07 Rajfur - Evaluation
07 Rajfur - Evaluation
A – study design, B – data collection, C – statistical analysis, D – interpretation of data, E – manuscript preparation, F – literature review, G – sourcing of funding
ABSTRACT
Background: Posture ergonomics is becoming an increasingly discussed issue in the literature. The effect of
daily habits and attitudes, especially overloading ones, is an important topic of currently conducted research.
Performing simple tasks correctly is an important aspect. The following paper deals with the topic of women’s
handbags and the effect of carrying them on various stabilometric parameters.
Aim of the study: This study aimed to check whether the examined women who carry a one-shoulder bag are
affected by posture and the occurrence of pain.
Material and methods: Forty-two women aged 20–25 years were enrolled in the study and were assigned to
two equal comparison groups: group A – ladies carrying a purse on the right arm and group B – ladies carrying
a purse on the left arm. The following tests were performed: evaluation of postural stability, including total
sway path (SP) using a stabilometric platform, the degree of spinal curvature was assessed with a scoliometer,
the degree of pelvic tilt was measured with an electronic inclinometer, and the extent of lateral head flexion
was checked with an electronic goniometer. Back pain intensity was assessed using the VAS scale.
Results: There appeared to be a statistically significant difference in the transfer of the center of gravity to
the right side in group A and to the left side in group B. As for the stabilometric parameters, only the SP [mm]
parameter achieved statistical significance. The highest correlations were observed in group A, between pain
complaints and the range of head flexion to the right (r= –0.62). In both groups, no significant statistical dif-
ferences were found within the groups with and without declared pain (p>0.05). However, in the intergroup
comparison for patients without a bag (p=0.01), with their own bag (p=0.04), and with a 3 kg bag (p=0.02),
there were statistically significant differences.
Conclusions: A bag worn on one shoulder can provoke the occurrence of back pain. The stabilometric results
indicate abnormalities while free-standing. Education about pain prevention and maintaining proper posture
is important.
Keywords: back load, carry-on luggage, back pain, body posture
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
License available: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Evaluation of the effect of the carried baggage on the selected stabilometric parameters... 49
www.medicalsciencepulse.com
Evaluation of the effect of the carried baggage on the selected stabilometric parameters... 51
Table 2. Distribution of % body weight to the right side in the group of subjects carrying a handbag
In group A – ladies carrying a bag on the right In group B – ladies carrying a purse on the left
shoulder, there was a statistically significant arm, highly statistically significant (p<0.01) differ-
(p<0.05) difference in terms of weight transfer to ences were found between measurements without
the side identical to the bag carried when the meas- and with their own purse (p=0.000), as well as with-
urement values were compared without the bag on out and with a 3 kg purse (p=0.002). There were no
and with their own bag (p=0.043), as well as with differences in the comparison of parameters with
their own bag and a 3 kg bag (p=0.021). Compari- their own bags, compared to a 3 kg bag. The body
son between the results collected during the test weight of the subjects in this group shifted to the left
without the bag and with a 3 kg bag yielded high side after putting on their luggage.
(p<0.01) statistical significance (p=0.000). During Table 3 shows the results of the percentage distri-
testing, the subject’s body weight was shifted to the bution of body weight on the right side depending on
right side. declared pain.
Table 3. Distribution of % body weight to the right side in the group of patients with different categories of pain
In both groups, there were no significant statis- (50.3±2.4 vs. 53.1±3.7), with their own bag (49.5±4.7
tical differences within the groups with and without vs. 52.1±4.1), and with a 3 kg bag (50.5±5.4 vs.
declared pain (p > 0.05). However, in the intergroup 53.1±4.6). This may be due to the fact that patients
comparisons of patients without a bag (p=0.01), with with declared pain compensated for the pain by stiff-
their own bag (p=0.04), and with a 3 kg bag (p=0.02), ening their postural muscles, and therefore the right-
there were statistically significant differences. Pa- side tilt was minimal, or they leaned to the left.
tients without a reported level of pain showed The results of the total SP in both groups are
greater deviation to the right, both without a bag shown in Table 4.
By analyzing the arithmetic averages, it can be cant. In group B, the comparison of the results with-
seen that the path determined by the projection of out a bag and with their own bag (p=0.000), as well
the center of gravity in both groups shortens when as with a 3 kg bag (p=0.006), turned out to be highly
luggage is added. This may suggest that adopting statistically significant.
a more stable posture is performed to maintain bal- A summary of the arithmetic means of the meas-
ance, despite the asymmetrical load. In group A, the urements of lateral head flexion range, degree of spi-
differences between the values without and with nal curvature, and degree of iliac wing tilt depending
a 3 kg bag (p=0.000), as well as their own and a 3 kg on the group is shown in Table 5.
bag (p=0.016), turned out to be statistically signifi-
www.medicalsciencepulse.com
Evaluation of the effect of the carried baggage on the selected stabilometric parameters... 53
Table 5. Summary of the arithmetic means of the range of right There was no correlation in group A between the
and left head flexion, right- and left-sided Cobb angle, and the tilt percentage load of the right or left KD and the de-
degree of the right and left iliac wings
gree of right or left iliac wing tilt. A clear relationship
Variables Group A Group B p* (-0.26/0.26) was shown between the degree of right
Range of right and left Right 35.43 32.86 0.16 iliac wing tilt and the percentage distribution of body
head flexion [°] Left 33.9 31.38 0.26 weight between the right and left sides.
Right and left-sided Right 4.37 1.98 0.96
Cobb angle [°] Table 8. Results of correlation between the range of lateral head
Left 1.81 0.81 0.71
flexion and perceived pain in groups A and B
Tilt degree of the right Right 9.66 10.61 0.37
and left hip wings of Group A Range of right Range of left
ilium [°] Left 8.47 9.75 0.31
r-Spearmana correlation head flexion head flexion
VAS Scale –0.62 –0.13
Regardless of the preferred carrying side, the ex-
Group B Range of right Range of left
tent of right head flexion and the degree of right iliac
r-Spearmana correlation head flexion head flexion
wing tilt are greater than that on the left side. The
VAS Scale –0.02 –0.02
same applies to back pain curvature, but the angle is
greater in ladies carrying a purse on the right shoul-
When comparing pain complaints with the later-
der compared to the other group.
al head flexion range of motion in group A, there was
Table 6. Results of the correlation between the extent of iliac a significant degree of negative correlation (–0.62)
wing tilt and the right- and left-sided Cobb angle tests in groups between the range of head flexion to the right and
A and B the subjects’ complaints of pain. In practice, this
Tilt degree Tilt degree may mean that the greater the subject’s range of
Variables of the right hip of the left hip lateral head flexion to the right, the less pain they
wing of ilium wing of ilium
experience. No correlation was shown in group B.
Group A r-Spearmana correlation
Curvature of thoracic
spine on the right side
–0.25 –0.03 Discussion
Curvature of thoracic This paper addresses a topic that affects thou-
–0.39 –0.36
spine on the left side
sands of women around the world every day – can the
Group B r-Spearmana correlation
daily carried handbag negatively affect our health?
Curvature of thoracic
spine on the right side
–0.32 –0.24 An important aspect of our study is the weight of the
bag and the style of carrying it. The target group of
Curvature of thoracic
spine on the left side
–0.08 –0.00 our study was exclusively women, who use this type
of luggage on a daily basis. Our study has shown that
When comparing the degree of curvature of the the way one carries the bag can affect pain perception
spine and the tilt of the iliac wings, the highest cor- and body posture.
relations were shown in group A between the angle Abdon et al. conducted a study on a group of
of tilt of the right iliac wing and the curvature of the 316 women. They showed a significant relationship
spine on the left side (0.39), and in group B between between the weight of the bag worn and pain com-
the tilt of the right iliac wing and the curvature of the plaints in the subjects. There appeared to be a statisti-
spine on the right side (0.32). cally significant relationship between the occurrence
of pain and a bag heavier than 4% of its owner’s body
Table 7. Results of the correlation between the percentage distri-
weight, which increased with the weight of the bag
bution of body weight to the right or left side and the degree of tilt
of the iliac wings in groups A and B [13]. In our study, the average bag weight of women
with pain was 4.11% of their body weight (with the
% distribution % distribution
Variables of body weight of body weight
average bag weight of all participants constituting
to the right side to the left side 2.5% of their body weight).
Group A r-Spearmana correlation The results developed by Li et al. suggest that the
Tilt degree of the right
use of a properly controlled asymmetrical load may
–0.13 –0.13 have an effect on reducing lateral spinal curvature.
hip wing of ilium
Tilt degree of the left hip The weight used in their study constituted: 0%, 2.5%,
–0.10 –0.10
wing of ilium 5%, 7.5%, 10%, and 12.5% of the participant’s body
Group B r-Spearmana correlation weight. Cobb’s angle decreased when the bag was
Tilt degree of the right placed on the side of the frame where the curvature
–0.26 –0.26
hip wing of ilium was present (the weight was on the opposite side).
Tilt degree of the left hip
–0.19 –0.19
This relationship occurred bilaterally [14]. In our
wing of ilium
study, the angle of spinal curvature was measured
only in the free position, without loads. The results Limitations of the study
showed that individuals wearing a bag on the right
shoulder on a daily basis had a higher average Cobb When analyzing the results of our study, it
angle for right-sided curvatures (4.37°) compared to should be noted that the paper contains several
those wearing a bag on the opposite shoulder (1.98°). limitations. It is certainly worthwhile to expand
The situation is similar for left-sided curvatures. future studies by adding more precise measure-
According to Otrębska et al., the way a load is ment tools (e.g., superficial electromyography, 3D
carried has a significant impact on the activity of in- gait assessment). The small number of participants
dividual muscles. The authors of their study demon- and their young age also constitute study limita-
tions. The study design should be continued with
strated that asymmetrical loads can have an adverse
more participants, as well as other age groups.
effect on the human body, especially when perform-
The study also did not include information on the
ing everyday activities such as carrying a bag on one’s
physical activity of the respondents, which affects
shoulder and a handbag on the forearm. The study
functioning in daily life. These comments certainly
indicated that the quadriceps muscle was more ac-
represent the limitations of our publication. There is
tive on the loaded side, while the latissimus dorsi
still a need to have other research centers continue
muscle, the erector spinae muscle, and the gluteus
their studies in the future and verify the results ob-
medius muscle showed increased activity on the side
tained. There is little literature available on the re-
opposite the load in most subjects. The erector spinae
search presented in our paper.
muscle is responsible for maintaining the balance of
the torso [15]. Its highest activity was observed when
carrying a bag on one shoulder, as indicated in the Clinical implications
study by Hardie R et al. [7]. As stated in the study by There is little research on the effects of handbag
Grimmer et al., in such situations, the center of grav- carrying on posture and the incidence of back pain
ity is pushed furthest to the side, which may cause in women. The study’s findings discussed in our pa-
a greater tendency for the spinal column to lean later- per confirm the importance of this issue. It is impor-
ally [16]. tant to continually educate people about prevention,
In our study, patients with declared pain compen- to reduce the risk of back pain in people of all ages
sated for the pain they felt by stiffening their pos- from carrying bags over one shoulder. One should
tural muscles, and therefore, their right-side tilt was avoid carrying the bag asymmetrically, especially in
minimal, or they leaned to the left. cases of people who have experienced pain. Carrying
Carrying various types of hand luggage asym- a backpack and evenly distributing the weight can be
metrically may adversely affect body posture and a safe alternative. In addition, shifting the bag regu-
provoke pain. As studies show, asymmetrically bear- larly from one side to the other can have a positive
ing loads can have an adverse effect on the human impact on one’s health.
body [17,18]. Nevertheless, according to a study
conducted by Pascoe et al., the vast majority of stu-
Conclusions
dents (72.3%) choose to carry their bags on a single
shoulder [19]. After analyzing the results of our study, we con-
In their study, Hardie et al. suggested that a two- clude that the way women carry their handbags, tak-
strap backpack should be used to carry loads to re- ing into account their weight, has a significant effect
duce spinal muscle activity, which in turn may reduce on their posture, range of motion, and back pain. The
reports of back pain [7]. method of carrying luggage and its weight can cause
Other researchers have also reported that asym- negative health effects. Education about pain preven-
metrical carrying in children and adolescents is a tion and maintaining proper posture is important. It
risk factor for back pain, and, as a result, may in- is reasonable to implement the principles of luggage
fluence the occurrence of spinal pain in adulthood ergonomics as an element of pain prevention as early
[20,21]. as in school-aged children.
References
1. Drygas W. Is the sedentary life style still a risk for the Polish 3. Dockrell S, Kane C, O’Keefe E. Schoolbag weight and the ef-
society health. Med Sport 2006; 2(6): 111-116. fects of schoolbag carriage on secondary school students. Er-
2. Abdulmonem A, Hanan A, Elaf A, Haneen T, Jenan A. The gonomics 2006; 9: 216–222.
prevalence of musculoskeletal pain & its associated factors 4. Korovessis P, Koureas G, Zacharatos S, Papazisis Z. Back-
among female Saudi school teachers. Pak J Med Sci 2014, packs, back pain, sagittal spinal curves and trunk alignment
30(6): 1191. in adolescents: a logistic and multinomial logistic analysis.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 15; 30(2): 247-55.
www.medicalsciencepulse.com
Evaluation of the effect of the carried baggage on the selected stabilometric parameters... 55
5. Haselgrove C, Straker L, Smith A, O’Sullivan P, Perry M, Sloan 14. Li S, Chow D. Effects of asymmetric loading on lateral spinal
N. Perceived school bag load, duration of carriage, and meth- curvature in young adults with scoliosis: a preliminary study.
od of transport to school are associated with spinal pain in Prosthet Orthot Int 2018; 42(5): 554-562.
adolescents: an observational study. Aust J Physiother 2008; 15. Obrębska P, Ogrodnik J, Piszczątkowski S. Wpływ sposobu
54(3): 193-200. przenoszenia bagażu podręcznego na aktywność wybranych
6. An DH, Yoon JY, Yoo WG, Kim KM. Comparisons of the gait mięśni szkieletowych. Aktualne Problemy Biomechaniki
parameters of young Korean women carrying a single-strap 2018; 15: 29-36. (In Polish).
bag. Nurs Health Sci 2010; 12: 87-93. 16. Grimmer K, Dansie B, Milanese S, Pirunsan U, Trott P. Ado-
7. Hardie R, Haskew R, Harris J, Hughes G. The effects of bag lescent standing postural response to backpack loads: a ran-
style on muscle activity of the trapezius, erector spinae and domised controlled experimental study. BMC Musculo Dis-
latissimus dorsi during walking in female university students. ord 2002; 3(10): 74-84.
J Hum Kinet 2015; 7; 45:39-47. 17. Milanese S, Grimmer-Somers K. Backpack weight and pos-
8. Toledo ADO, Rodrigues BKMM, Maciel MAM, Lima PODP, tural angles in preadolescent children. Indian Pediatr 2010;
Porto MA, Abdon APV. Effect of unilateral bag use on plantar 47(7): 571-2.
pressures and static balance in women. Fisioter Mov 2023; 18. Cottalorda J, Bourelle S, Gautheron V, Kohler R. Backpack
36: e36109. and spinal disease: myt hor reality? Rev Chir Orthop Repara-
9. Fałatowicz M, Jankowicz-Szymańska A, Kaczor A. The effect trice Appar Mot 2004; 90(3): 207-14.
of carrying a light shoulder bag and cross bag on trunk posi- 19. Pascoe DD, Pascoe DE, Wang YT, Shim DM, Kim CK. Influence
tioning in young adults. JKES 2020; 90 (30): 55-62. of carruing book bags on gait cycle and posturę of youths. Er-
10. Hong Y, Fong DT, Li JX. The effect of school bag design and gonomics 1997; 40: 631-641.
load on spinal posture during stair use by children. Ergonom- 20. Rosa BND, Noll M, Candotti CT, Loss JF. Risk factors for back
ics 2011; 54(12): 1207-1213. pain among southern brazilian school children: a 6-year pro-
11. Akbar F, AlBesharah M, Al-Baghli J, et al. Prevalence of low spective cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;
back pain among adolescents in relation to the weight of 19(14): 8322.
school bags. BMC Musculoskeletal Disord 2019; 20(1): 37. 21. Presta V, Galuppo L, Mirandola P, Galli D, Pozzi G, Zoni R et
12. Kujawa J. Badanie układu mięśniowo-szkieletowego. Wy al. One-shoulder carrying school backpack strongly affects
dawnictwo Lekarskie PZWL, Warszawa 2011. (In Polish). gait swing phase and pelvic tilt: a case study. Acta Biomed
13. Abdon APV, Moraes TEG, Sales MP, et al. Relationship be- 2020 Apr 10;91(3-S):168-170.
tween shoulder pain and weight of shoulder bags in young
women. Motricidade 2018; 14(2-3): 40-47.
Sources of funding:
The research was funded by the authors.
Conflicts of interests:
The authors report that there were no conflicts of interest.
Corresponding author:
Joanna Rajfur
Email: [email protected]
Uniwersytet Opolski, Instytut Nauk Medycznych
ul. Katowicka 68, 45-060 Opole, Poland
Other authors/contact:
Katarzyna Rajfur
Email: [email protected]
Natalia Roden
Email: [email protected]
Beata Fras-Łabanc
Email: [email protected] Received: 17 November 2023
Paweł Dolibog Reviewed: 14 December 2023
Email: [email protected] Accepted: 20 December 2023