Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Laboratory of KEMA AI Research (KAIR), Yonsei University, 234 Maeji-ri, Heungeop-Myeon, Wonju, Kangwon-Do, 220-710, Republic of Korea.
Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Laboratory of Kinetic Ergocise Based on Movement Analysis, Yonsei University, Wonju, 26426, Republic of Korea.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024 May 13;25(1):376. doi: 10.1186/s12891-024-07485-z.
The traditional understanding of craniocervical alignment emphasizes specific anatomical landmarks. However, recent research has challenged the reliance on forward head posture as the primary diagnostic criterion for neck pain. An advanced relationship exists between neck pain and craniocervical alignment, which requires a deeper exploration of diverse postures and movement patterns using advanced techniques, such as clustering analysis. We aimed to explore the complex relationship between craniocervical alignment, and neck pain and to categorize alignment patterns in individuals with nonspecific neck pain using the K-means algorithm.
This study included 229 office workers with nonspecific neck pain who applied unsupervised machine learning techniques. The craniocervical angles (CCA) during rest, protraction, and retraction were measured using two-dimensional video analysis, and neck pain severity was assessed using the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). CCA during sitting upright in a comfortable position was assessed to evaluate the resting CCA. The average of midpoints between repeated protraction and retraction measures was considered as the midpoint CCA. The K-means algorithm helped categorize participants into alignment clusters based on age, sex and CCA data.
We found no significant correlation between NPQ scores and CCA data, challenging the traditional understanding of neck pain and alignment. We observed a significant difference in age (F = 140.14, p < 0.001), NPQ total score (F = 115.83, p < 0.001), resting CCA (F = 79.22, p < 0.001), CCA during protraction (F = 33.98, p < 0.001), CCA during retraction (F = 40.40, p < 0.001), and midpoint CCA (F = 66.92, p < 0.001) among the three clusters and healthy controls. Cluster 1 was characterized by the lowest resting and midpoint CCA, and CCA during pro- and -retraction, indicating a significant forward head posture and a pattern of retraction restriction. Cluster 2, the oldest group, showed CCA measurements similar to healthy controls, yet reported the highest NPQ scores. Cluster 3 exhibited the highest CCA during protraction and retraction, suggesting a limitation in protraction movement.
Analyzing 229 office workers, three distinct alignment patterns were identified, each with unique postural characteristics; therefore, treatments addressing posture should be individualized and not generalized across the population.
传统的颅颈对线理解强调特定的解剖学标志。然而,最近的研究挑战了将头部前倾作为颈部疼痛主要诊断标准的依赖。颈部疼痛与颅颈对线之间存在着复杂的关系,需要使用聚类分析等先进技术更深入地探讨各种姿势和运动模式。我们旨在探讨颅颈对线与颈部疼痛之间的复杂关系,并使用 K-均值算法对非特异性颈部疼痛患者的对线模式进行分类。
本研究纳入了 229 名患有非特异性颈部疼痛的办公室工作人员,他们应用了无监督机器学习技术。使用二维视频分析测量休息、前伸和回缩时的颅颈角(CCA),并用 Northwick Park 颈部疼痛问卷(NPQ)评估颈部疼痛严重程度。测量在舒适的坐姿下测量的 CCA 以评估休息时的 CCA。将重复前伸和回缩测量的中点的平均值作为中点 CCA。K-均值算法根据年龄、性别和 CCA 数据将参与者分为对线聚类。
我们发现 NPQ 评分与 CCA 数据之间没有显著相关性,这对传统的颈部疼痛和对线理解提出了挑战。我们观察到年龄(F=140.14,p<0.001)、NPQ 总分(F=115.83,p<0.001)、休息时的 CCA(F=79.22,p<0.001)、前伸时的 CCA(F=33.98,p<0.001)、回缩时的 CCA(F=40.40,p<0.001)和中点 CCA(F=66.92,p<0.001)在三个聚类和健康对照组之间存在显著差异。聚类 1 的特征是休息时和中点 CCA 以及前伸和回缩时的 CCA 最低,表明头部前倾明显,回缩受限。聚类 2 是年龄最大的组,其 CCA 测量值与健康对照组相似,但 NPQ 评分最高。聚类 3 在前伸和回缩时表现出最高的 CCA,表明前伸运动受限。
对 229 名办公室工作人员进行分析,确定了三种不同的对线模式,每种模式都具有独特的姿势特征;因此,针对姿势的治疗应该个体化,而不是在人群中普遍化。