The effect of backpack weight on the standing posture and balance of schoolgirls with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and normal controls.

Concerns have been raised regarding the effect of carrying a backpack on adolescent posture and balance, but the effect of backpack loading combined with other factors affecting balance, such as adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), has not been determined. This study examines the effects of backpack load on the posture and balance of schoolgirls with AIS and normal controls. The standing posture of 26 schoolgirls with mild AIS (mean age 13, Cobb angle 10-25 degrees ) and 20 age-matched normal schoolgirls were recorded without a backpack and while carrying a standard dual-strap backpack loaded at 7.5%, 10%, 12.5% and 15% of the subject's bodyweight (BW). Kinematics of the pelvis, trunk and head were recorded using a motion analysis system and centre of pressure (COP) data were recorded using a force platform. Reliable COP data could only be derived for 13 of the subjects with AIS. Increasing backpack load causes a significantly increased flexion of the trunk in relation to the pelvis and extension of the head in relation to the trunk, as well as increased antero-posterior range of COP motion. While backpack load appears to affect balance predominantly in the antero-posterior direction, differences between groups were more evident in the medio-lateral direction, with AIS subjects showing poor balance in this direction. Overall, carrying a backpack causes similar sagittal plane changes in posture and balance in both normal and AIS groups. Load size or subject group did not influence balance, but the additive effect of backpack carrying and AIS on postural control alters the risk of fall in this population. Therefore, load limit recommendations based on normal subjects should not be applicable to subjects with AIS.

The effect of load carriage on the gait of girls with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and normal controls.

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and load-bearing both appear to place similar demands on gait, but no data regarding the combined effects of load-bearing gait in subjects with AIS could be found. The gait patterns of 22 normal adolescent girls and 28 girls with mild AIS (Cobb angle<25 degrees ) were recorded at backpack loads of 0, 7.5, 10, 12.5 and 15% body weight. Temporal-distance and joint kinematic, moment and power parameters were analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA. Findings showed that backpack carriage places an increased demand on the musculature of the lower limb and results in a gait characterized by reduced pelvic motion and greater hip flexion-extension. AIS has a generally similar effect on gait kinematics as backpack carriage, with AIS subjects having significantly longer double support durations, shorter single support durations and lower knee joint power generation and absorption than normal subjects. No interaction between backpack load and AIS was found however, although investigation of parameters indicating a critical response to load showed that this typically occurred at lower backpack loads (7.5% body weight) in the AIS group. Overall, both AIS and load-bearing place increased demands on gait, but carriage of a loaded backpack does not appear to cause any greater demand on subjects with AIS than normal controls.

The effect of backpack load on the gait of normal adolescent girls.

Concerns regarding the effects of load carriage have led to recommendations that backpacks be limited to 10?-?15% of body weight, based on significant changes in physical performance. However, gait responses to backpack loads are not entirely consistent and there is a particular lack of data regarding load-bearing gait in adolescent females. Gait patterns of 22 normal adolescent girls were recorded at backpack loads of 0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5 and 15.0% body weight. Temporal-distance, ground reaction force and joint kinematic, moment and power parameters were analysed by repeated measures ANOVA with factors of backpack load and side (left or right). Walking speed and cadence decreased significantly with increasing backpack load, while double support time increased. Kinematic changes were most marked at the proximal joints, with a decreased pelvic motion but a significant increase in the hip sagittal plane motion. Increased moments and power at the hip, knee and ankle showed increasing demand with backpack load. Parameters showed different responses to increasing load, and those that suggested a critical load indicated this to be approximately 10% body weight. While this may be due to a change in gait due to increased demand, further work is required to verify this and also to examine the cumulative effects of backpack load on the musculoskeletal system, which may be more appropriate in determining recommended load limits.