Document Type : Original Articles


Department of Sport Injuries and Corrective Exercise, Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran


Background: In recent years, several studies on the body posture have been doneat schools, most of which have shown a high prevalence of varying abnormalityamong students. The aim of this study was to investigate the normal range andchanges process of lumbar curve in students, both girls and boys, in the agegroup of 10 to 18 years.Methods: A total number of 1800 students (male and female), in the age group of10 to 18 years were selected to participate in the present study. The student sampleswere chosen from the different cities of the Isfahan province in a randomizedand clustered manner. Each age category included 100 male and female studentseach. The flexible ruler was used to measure the lumbar curve angle. The factorialANOVA method, in SPPS16, was used for data analysis with α=0.05.Results: The data analysis showed that the age changes factor and gender factorhave a significant effect on lumbar curve changes in the level of P<0.05. However,the interaction between gender and age was not significant (P>0.05). This meansthat the changes process is similar in both gender groups.Conclusion: The lumbar curve angle is generally higher in girls. Moreover, thisangle increases in both genders as age increases to 18 years. The extent of thelumbar curve exceeds the normal limit in girls after 13 years of age with the onsetof puberty, which means that girls in this age group need additional attentionfrom the concerned authorities in order to prevent spinal abnormalities.


  1. References
  2. Mashhadi, M., G. Ghasemi, and V. Zolaktaf, Effect of combined
  3. training exercises on the thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis
  4. of mentally retarded adolescents. JRRS, 2012. 8(1): p. 192-201.
  5. Widhe, T., Spine: posture, mobility and pain. A longitudinal
  6. study from childhood to adolescence. European Spine Journal,
  7. 10(2): p. 118-123.
  8. Mok, F.P., et al., Modic changes of the lumbar spine: prevalence,
  9. risk factors, and association with disc degeneration and low
  10. back pain in a large-scale population-based cohort. The Spine
  11. Journal, 2016. 16(1): p. 32-41.
  12. Yamato, Y., et al., Calculation of the target lumbar lordosis angle
  13. for restoring an optimal pelvic tilt in elderly patients with adult
  14. spinal deformity. Spine, 2016. 41(4): p. E211-E217.
  15. GHASEMI, G., et al., Effect of an eight week corrective training
  16. program on lumbar lordosis of middle school girl’s students. 2013.
  17. Clark, M. and S. Lucett, NASM essentials of corrective exercise
  18. training. 2010: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  19. A, F., corrective exercise 3. 2009, Tehran: Payam-e-noor
  20. University Publication.
  21. Beigi, F.M. and L. Samaei, The effect of backpack weight on
  22. vertebral column deformity of high school girl students. European
  23. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2014. 4(6): p. 26-31.
  24. R, R., Estabilishing the norm of the thoracic kyphosis and lumbar
  25. lordosis for Iranian community. 2008, Tehran sport science
  26. research center.
  27. Taheri-Tizabi, A., et al., Investigation of sagittal curves of spinal
  28. column and establishing the norm of thoracic kyphosis and lumbar
  29. lordosis. Word J Sport Sci, 2012. 6(1): p. 80-83.
  30. Milne, J. and J. Williamson, A longitudinal study of kyphosis in
  31. older people. Age and ageing, 1983. 12(3): p. 225-233.
  32. Giglio, C.A. and J.B. Volpon, Development and evaluation of
  33. thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis during growth. Journal
  34. of children’s orthopaedics, 2007. 1(3): p. 187.
  35. Seidi, F., et al., The Iranian flexible ruler reliability and validity in
  36. lumbar lordosis measurements. World Journal of Sport Sciences,
  37. 2(2): p. 95-9.
  38. Rahmaninia, F., A. Shamsi Majelan, and R. Niaraki Asli, The
  39. relationship between male weight categories of students with
  40. spinal abnormalities. Research in Sport Science, 2010. 24(1):
  41. p. 31-48.
  42. Daneshmandi, H., H. Pourhossein, and M. Sardar, Comparison
  43. of spinal abnormalities in boys and girls students. Journal of
  44. Harkat, 2006. 1383(23): p. 143-56.
  45. Peterson-Kendall, F., et al., Muscles testing and function with
  46. posture and pain. 2005, Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &
  47. Wilkins.
  48. Sluijs, E.M., G.J. Kok, and J. Van der Zee, Correlates of exercise
  49. compliance in physical therapy. Physical therapy, 1993. 73(11):
  50. p. 771-782.
  51. Jong, H., K. Kyu, and L. Wang, Complications and outcomes of
  52. surgery for degenerative lumbar deformity in elderly patients.
  53. Orthop. Res. Rev, 2014. 6: p. 11-15.
  54. Shamsi, M., et al., Normal range of thoracic kyphosis in male
  55. school children. ISRN orthopedics, 2014. 2014.
  56. Haywood, K. and N. Getchell, Life Span Motor Development 6th
  57. Edition. 2014: Human Kinetics.
  58. Letafatkar, K., et al., Effects of weight, gender and number of
  59. pregnancies on lumbar total and segmental lordosis and low back
  60. pain. Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences, 2010. 4(2).
  61. Zuluaga, M., Sports physiotherapy: applied science and practice.
  62. : Churchill Livingstone.
  63. Youdas, J.W., J.H. Hollman, and D.A. Krause, The effects of
  64. gender, age, and body mass index on standing lumbar curvature
  65. in persons without current low back pain. Physiotherapy theory
  66. and practice, 2006. 22(5): p. 229-237.
  67. Nourbakhsh, M.R., S.J. Moussavi, and M. Salavati, Effects of
  68. lifestyle and work-related physical activity on the degree of
  69. lumbar lordosis and chronic low back pain in a Middle East
  70. population. Clinical Spine Surgery, 2001. 14(4): p. 283-292.
  71. Lopez-Miñarro, P.A., et al., COMPARISON OF SAGITTAL
  74. Kinesiology, 2017. 49(1).
  75. Vialle, R., et al., Radiographic analysis of the sagittal alignment
  76. and balance of the spine in asymptomatic subjects. JBJS, 2005.
  77. (2): p. 260-267.
  78. Nazarian, A.B., et al., The prevalence of lordotic and kyphotic
  79. deformities among different age groups. Journal of Research in
  80. Rehabilitation Sciences, 2010. 5(1).
  81. Dreischarf, M., et al., Differences between clinical “snap-shot”
  82. and “real-life” assessments of lumbar spine alignment and
  83. motion–What is the “real” lumbar lordosis of a human being?
  84. Journal of biomechanics, 2016. 49(5): p. 638-644.
  85. Calguneri, M., H. Bird, and V. Wright, Changes in joint laxity
  86. occurring during pregnancy. Annals of the rheumatic diseases,
  87. 41(2): p. 126-128.