment and management of the hip during the treatment of these patients.

Systematic review registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42020213599).

Peer Review reports

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is characterized as pain from below the last ribs to the gluteal margin [1,2,3,4]. It can be classified according to the duration of symptoms as acute LBP, lasting up to six weeks, subacute, from six to 12 weeks, or chronic, lasting more than 12 weeks [2]. More than 85% of cases do not have a specific cause and, therefore, are diagnosed as non-specific LBP of musculoskeletal origin [3]. LBP has affected millions of people over the years, both in high-income countries and in middle- and low-income countries [5, 6]. Treatment recommendations for LBP vary depending on their classification [1, 3, 4, 7, 8]. Physical activity, manual therapy, and supervised exercise are recommendations for patients with acute and subacute LBP [1, 4, 8, 9]. For the treatment of chronic non-specific LBP, the guidelines recommend exercise as the first line of treatment, without specifying the best type of exercise[1,2,3,4, 9].

Studies have already been conducted to understand the biomechanical behavior and the changes in the body regions involved during episodes of LBP [10,11,12,13]. Biomechanical changes in patients with LBP are not exclusively related to the trunk. The proximity of the hip joint to the lumbar region directed biomechanical investigations to the hip [14,15,16,17,18,19], and several studies on the topic were carried out. These studies investigated the association between hip range of motion and non-specific LBP[19], compared the lower limb muscle strength of patients with LBP to the strength of healthy individuals [15], performed kinematic analysis of the hip during sitting and lifting movements in patients with LBP [14], and investigated the activation of hip muscles in patients with LBP during the standing position [16], movements in the sagittal plane[18]and in the prone hip test [17]. These biomechanical studies[14,15,16,17,18,19] showed different results, therefore a summary of their findings would facilitate the understanding of the role of the hip joint in non-specific LBP. Thus, the present study aimed to systematically review observational studies that used biomechanical hip assessment in patients with non-specific LBP.

Methods

Study design

Systematic review written according to the guidelines of the Preferred Report Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020213599).

Inclusion criteria

We included observational studies, i.e., cross-sectional, cohort, and case–control studies, that performed biomechanical hip assessment in patients with acute, subacute, and chronic non-specific LBP, by measuring muscle strength, range of motion, kinematics, muscle activation, balance, or posture. Patients of both sexes should be over 18 years of age. Studies with pregnant women and patients diagnosed with LBP due to nerve root compromise and severe causes, such as neoplasms, inflammatory diseases, infections, and traumas [3] were not included. In studies that presented data from patients with non-specific LBP and another diagnosis, only data from patients with non-specific LBP were extracted. Eligible studies had to be published in full in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Search strategy

The search was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, and Sportdiscus on February 22nd, 2024. The descriptors used were extracted from the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) and divided into four blocks: 1) type of study, 2) LBP, 3) hip, and 4) biomechanical assessment (Additional file 1). The descriptors were combined to perform the searches with OR between the terms of each block and AND between the blocks. There was no restriction on language and date of publication.

Study selection

Two independent reviewers (GZP and CMNC) conducted the selection process of the studies, first considering the title and abstract, and then the full reading of the study. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved initially by discussion and, in case of persistence, a third reviewer (GCM) reached a consensus.

Data extraction

Data were extracted by two independent reviewers (GZP and GCM) using a customized spreadsheet. The spreadsheet contained bibliometric data such as date of publication of the study, country, language, and authors; objectives of the study; personal and clinical characteristics of the patients such as age, sex, and duration of pain; sample size; description of the type of study; biomechanical variables and description of the assessment; as well as results. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved initially by discussion and, in case of persistence, a third reviewer (CMNC) reached a consensus.

Methodological quality assessment

The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Epidemiological Appraisal Instrument [20]. This instrument consists of 43 questions divided into five scales: 1) description, with 17 questions; 2) subject selection, with seven questions; 3) measurement quality, with 10 questions; 4) data analysis, with seven questions; and 5) generalization of results, with two questions. Each question was scored on a scale of 0 to 2, where 0 is “no” or “not informed”, 1 is “maybe” or “partial”, and 2 is “yes”. Questions not applicable to the type of study were disregarded. The scale score was calculated by adding the scores of each question and dividing the total by the number of questions applicable to the type of study used in the assessment. Case–control studies were evaluated with 38 questions, cohort studies with 39 questions, and cross-sectional studies with 34 questions. The methodological quality of the studies was classified as low when the studies had scores between 0 and 0.65, moderate when the studies had scores between 0.7 and 1.35, and high when the studies had scores between 1.4 and 2 [21]. The scale score and the methodological quality classification were performed by two independent reviewers (GZP and GCM). In case of disagreement, a third reviewer (CMNC) reached a consensus.

Data analysis

The results extracted from the studies were presented descriptively: mean and standard deviation per group for the case–control and cross-sectional studies and by effect size and confidence interval for the cohort studies. When these data were not presented in the study, two emails with the request were sent to the authors within seven days. If there was no response, the data were presented as provided in the study. The results were grouped by type of biomechanical assessment (range of motion, strength, kinematics, and electromyography) and, later, by type of observational study (cross-sectional, case–control, and cohort) and classification of LBP (acute, subacute, and chronic). In studies with more than one type of biomechanical assessment, the outcomes were presented separately in the text considering the biomechanical assessment (some studies were cited more than once throughout the text). Due to the heterogeneity found in the biomechanical hip assessments in patients with LBP, it was not possible to group the results into meta-analyses.

Results

Study selection

The search strategy returned 338 studies: 116 duplicates were excluded and 123 were excluded after reading the titles and abstracts. Of the 99 studies for full-text reading, 47 were excluded: 11 because the participants did not present LBP, nine because they were not observational studies, 12 because they did not perform biomechanical hip assessment, two because they included pregnant women, eight because they included participants under 18 years of age, and five because they were abstracts presented at conferences. The authors of the abstracts were contacted to clarify whether the studies were published in a scientific journal. As a result, one study was added after contact with the authors. Another study was added after manual search. In total, 54 studies were included for data extraction (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA) flow diagram summarizing study selection processes

Full size image

Methodological quality

None of the studies presented poor methodological quality (Table 1). Of the studies on range of motion, eight [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29] presented moderate methodological quality and one [30] had high methodological quality. Three studies on strength [31,32,33] had moderate methodological quality and one [34] had high methodological quality. Of the studies on kinematics, 13 [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47] presented moderate methodological quality, and three [48,49,50] had high methodological quality. Of the studies on electromyography, five [17, 18, 27, 51, 52] presented moderate methodological quality, and two [53, 54] had high methodological quality. Finally, of the studies that evaluated more than one outcome, 14 [16, 55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67] presented moderate methodological quality, and four [68,69,70,71] presented high methodological quality.

Table 1 Methodological quality of the included studies
Full size table

Characteristics of the included studies

Of the 54 studies included, nine assessed range of motion [22,23,24,25,26, 28,29,30, 72], 16 assessed kinematics [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43, 45,46,47,48,49,50, 68], four strength [31,32,33,34], seven electromyography [17, 18, 27, 51,52,53,54], and 18 assessed more than one outcome (six assessed kinematics and range of motion [44, 56, 59, 60, 63, 69], three range of motion and electromyography [58, 65, 66], two strength and range of motion [67, 71], one strength, range of motion, and electromyography [16], one electromyography and kinematics [55], two electromyography and kinematics [57, 61], one electromyography, kinematics, and strength [62] and two kinematics and strength[64, 70].

Results of the included studies

Nine inquiries regarding missing descriptive data were sent via email to the authors. Only one study author responded that the requested data were no longer available. Thus, no additional data provided by the authors were included in this systematic review. The objectives of the included studies, characteristics of the sample, outcomes assessed, and the main results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Results of the included studies
Full size table

Range of motion

Biomechanical assessments of range of motion were performed using goniometer [26, 58, 60, 65, 67, 71], inclinometer [22, 24, 25, 28,29,30, 66], and Thomas [23, 29, 66, 67, 71], Ober [71] and Straight leg raise test [58, 71]. The most investigated movement was total hip rotation[22, 25, 28, 30], followed by internal rotation [24, 26, 30, 71] and external hip rotation [22, 26, 71]. The results suggested a reduction in the total hip range of motion in patients with acute and chronic LBP [22, 25, 28, 30] and a reduction in internal rotation [24, 26, 30] and external hip rotation in patients with subacute and chronic LBP [22, 26]. Two studies identified a reduced range of motion between the dominant and non-dominant lower limbs [30] and between men and women with subacute and chronic LBP [26]. Only one study [63] showed that patients with acute LBP had a higher range of hip rotation compared to healthy individuals.

Strength

Biomechanical strength assessments were performed using the manual muscle test [32, 54], pressure meter [31, 33], force transducer [16] and hand-held dynamometer [34, 64, 67, 70, 71]. The main movement tested was hip abduction [16, 32,33,34, 64, 67, 70, 71]. The results showed that the hip abductor and extensor muscles were weaker in patients with acute, subacute, and chronic LBP compared to healthy individuals [31,32,33,34].

Kinematics

Biomechanical kinematic assessments were performed using 3-dimensional systems [35, 37, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 57, 59, 69], force platform [36, 37, 44, 55, 62, 70], cameras [38, 40, 43, 44, 64] and sensors [49, 50, 56, 60, 63, 68]. Hip movements were assessed during functional activities such as sit-to-stance-to-sit [36], sit-to-stand [37, 49], walking [46, 56, 59, 65], among others [35, 40, 44, 49, 57, 60, 64, 68, 69]. The results showed that during sit-to-stand, patients with chronic LBP had limited trunk flexion [37] and patients with subacute LBP had reduced task execution time [36, 49]. During walking, patients with chronic LBP showed a reduction in gait speed [46, 56] and step distance [65] compared to healthy individuals.

Electromyography

Electromyography was used to assess the gluteus maximus [17, 18, 27, 51, 53,54,55, 57, 65, 66], hamstrings [17, 18, 52, 53, 58, 65] and gluteus medius [16, 27, 54, 62] muscles. Muscle activation was performed in various activities, from exercise [27, 51] to functional activities such as sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit [52, 53] and standing [16, 55, 62]. The results were very different between the studies as the muscles were tested in different ways. Two studies tested the gluteus medius and maximus muscles during exercise [27, 51] and found no differences between patients with chronic LBP and healthy individuals. Two other studies [52, 53] tested the hamstring muscles in similar positions (semi-sitting position [53] and sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit [52]) and obtained different results. One study [53] evaluated the semi-sitting position during an isometric contraction and found no difference between patients with chronic LBP and healthy individuals, while other study [52] evaluated the sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit dynamically and observed decreased activation of the time to peak in the hamstring muscles of patients with chronic LBP compared to healthy individuals.

Discussion

The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the results of observational studies that performed biomechanical assessments in patients with non-specific LBP. The 54 studies included in the review used the outcomes range of motion, kinematics, strength, and electromyography for biomechanical assessment. The most common assessments were range of motion and kinematics. Patients with LBP, regardless of the duration of symptoms, showed a significant reduction in hip range of motion, especially total hip rotation [22, 25, 28, 30] and internal hip rotation [19, 24, 26, 30], even with the use of different assessment tools [19, 24,25,26, 28,29,30]. Range of motion can be assessed in different ways. The goniometer [26, 58, 60, 65, 67, 71] and inclinometer [22, 24, 25, 28,29,30, 66] are the most routine, despite having a measurement error between 3 and 5 degrees [73, 74]. Thus, there may be differences in range of motion, such as between dominant and non-dominant lower limbs [30] and between men and women with subacute and chronic LBP [26], that are not greater than the measurement error in studies assessing this outcome. However, the studies included in this systematic review found a significant reduction in total hip rotation in a variety of patients with LBP from participants of various sports [28, 30] to helicopter pilots[25] compared to healthy individuals. Patients with subacute and chronic LBP showed a significant reduction in internal hip rotation compared to healthy individuals [24, 26, 30], and one study showed an association between LBP and reduced internal hip rotation [19].

Kinematics has been extensively studied in patients with LBP, especially during functional activities such as sit-to-stand [36, 37, 49], walking [38, 56, 65] and lifting [35, 40]. Although the current kinematic assessment aims to assess common day-to-day movements [75], no studies have been found that performed kinematic assessment during everyday functional activities that generate pain in patients with LBP, such as putting on shoes or pants [76]. In general, patients with chronic LBP showed a reduction in the execution time of functional activities and range of motion, which indicates that they use different strategies than healthy individuals to perform the same functional activities [77]. The human movement system has the ability to adapt and use new strategies in the short and long term [75]. These strategies adopted by patients with LBP may be the result of motor adaptations to avoid painful movements during the execution of tasks [78, 79]. This was observed in a previous systematic review [80], that showed “moderate” strength of evidence for reduction of gait preference velocity and “high” strength of evidence for decrease in stride distance in patients with LBP compared to healthy individuals.

The gluteus maximus [17, 18, 27, 51, 53, 54] and hamstring muscles [17, 18, 52, 53] were the most evaluated in studies that used electromyography as a form of assessment. In addition to being the main extensor muscles of the hip [81], they are superficial, which facilitates electromyographic assessment [51]. During the electromyographic assessment, standardization is recommended such as using more than one channel per muscle group and normalizing the value obtained by the maximum voluntary contraction [82, 83]. However, in patients with LBP, the recommendation is to perform normalization by submaximal voluntary contraction, reducing the chance of interference from the pain intensity [17, 52]. The studies included in this systematic review [27, 51] did not report the patients' pain intensity, therefore it is not possible to know if there was interference during normalization. However, the gluteus maximus and hamstring muscles had greater electromyographic activation in patients with chronic LBP compared to healthy individuals during the prone hip extension task [17], which may indicate that patients with chronic LBP have difficulty maintaining a stable pelvic lumbar region [17, 84].

In this systematic review, 9 studies [16, 31,32,33,34, 64, 67, 70, 71] evaluated the strength of hip muscles in patients with LBP. Despite the good reliability between the hand-held dynamometer and the isokinetic dynamometer [85] and the difference in cost between the devices, the hand-held dynamometer is still inaccessible to many health professionals [86,87,88]. The cost of the manual dynamometer may be one of the reasons why the included studies assessed strength using a manual muscle test [32] and pressure meter [31, 33]. The results of this assessment corroborate a recent systematic review [15], in which patients with acute, subacute, and chronic LBP presented weakness of the abductor [32,33,34, 71] and extensor muscles [31, 34, 67, 71] of the hip compared to healthy individuals.

Although LBP affects millions of people worldwide [5, 6] and some studies seek to understand how the hip behaves in the presence of LBP [14,15,16,17,18,19], this is the first systematic review that summarizes the main findings of biomechanical hip assessments in patients with LBP, considering the type of assessment, the objective of each study, and its result. The results of this systematic review allow an overview of what is expected in the hip assessment of patients with LBP, directing clinicians to more accurate assessments and researchers to new studies that investigate the causes of LBP in a specific population or risk factors in an asymptomatic population. Future research may determine how much the biomechanical outcomes of the hip can be modified during the treatment of patients with LBP, as this question remains unanswered [89]. On the other hand, the heterogeneity of the biomechanical assessments and styles of reporting presented a challenge in this systematic review. Although the methodological quality of the included studies was moderate or high, the results were not always presented clearly.

Conclusion

The studies that evaluated the hip biomechanics of patients with LBP are of moderate and high methodological quality. Range of motion is lower in the total, internal, and external hip rotation movements of patients with LBP compared to healthy individuals. The strength of the hip abductor and extensor muscles is lower in patients with LBP compared to asymptomatic individuals. In the kinematic assessment, patients with LBP adopt strategies to reduce speed and change hip flexion movements compared to asymptomatic individuals during functional activities. Patients with LBP submitted to electromyographic assessment presented shorter activation time of the hip muscles and greater amplitude of electromyographic activity compared to healthy individuals. Therefore, greater attention should be given to hip assessment and management during the treatment of these patients.

Availability of data and materials

All datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ROM:

Range of motion

LBP:

Low back pain

EMG:

Electromyography

PRISMA:

Preferred Report Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

PROSPERO:

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

NR:

Not reported

N:

Newtons

CI:

Confidence interval

KPa:

Kilopascal

s:

Seconds

Nm/kg:

Newton meter per kilogram

ºS− 1 :

Degree per second

ms:

Millisecond

mm/s:

Millimeters per second

m/s:

Meters per second

3D:

Three dimensional

References

  1. Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, McLean RM, Forciea MA, Denberg TD, Barry MJ, Boyd C, Chow RD, Fitterman N, Harris RP, et al. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:514–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Delitto A, George SZ, Van Dillen L, Whitman JM, Sowa G, Shekelle P, Denninger TR, Godges JJ. Low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42:A1–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, Mannion AF, Reis S, Staal JB, Ursin H, Zanoli G. Chapter 4. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(Suppl 2):S192–300.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. National Guideline C. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Guidelines. In: Low Back Pain and Sciatica in Over 16s: Assessment and Management. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Copyright © NICE, 2016; 2016. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Guidelines.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Disease GBD, Injury I, Prevalence C. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388:1545–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Collaborators GBDLBP. Global, regional, and national burden of low back pain, 1990–2020, its attributable risk factors, and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023;5:316–e329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. van Wambeke P, Desomer A, Jonckheer P, Depreitere B. The Belgian national guideline on low back pain and radicular pain: key roles for rehabilitation, assessment of rehabilitation potential and the PRM specialist. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;56:220–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Qaseem A, McLean RM, O’Gurek D, Batur P, Lin K, Kansagara DL, Cooney TG, Forciea MA, Crandall CJ, Fitterman N, et al. Nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management of acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults: a clinical guideline from the American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:739–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stochkendahl MJ, Kjaer P, Hartvigsen J, Kongsted A, Aaboe J, Andersen M, Andersen M, Fournier G, Højgaard B, Jensen MB, et al. National Clinical Guidelines for non-surgical treatment of patients with recent onset low back pain or lumbar radiculopathy. Eur Spine J. 2018;27:60–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lima M, Ferreira AS, Reis FJJ, Paes V, Meziat-Filho N. Chronic low back pain and back muscle activity during functional tasks. Gait Posture. 2018;61:250–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vanti C, Conti C, Faresin F, Ferrari S, Piccarreta R. The relationship between clinical instability and endurance tests, pain, and disability in nonspecific low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2016;39:359–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ghamkhar L, Kahlaee AH. Trunk muscles activation pattern during walking in subjects with and without chronic low back pain: a systematic review. Pm r. 2015;7:519–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kendall KD, Schmidt C, Ferber R. The relationship between hip-abductor strength and the magnitude of pelvic drop in patients with low back pain. J Sport Rehabil. 2010;19:422–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sedrez JA, Mesquita PV, Gelain GM, Candotti CT. Kinematic characteristics of sit-to-stand movements in patients with low back pain: a systematic review. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2019;42:532–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. de Sousa CS, de Jesus FLA, Machado MB, Ferreira G, Ayres IGT, de Aquino LM, Fukuda TY, Gomes-Neto M. Lower limb muscle strength in patients with low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2019;19:69–78.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Bussey MD, Kennedy JE, Kennedy G. Gluteus medius coactivation response in field hockey players with and without low back pain. Phys Ther Sport. 2016;17:24–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim JW, Kang MH, Oh JS. Patients with low back pain demonstrate increased activity of the posterior oblique sling muscle during prone hip extension. PM R. 2014;6:400–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Leinonen V, Kankaanpää M, Airaksinen O, Hänninen O. Back and hip extensor activities during trunk flexion/extension: effects of low back pain and rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:32–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Avman MA, Osmotherly PG, Snodgrass S, Rivett DA. Is there an association between hip range of motion and nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019;42:38–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Genaidy AM, Lemasters GK, Lockey J, Succop P, Deddens J, Sobeih T, Dunning K. An epidemiological appraisal instrument - a tool for evaluation of epidemiological studies. Ergonomics. 2007;50:920–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hornby-Turner YC, Peel NM, Hubbard RE. Health assets in older age: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e013226.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Cejudo A, Moreno-Alcaraz VJ, Izzo R, Santonja-Medina F, de Baranda PS. External and total hip rotation ranges of motion predispose to low back pain in elite Spanish inline hockey players. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Handrakis JP, Friel K, Hoeffner F, Akinkunle O, Genova V, Isakov E, Mathew J, Vitulli F. Key characteristics of low back pain and disability in college-aged adults: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:1217–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Murray E, Birley E, Twycross-Lewis R, Morrissey D. The relationship between hip rotation range of movement and low back pain prevalence in amateur golfers: an observational study. Phys Ther Sport. 2009;10:131–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nagai T, Abt JP, Sell TC, Keenan KA, Clark NC, Smalley BW, Wirt MD, Lephart SM. Lumbar spine and hip flexibility and trunk strength in helicopter pilots with and without low back pain history. Work. 2015;52:715–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Prather H, Cheng A, Steger-May K, Maheshwari V, Van Dillen L. Hip and lumbar spine physical examination findings in people presenting with low back pain, with or without lower extremity pain. JOSPT. 2017;47:163–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Psycharakis SG, Coleman SGS, Linton L, Kaliarntas K, Valentin S. Muscle activity during aquatic and land exercises in people with and without low back pain. Phys Ther. 2019;99:297–310.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Van Dillen LR, Bloom NJ, Gombatto SP, Susco TM. Hip rotation range of motion in people with and without low back pain who participate in rotation-related sports. Phys The Sport. 2008;9:72–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Roach SM, San Juan JG, Suprak DN, Lyda M, Bies AJ, Boydston CR. Passive hip range of motion is reduced in active subjects with chronic low back pain compared to controls. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2015;10:13–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Tak IJR, Weerink M, Barendrecht M. Judokas with low back pain have lower flexibility of the hip-spine complex: a case-control study. Phys Ther Sport. 2020;45:30–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Arab AM, Soleimanifar M, Nourbakhsh MR. Relationship between hip extensor strength and back extensor length in patients with low back pain: a cross-sectional study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2019;42:125–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cooper NA, Scavo KM, Strickland KJ, Tipayamongkol N, Nicholson JD, Bewyer DC, Sluka KA. Prevalence of gluteus medius weakness in people with chronic low back pain compared to healthy controls. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:1258–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Arab AM, Nourbakhsh MR. The relationship between hip abductor muscle strength and iliotibial band tightness in individuals with low back pain. Chiropr Osteopat. 2010;18:5p–5p.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pizol GZ, Ferro Moura Franco K, Cristiane Miyamoto G, Maria Nunes Cabral C. Is there hip muscle weakness in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain? A cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023;24:798.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Asgari N, Sanjari MA, Esteki A. Local dynamic stability of the spine and its coordinated lower joints during repetitive lifting: effects of fatigue and chronic low back pain. Hum Mov Sci. 2017;54:339–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Claeys K, Dankaerts W, Janssens L, Brumagne S. Altered preparatory pelvic control during the sit-to-stance-to-sit movement in people with non-specific low back pain. J Electromyog Kinesio. 2012;22:821–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Galli M, Crivellini M, Sibella F, Montesano A, Bertocco P, Parisio C. Sit-to-stand movement analysis in obese subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24:1488–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hart JM, Kerrigan DC, Fritz JM, Ingersoll CD. Jogging kinematics after lumbar paraspinal muscle fatigue. J Athl Train. 2009;44:475–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Mok NW, Brauer SG, Hodges PW. Failure to use movement in postural strategies leads to increased spinal displacement in low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:E537–543.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rudy TE, Boston JR, Lieber SJ, Kubinski JA, Stacey BR. Body motion during repetitive isodynamic lifting: a comparative study of normal subjects and low-back pain patients. Pain (03043959). 2003;105:319–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sánchez-Zuriaga D, López-Pascual J, Garrido-Jaén D, García-Mas MA. A comparison of lumbopelvic motion patterns and erector spinae behavior between asymptomatic subjects and patients with recurrent low back pain during pain-free periods. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2015;38:130–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Scholtes SA, Gombatto SP, Van Dillen LR. Differences in lumbopelvic motion between people with and people without low back pain during two lower limb movement tests. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009;24:7–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Scholtes SA, Norton BJ, Lang CE, Van Dillen LR. The effect of within-session instruction on lumbopelvic motion during a lower limb movement in people with and people without low back pain. Man Ther. 2010;15:496–501.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Sung PS. A compensation of angular displacements of the hip joints and lumbosacral spine between subjects with and without idiopathic low back pain during squatting. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2013;23:741–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Thomas JS, France CR. Pain-related fear is associated with avoidance of spinal motion during recovery from low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:E460–466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 罗卫, 钟陶, 高燕, 李豪, 黄小华, 吴泽弟. 慢性非特异性腰痛患者的三维步态功能分析. J Chin Nurs Med / Zhongguo Liaoyang Yixue. 2023;32:273–276.

  47. Ippersiel P, Preuss R, Fillion A, Jean-Louis J, Woodrow R, Zhang Q, Robbins SM. Inter-joint coordination and the flexion-relaxation phenomenon among adults with low back pain during bending. Gait Posture. 2021;85:164–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Jiménez-del-Barrio S, Mingo-Gómez MT, Estébanez-de-Miguel E, Saiz-Cantero E, del-Salvador-Miguélez AI, Ceballos Laita L. Adaptations in pelvis, hip and knee kinematics during gait and muscle extensibility in low back pain patients: a cross-sectional study. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2020;33:49–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Shum GL, Crosbie J, Lee RY. 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:1998–2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Schelldorfer S, Ernst MJ, Rast FM, Bauer CM, Meichtry A, Kool J. Low back pain and postural control, effects of task difficulty on centre of pressure and spinal kinematics. Gait Posture. 2015;41:112–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Oliveira NT, Freitas SMSF, Fuhro FF Jr, Luz MA, Amorim CF, Cabral CMN. Muscle activation during Pilates exercises in participants with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a cross-sectional case-control study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98:88–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Orakifar N, Shaterzadeh-Yazdi MJ, Salehi R, Mehravar M, Namnik N. Muscle activity pattern dysfunction during sit to stand and stand to sit in the movement system impairment subgroups of low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100:851–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Larivière C, Da Silva RA, Arsenault AB, Nadeau S, Plamondon A, Vadeboncoeur R. Specificity of a back muscle exercise machine in healthy and low back pain subjects. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42:592–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Othman IK, Raj NB, Siew Kuan C, Sidek S, Wong LS, Djearamane S, Loganathan A, Selvaraj S. Association of piriformis thickness, hip muscle strength, and low back pain patients with and without piriformis syndrome in Malaysia. Life (Basel). 2023;13:1208.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ciesielska J, Lisiński P, Bandosz A, Huber J, Kulczyk A, Lipiec J. Hip strategy alterations in patients with history of low disc herniation and non-specific low back pain measured by surface electromyography and balance platform. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2015;17:103–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Crosbie J, de Faria Negrao Filho R, Nascimento DP, Ferreira P. Coordination of spinal motion in the transverse and frontal planes during walking in people with and without recurrent low back pain. Spine (03622436). 2013;38:E286–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Haddas R, Samocha Y, Yang J. Effects of volitional spine stabilization on trunk control during asymmetric lifting task in patients with recurrent low back pain. Global Spine J. 2019;10:2192568219885898.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Halbertsma JPK, Göeken LNH, Hoff AL, Groothoff JW, Eisma WH. Extensibility and stiffness of the hamstring in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:232–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Hamill J, Moses M, Seay J. Lower extremity joint stiffness in runners with low back pain. Res Sports Med. 2009;17:260–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Johnson EN, Thomas JS. Effect of hamstring flexibility on hip and lumbar spine joint excursions during forward-reaching tasks in participants with and without low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:1140–2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Jones SL, Hitt JR, DeSarno MJ, Henry SM. Individuals with non-specific low back pain in an active episode demonstrate temporally altered torque responses and direction-specific enhanced muscle activity following unexpected balance perturbations. Exp Brain Res. 2012;221:413–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Ringheim I, Austein H, Indahl A, Roeleveld K. Postural strategy and trunk muscle activation during prolonged standing in chronic low back pain patients. Gait Posture. 2015;42:584–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Shojaei I, Salt EG, Hooker Q, Van Dillen LR, Bazrgari B. Comparison of lumbo-pelvic kinematics during trunk forward bending and backward return between patients with acute low back pain and asymptomatic controls. Clinic Biomech. 2017;41:66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. van Wingerden JP, Vleeming A, Ronchetti I. Differences in standing and forward bending in women with chronic low back or pelvic girdle pain: indications for physical compensation strategies. Spine (03622436). 2008;33:E334–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Vogt L, Pfeifer K, Banzer W. Neuromuscular control of walking with chronic low-back pain. Man Ther. 2003;8:21–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Choi WJ, Kim WD, Park DC, Shin DC. Comparison of compensatory lumbar movement in participants with and without non-specific chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional study. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2022;35:1365–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Vatandoost S, Sheikhhoseini R, Akhbari B, Salavati M, Pourahmadi M, Farhang M, O'Sullivan K. Altered muscle strength and flexibility among a subgroup of women with chronic nonspecific low back pain: cross-sectional case-control study. Physiother Theory Pract. 2023;39(7):1428–1436. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2022.2043497.

  68. Adhia DB, Milosavljevic S, Tumilty S, Bussey MD. Innominate movement patterns, rotation trends and range of motion in individuals with low back pain of sacroiliac joint origin. Man Ther. 2016;21:100–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Park WH, Kim YH, Lee TR, Sung PS. Factors affecting shoulder-pelvic integration during axial trunk rotation in subjects with recurrent low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:1316–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Alsufiany MB, Lohman EB, Daher NS, Gang GR, Shallan AI, Jaber HM. Non-specific chronic low back pain and physical activity: a comparison of postural control and hip muscle isometric strength: a cross-sectional study. Medicine. 2020;99:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Hicks GE, Pohlig RT, Coyle PC, Sions JM, Weiner DK, Pugliese JM, Velasco TO, O’Brien VA. Classification of geriatric low back pain based on hip characteristics with a 12-month longitudinal exploration of clinical outcomes: findings from Delaware spine studies. Phys Ther. 2021;101:pzab227.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Becker L, Schömig F, Cordes LM, Duda GN, Pumberger M, Schmidt H. Finger-floor distance is not a valid parameter for the assessment of lumbar mobility. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13:638.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Cheatham S, Hanney WJ, Kolber MJ. Hip range of motion in recreational weight training participants: a descriptive report. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2017;12:764–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Roach S, San Juan JG, Suprak DN, Lyda M. Concurrent validity of digital inclinometer and universal goniometer in assessing passive hip mobility in healthy subjects. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2013;8:680–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Dingenen B, Blandford L, Comerford M, Staes F, Mottram S. The assessment of movement health in clinical practice: a multidimensional perspective. Phys Ther Sport. 2018;32:282–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Hyodo K, Masuda T, Aizawa J, Jinno T, Morita S. Hip, knee, and ankle kinematics during activities of daily living: a cross-sectional study. Braz J Phys Ther. 2017;21:159–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Linton SJ, Shaw WS. Impact of psychological factors in the experience of pain. Phys Ther. 2011;91:700–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Hodges PW, Smeets RJ. Interaction between pain, movement, and physical activity: short-term benefits, long-term consequences, and targets for treatment. Clin J Pain. 2015;31:97–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Merkle SL, Sluka KA, Frey-Law LA. The interaction between pain and movement. J Hand Ther. 2020;33:60–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Smith JA, Stabbert H, Bagwell JJ, Teng HL, Wade V, Lee SP. Do people with low back pain walk differently? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sport Health Sci. 2022;11:450–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Dostal WF, Soderberg GL, Andrews JG. Actions of hip muscles. Phys Ther. 1986;66:351–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Merletti R, Muceli S. Tutorial. Surface EMG detection in space and time: best practices. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2019;49:102363.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Papagiannis GI, Triantafyllou AI, Roumpelakis IM, Zampeli F, Garyfallia Eleni P, Koulouvaris P, Papadopoulos EC, Papagelopoulos PJ, Babis GC. Methodology of surface electromyography in gait analysis: review of the literature. J Med Eng Technol. 2019;43:59–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Arab AM, Ghamkhar L, Emami M, Nourbakhsh MR. Altered muscular activation during prone hip extension in women with and without low back pain. Chiropr Man Therap. 2011;19:18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Chamorro C, Armijo-Olivo S, De la Fuente C, Fuentes J, Javier Chirosa L. Absolute reliability and concurrent validity of hand held dynamometry and isokinetic dynamometry in the hip, knee and ankle joint: systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Med (Wars). 2017;12:359–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Macedo MC, Souza MA, Ferreira KR, Campos LO, Souza ISO, Barbosa MA, Brito CJ, Intelangelo L, Barbosa AC. Validity and test-retest reliability of a novel push low-cost hand-held dynamometer for knee strength assessment during different force ranges. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12:186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Romero-Franco N, Jiménez-Reyes P, Fernández-Domínguez JC. Concurrent validity and reliability of a low-cost dynamometer to assess maximal isometric strength in neck movements. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2021;44:229–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Romero-Franco N, Jiménez-Reyes P, Montaño-Munuera JA. Validity and reliability of a low-cost digital dynamometer for measuring isometric strength of lower limb. J Sports Sci. 2017;35:2179–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Wood L, Foster NE, Lewis M, Bishop A. Exercise interventions for persistent non-specific low back pain - does matching outcomes to treatment targets make a difference? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain. 2021;22:107–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The authors declare that they have no funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Master’s and Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, Rua Cesário Galeno 475, Tatuapé, Sao Paulo, SP, CEP: 03071-000, Brazil

    Gustavo Zanotti Pizol, Gisela Cristiane Miyamoto & Cristina Maria Nunes Cabral

Authors
  1. Gustavo Zanotti Pizol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gisela Cristiane Miyamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cristina Maria Nunes Cabral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The GZP author conceptualized the study and prepared the manuscript under the guidance and supervision of CMNC and GMC. GZP and CMNC authors contributed to the development of the background and planned output of the research as well as the design of the study. The authors read and approved the final manuscript. Concept development GZP, CMNC. Design GZP, GMC, CMNC. Supervision (provided oversight, responsible for organization and implementation, writing of the manuscript) GZP, GMC, CMNC. Data collection/processing (responsible for reporting data) GZP, CMNC. Analysis/interpretation GZP, CMNC. Literature search (performed the literature search) GZP, CMNC. Writing (responsible for writing a substantive part of the manuscript) GZP, GMC, CMNC. Critical review (revised manuscript for intellectual content, this does not relate to spelling and grammar checking) GZP, CMNC.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gustavo Zanotti Pizol.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pizol, G.Z., Miyamoto, G.C. & Cabral, C.M.N. Hip biomechanics in patients with low back pain, what do we know? A systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25, 415 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07463-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07463-5

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us