Next Article in Journal
Health Risk, Functional Markers and Cognitive Status in Institutionalized Older Adults: A Longitudinal Study
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of COVID-19Quarantine on Low Back Pain Intensity, Prevalence, and Associated Risk Factors among Adult Citizens Residing in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia): A Cross-Sectional Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 17
Issue 19
10.3390/ijerph17197293
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Back Pain Related with Age, Anthropometric Variables, Sagittal Spinal Curvatures, Hamstring Extensibility, Physical Activity and Health Related Quality of Life in Male and Female High School Students

by
Noelia González-Gálvez
1,
Raquel Vaquero-Cristóbal
1,2,*,
Abraham López-Vivancos
1,
Mario Albaladejo-Saura
2 and
Pablo Jorge Marcos-Pardo
1
1
Faculty of Sports, Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia, Murcia, Campus de los Jerónimos, 30107 Guadalupe, Murcia, Spain
2
Kinanthropometry International Chair, Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia, Murcia, Campus de los Jerónimos, 30107 Guadalupe, Murcia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(19), 7293; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197293
Submission received: 8 September 2020 / Revised: 1 October 2020 / Accepted: 3 October 2020 / Published: 6 October 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Health Care Sciences & Services)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Spinal pain (SP) is widely extended among adolescents. The origin of SP can be multifactorial; thus, the present study aimed to estimate the prevalence and risk of SP in high school students and to determine the differences in sagittal spinal curvatures and pelvic tilt, hamstring extensibility, age, anthropometric variables and healthy lifestyle habits dependent on SP between sexes. Two hundred seventy-three teenagers took part in this cross-sectional study. Age, sagittal spinal curvatures, hamstring extensibility, physical activity, sedentary lifestyle, anthropometric variables and health related quality of life (HRQL) were recorded. SP was reported by 16.12% of adolescents. Differences were observed in the HRQL according to SP (p < 0.05). Participants without SP were less sedentary (22.12%) and younger (13.10 years old) than participants with SP (40.91% and 13.66, respectively) (p < 0.05). A logistic regression model showed that both variables were significantly collinear (VIF = 1.01; Durbin-Watson = 2.10). Subjects with low back pain (LBP) had a higher weight, body max index, and hip girth than subjects without pain (p < 0.05). A misalignment in the lumbar spine was associated with LBP for males (Cramer’s V = 0.204, p = 0.022). In conclusion, adolescents with SP were older and had a lower HRQL in all dimensions. SP could be predicted according to age and sedentary habits.

1. Introduction

Low back pain (LBP), defined as pain experienced in the region of the lumbar and sacrum spine, between the boundaries of L1-S5 and across the posterior aspect of the lower back [1,2], is the leading cause of disability in the world [3] and is found within the top ten types of pain among adolescents [4]. This topic is also important because associations between adolescent and adult LBP has been observed [5,6]. Although most of the studies in adults have analyzed LBP, evidence suggests that the importance of cervical pain (CP), defined as pain experienced in the region of the cervical spine, between the boundaries of C1-C7 and across the posterior aspect of the neck [2,7], and thoracic spine pain (TSP), defined as pain experience in the region of the thoracic spine, between the boundaries of T1-T12 and across the posterior aspect of the trunk [7], should also be analyzed during adolescence because the incidence and prevalence of pain in different areas of the spine are high at this growth stage [1,2,7,8,9]. Therefore, spinal pain (SP) as a global concept that encompasses CP, TSP and LBP, defined as pain perception in the neck or back that could be influenced by spine bones, ligaments, muscles and tendons as active and passive structures [10] but also by more central structures [11,12], could be the key during adolescence [9].
The introduction of spinal pain education programs into the curriculum during childhood and adolescence can be a favorable context for improving knowledge on back health in order to reduce the incidence of SP over the student’s lifetime [13]. Although several authors have developed intervention programs about SP prevention and back health care in elementary school [14,15,16], the incidence of SP increases during the period of growth [17], so interventions in high school are also needed. Previous studies have found that high school students have a low level of specific knowledge about back care and its relationship with health, even those with SP [13]. Interventions based on improving knowledge about back care have found excellent results [18]. However, although these kinds of programs can be effective in increasing knowledge about back care up to adulthood, they do not change back care behavior in the long term [16].
Another option is to carry out specific exercise programs in high school to improve factors that could be related with SP [19,20,21]. Along this line, SP has been linked to spine misalignments [7,22]; shortness in hamstring extensibility [23]; body height, body mass index (BMI), waist and hip girths [23,24]; or sedentary behaviors during leisure time [24,25] in childhood and adolescence. However, SP is characterized by a multifactorial condition which involves several risk factors such as sociodemographic, physiological or psychosocial factors [2], and most of the prior studies focused on a period of growth only used a one-factor approach.
This multifactorial focus is essential in adolescence because most of the biomechanical and physiological parameters rapidly change during this period of growth as a consequence of the effects of sexual dimorphism on the body structure, morphology and physiology [26,27,28]. Furthermore, some changes are also found in their habits. For example, adolescents prefer to spend their leisure time in sedentary activities with friends as opposed to performing a physical activity (PA) [29]. As a result, the importance of these factors on SP and their interinfluence can be different depending on sex [23,24,30] and age [31]. As a consequence, it is necessary to analyze the prevalence of SP risk SP depending of these variables from a global point of view and including pain in the different areas of the spine to understand how to focus interventions in high school and what could be the most influencing factors for each age and sex.
Therefore, the aims of this study were: (a) to estimate the prevalence and risk of SP in high school students and (b) to determine the differences in age, sagittal spinal curvatures and pelvic tilt, hamstring extensibility, anthropometry variables, PA level, leisure-time sedentary behaviors and health related quality of life (HRQL) dependent on SP between sexes. The hypotheses were the following: (a) highschool students suffer SP in different areas, with LBP being the most common; (b) SP incidence increases with age during adolescence; and (c) the association between SP and biomechanical, physiological, psychological and sociological factors depend on sex. If these hypotheses are supported, it would indicate that educational programs on SP implemented in high school will have to include contents about CP, TSP and LBP, and utilize different approaches depending on the sex and age of the students.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design and Setting

The present study was a cross-sectional study conducted at a high school and sports science laboratory. The trial design was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (identifier: NCT03831867). All parents or tutors signed an informed consent approved by the "Scientific and Ethical Committee" of the institution (code: TC4/17), and the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The cross-sectional study design followed the STROBE Statement. The data associated with the present word are available in the INVESALUD repository, from the institution’s foundation. It is also available from the corresponding author at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15_0peSh3ypNbJHfPT5bkW8EpvWqaotee/view?usp=sharing.

2.2. Participants

Two hundred seventy-three teenagers (male: MS = 134, 49.08%; female: FS = 139, 50.92%) aged between 12 and 17 years old (average age: 13.19 ± 1.2 years old) participated in this study. They were all students in a high school from the Region of Murcia (Spain). The criteria for inclusion were the following: (a) to be free of musculoskeletal, neurological, cardiac, metabolic or rheumatic illnesses and (b) to be a student in a high school. The exclusion criterion was to be employed in any kind of work.
The calculations utilized to establish the sample size were performed using Rstudio 3.15.0 software (RStudio, Northern Ave, Boston, MA, USA). The significance level was set at α = 0.01. According to the standard deviation established for the thoracic sagittal curvature of the spine measured with the Spinal Mouse in a previous study [32] and an estimated error of 2 degrees, a valid sample size for a confidence interval of 99% was 142.38. A total of 273 students completed the trial, providing a power of 99% if found between and within a variance of 1.44°. A power of 95% and an estimated error of 2.86 degrees was found in connection with the group of adolescents with LBP (n = 40).

2.3. Outcome Measures

All the measurements were performed by the same researchers in a single session between the h of 10:00 and 14:00. No warm-up or stretching exercises were performed by the participants before the test measurements. The participants were examined barefoot. The laboratory temperature was standardized at 24 °C. There was a 5-min rest between measurements. Prior to the examination, and in order to establish the reliability of the examiner, a double-blind study was performed with 30 subjects, obtaining an intraclass correlation coefficient higher than 95%.
To assess the sagittal spinal curvatures and pelvic tilt, the Spinal Mouse System (Idiag, Fehraltdorf, Switzerland) was utilized. The Spinal Mouse is an electronic device connected via Bluetooth to a computer, and was used to measure the sagittal spinal range, by measuring the angle of the thoracic curve, lumbar curve and pelvic tilt in standing position, in a non-invasive way, following the Muyor et al. protocols [32]. It is the most-commonly known and used instrument, and it has a high validity, intrarater reliability (ICCs: 0.61–0.96) and interrater reliability (ICCs: 0.70–0.93) [33].
For the thoracic curve, values below 20° were considered as hypokyphosis, values between 20 and 45° as neutral kyphosis and values higher than 46° as hyperkyphosis. For the lumbar curvature, values higher than −20° were considered as hypolordosis curves, values between −20 and −40° as neutral lordosis and values lower than −40° as hyperlordosis [34]. This classification for spinal curvatures has been used in several studies with adolescents [22,35].
The sit-and-reach (SR) test was used to evaluate hamstring flexibility following the Muyor et al. protocols [36]. To evaluate the pelvic tilt, the sagittal spinal curvature was assessed in this position at the start of the measurement at the T1 mark in flexion with the Spinal Mouse System. Regarding the pelvic tilt, 0° indicated a neutral position, negative values indicated pelvic retroversion, and positive values indicated pelvic anteversion [36].
The passive straight leg raise (PSLR) tests were performed according to Muyor et al. [36]. Both legs were measured and the mean was calculated afterwards.
The Back Pain Adolescent Survey utilized to discover the prevalence of SP, CP, TSP or LBP; PA; and sedentary behaviors during leisure-time was designed and validated by Martínez-Crespo et al. [37], with a kappa coefficient > 0.75. SP, CP, TSP, LBP in the last year and SP in last week were asked about. The practice of PA, the h of practice and the h of sedentary time were assessed. A new variable was calculated using a combined number of h of practice PA and number of h spend in sedentary time. It was considered sedentary when spending more than two h per day, following the recommendations from the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee [38], and it was considered active when spending more than 6 h per week in physical activities [39]. As a result, four categories from this variable were possible: Not sedentary and Active; Not sedentary and Not Active; Sedentary and Active; and Sedentary and Not Active.
A SECA 762 scale (SECA, Germany) was used to measure body mass, a GPM anthropometer (Siber-Hegner, Zurich, Switzerland) was used to measure stretch stature, and a Lufkin W606PM measuring tape (Lufkin, EE.UU.) to measure waist and hip girths. Afterwards, BMI (kg/m2) was calculated as body mass (kg)/stretch stature (m)2 [40], while waist-to-hip ratio was calculated as the waist measurement divided by the hip measurement (W/H). This last was used as an indirect marker of intra-abdominal obesity [41]. The recommendations from Mederico et al. [42] were followed for the measurements.
HRQL was assessed using the questionnaire KIDSCREEN-27 [43], adapted and validated to Spanish, and showing a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient higher than 0.70 in all its dimensions [44]. This questionnaire, composed of 37 questions, covers four basic dimensions: physical well-being, psychological well-being, autonomy and relationship with parents and social and peer support. It utilizes a Likert scale for scoring. It is possible to obtain individual scores, a dimension score and a global index of HRQL.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

After analyzing the normality of the variables with a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, a descriptive analysis was performed for the quantitative variables (means and standard deviations) and qualitative variables (counts and percentages). Unpaired t-tests (continuous variables) evaluated differences between two groups (MS/FS, with SP/without SP). The size effect was calculated, defined as low: r = 0.10; moderate: r = 0.30, high: r = 0.50; very high: r = 0.70 [45]. X2 analyses (categorical variables) were used to analyze differences between groups. The statistic Cramer´s V was utilized for the post hoc comparison of 2 × 2 tables, and the statistic contingency coefficient was used for 2 × n tables, showing the value of the statistic and the p value. The maximum expected value was 0.707; a low association was indicated if r ˂ 0.3; a moderate association if the r value was between 0.3 and 0.5 and a high association if r > 0.5. Stepwise, multiple logistic regression models were used to predict SP according to age and spending more than 2 h of leisure-time sedentary behaviors. The analysis reported two models: Model 1 for age, and Model 2 for age and 2 h of leisure-time spent in sedentary behaviors. The statistical analysis was performed using the statistical package SPSS 21.0 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, NY, USA). An error of p ≤ 0.05 was established.

3. Results

Table 1 shows the differences between sexes of the sagittal spine curvatures and pelvic tilt in standing position, hamstring extensibility, age and anthropometric variables. A significant difference between MS and FS was found for the reported degrees of the thoracic curvature, lumbar curvature and pelvic tilt, height, waist girth and waist-to-hip ratio (p < 0.05).
Table 2 shows the differences between sexes of the percentages of curvature classification, PA, leisure-time sedentary behaviors and SP. It was found that the majority of the participants had neutral curvatures, practiced PA between 1 and 5 h per week, their leisure-time sedentary behaviors lasted less than two h per day and did not suffer SP. The FS had greater hyperkyphosis and hyperlordosis, practiced less PA and for a lower number of h than the MS (p ˂ 0.05). It was also discovered that 16.12% of adolescents reported SP, with LBP being the most prevalent (10.34%). No differences between sexes for SP and leisure-time sedentary behaviors were found.
Table 3 shows the analysis of the different variables according to SP and according to SP categorized according to sex. Significant differences were observed in the dimensions of quality of life according to SP. Subjects with SP were older than those without SP, being significant for FS. In addition, participants with SP obtained lower scores in all dimensions of quality of life than subjects without pain, although only the difference for FS was significant. Separated by CP, TSP or LBP, subjects with LBP had a significantly higher weight (59.58 vs 53.54 kg; p = 0.018), BMI (22.04 vs 20.63 kg/m2; p = 0.037) and hip girth (94.16 vs 90.12 cm; p = 0.024) than subjects who did not report pain. No differences were found in the other variables and in CP or TSP.
Table 4 shows associations between the presence of SP and percentages of curvature classification, PA, and leisure-time sedentary behaviors. It was found that the sedentary time of participants without SP was lower than the adolescents with SP in the general sample and FS. Non-significant differences were found for MS or the relationship of SP with the other variables. Separating by CP, TSP or LBP, an association between having a misalignment in the lumbar spine (hypolordosis or hyperlordosis) and LBP for MS (Cramer’s V = 0.204, p = 0.022) was observed. A significantly higher percent of boys with LBP had a misalignment in the lumbar curvature (46.15%) than boys without SP (18.58%). Non-significant differences were found for the rest of analyses.
Table 5 shows the results of the new variable calculated, which combined PA and sedentary behaviors. The adolescents considered as sedentary and not active (more than 2 h of sedentary behaviors per day and less than 7 h of PA per week) had the highest percentage of SP in the general sample, MS and FS, being significant for the general sample (contingency coefficient = 0.195; p = 0.014) and FS (contingency coefficient = 0.275; p = 0.011).
Based on these findings, age and more/less than 2 h spent in leisure-time sedentary behaviors were considered for inclusion into the logistic regression model. Both variables were significantly collinear (VIF = 1.01; Durbin-Watson = 2.10) (Table 6).

4. Discussion

To date, none of the studies found in the literature review have analyzed the incidence of SP in different areas of the back in the same sample of adolescents. The first aim of the present study was to estimate the prevalence and risk of SP in high school students. It was found that 16.12% of the students suffered SP, with a prevalence of 2.30% for CP, 5.75% for TSP and 10.34% for LBP, which agrees with hypothesis (a), with a similar incidence according to sex. Percentages of incidence in the present study for SP, TSP and LBP were within the range shown by recent systematic reviews [1,2,8]. Small differences between the percentages of the different studies could be due to differences in the SP, CP, TSP and LBP definitions and methodology used to collect the incidence of pain [24]. According to these data, it is necessary to include intervention programs into the educational context to decrease the percentage of adolescents affected by SP and to decrease the pain of those who suffer from SP [14,15,16,18]. Furthermore, educational programs should not only focus on LBP, as it has frequently occurred [14,15,16,18,19], but should also include knowledge about SP and CP, and the interventions necessary to decrease the incidence of these pathologies.
Another important finding was that the prevalence of SP increased with chronological age, according with hypothesis (b). A similar evolution has been found in previous studies [24,31,46]. This finding has important implications for the introduction of SP education programs in secondary education. Due to the low incidence in the youngest students, back health programs in the first academic years could be focused on improving the knowledge about back care and its relation with SP, life habits, health and quality of life, following the guidelines of previous studies, which have demonstrated their effectiveness [13]. It is possible that this will not incite behavioral changes, but some studies have found that knowledge is needed before a positive change starts [16,47]. As the incidence of SP increases during adolescence, physical interventions during the last years of high school could be an interesting tool for improving back health.
Furthermore, one interesting finding was that the relationship between age and SP was stronger in FS that in MS, although in general no differences were found in the prevalence of pain reported by the adolescents according to sex. A possible explanation for this may be that menarche is the most predictive demographic or medical history factor associated with LBP according to previous data [31]. FS hormones, particularly estrogens, increase after menarche, inducing changes in the girls’ bodies. For example, hips widen during puberty and have an influence on lower-limb alignment. This factor has been correlated with a wider support base, increased static and dynamic knee abduction angles and external moments during walking and more valgus knee in static and dynamic conditions [48], factors that are highly related with SP [49]. Another possible explanation for this is that FS hormone levels are related with increased lumbar spine mobility [50], which is associated with trunk muscle fatigue and excessive spinal loads [51], factors that are also associated with SP [52]. According to these data, it could be inferred that education programs may need a different orientation depending on the student’s sex in the last years of high school.
Quality of life is used as a health outcome to evaluate the physical, social and mental functioning in adolescents [53]. An important and clinically-relevant finding of the present study was that there were differences between SP and no SP groups related to the health-related quality of life in the total sample and FS. In fact, together with age, these were the unique variables included in the logistic regression model to predict SP. Some studies have shown that SP is associated with poorer quality of life in adolescents [54,55,56,57] but few of them have analyzed differences between the sexes [54]. This previous study reported that the association between LBP and lower quality of life was higher in girls [54], which corroborates the present findings and hypothesis (c). Higher associations in girls may be the result of the menstrual cycle due to the menstrual cycle-induced LBP in more than half of FS high school students [58], and it is also associated with frequent complaints and pain [59], factors that affect quality of life [54]. Thus, the menstrual cycle could be the reason for the relationship between both factors. Along this line, some exercise program based on stretching and/or lumbo-pelvic exercises have demonstrated reductions in LBP and improvements in the physiological wellness of women [60,61]. Another possible explanation is that as a consequence of the roles fixed by education and society, boys have become more reticent about showing their symptoms and feelings [62]. Thus, stretching and/or lumbo-pelvic exercises could become interesting topics for exercise intervention programs with FS students, while an increase in the knowledge about the relationship between LBP and quality of life could be interesting for MS students.
One interesting finding of the present study is that a higher percentage of adolescents with SP spent more than 2 h of their leisure-time in sedentary behaviors than the no SP group. Previous studies also found a correlation between LBP and the time spent in sedentary behaviors such as watching TV, in adolescents [62,63], and similar results have been found in the general population [25]. This result may be explained by the fact that a prolonged seated position can result in viscoelastic deformation of passive tissues in the posterior trunk. If it occurs, the activation of trunk muscles is increased [64], and it is when these muscles are fatigued that the incidence of back disorders increases [51] as, for example, LBP [65]. However, no previous study has investigated differences between sexes in the relationship between SP and leisure-time sedentary behaviors. The results of the present study showed that there was a relationship between these factors only in FS, which agrees with hypothesis (c). Trunk muscle resistance and stability capacity could be key aspects for preventing the association between sedentary behaviors and back disorders [66,67]. Previous studies have found that women showed lower trunk flexor and extensor strength and endurance, and lower trunk balance [68,69], so it could be interesting to include specific exercises to improve these factors in the interventions carried out with girls in high school. However, other non-mechanical inputs, linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, as nociceptive, nervous system dysfunction, comorbidities, cognitive-emotional and contextual drivers can cause pain and/or disability in LBP [12,70,71], so global interventions including mechanical and non-mechanical factors may be carried out to improve both functioning and contextual parameters [11,72,73].
No significant differences in the practice of PA and hours of practice were found between the SP and no SP groups. It seems possible that these results were due to the fact that a differentiation between sports was not performed. Along this line, the systematic practice of some sports or activities decreases the risk of suffering SP, especially when the sport increases trunk muscle resistance, trunk stability, extensibility and the spine is in neutral positions; but the practice of other sports characterized by hopping, jogging or stepping, with flexion or extension trunk positions, or by unilateral actions especially if there are repetitive motions, can increase it. This could be, for example, the case of volleyball, tennis, cycling or rowing [24,74,75,76]. The risk increases with training volume, higher physical loads, repetitive mechanical strain and dynamic extreme body positions [76]. It could be important to include knowledge about beneficial sports and harmful sports for SP in the education programs that are developed in high school, because educational programs do not usually include this information.
No previous study has investigated the combination of sedentary behaviors in leisure-time and PA related with SP incidence. In the present study, students that spent more than 2 h of their leisure-time in sedentary behaviors and did not practice PA showed a higher SP incidence than other groups. PA is not only associated with improvement in mechanical factors associated with SP [19,77], but also with non-mechanical factors [12,70,71] as, for example, brain development [78], central mechanism adaptations [79] or immune system functions [80]. Furthermore, in general, not differences were observed between the group of students that showed sedentary behaviors but practiced PA; the group of students that did not show sedentary behaviors but did not practice PA, and group of students that did not show sedentary behaviors and practiced PA. It can thus be suggested that the presence of at least one of these two factors can induce a significant reduction in the incidence of SP, and it could be an interesting guideline to follow in back educational programs. Despite these promising results, many questions still remain.
Another important finding was that students with LBP showed higher body mass, BMI and waist girth than the no LBP group. Previous studies have found a relationship between anthropometric variables and LBP [23,24]. Associations between anthropometry variables and LBP can be a consequence of the extra load on the spine induced by the increases in weight [23]. Based on these findings, educational programs which induce changes in PA and nutritional habits could be effective for reducing LBP incidence. Innovative teaching methods could be excellent tools for achieving this [81]. However, due to the influence of the sex hormones in these factors and the lack of longitudinal studies, future studies with a longitudinal design addressing the relations between LBP and anthropometric variables that include sex hormone values and data about the menstrual cycle are therefore recommended.
In this study, spine curvatures were not related with SP, except when lumbar misalignment and LBP were analyzed in MS. In fact, misalignment was not included in the logistic regression model. Similar results have been found in previous studies, which explained the results by studying the association of spine posture as a single variable [22,82,83]. Furthermore, most of the participants showed neutral curvatures, which can influence the relationship with SP. In this sense, students with a musculoskeletal illness were excluded in the present study, so it could be possible that results could be different when students with a pathology in the sagittal plane of the spine are analyzed [22,35]. This is an important issue for future research.
No differences were found in hamstring extensibility between the SP and no SP groups either. While a study found that girls without LBP had a higher hamstring extensibility than the group with LBP, no differences were found in boys [84]. Another study found that the percentage of boys with hamstring shortness in the LBP group was higher than in the no LBP group, although no differences were found in girls [23]. Lastly, another study did not find a relationship between hamstring extensibility and LBP [24]. Further studies, which analyze the relationships between the spine, hamstring extensibility and SP, and the influence of some aspects such as musculoskeletal, neuroplasticity and biomechanics characteristics during puberty related with sex hormone levels throughout adolescence and depending on sex will need to be undertaken.
Some limitations should be acknowledged. The main limitation was that the assessment of pain did not include information about its duration or severity. A second limitation was that the results provided by this research study should be viewed with caution, as the sample selection does not allow them to be generalized. Furthermore, differences in the approaches utilized to collect data on SP, CP, TSP and LBP prevalence between studies made the comparison of the findings more complex. Lastly, sex hormone levels and information about the menstrual cycle were not measures, although they can influence the relationship between factors, especially during adolescence.

5. Conclusions

Of the total sample, 16.12% of the adolescents reported spinal pain, with the most prevalent pain being lumbar pain (10.34%), followed by thoracic spine pain (5.75%) and cervical pain (2.3%), without differences found between both sexes. There was no association between spinal pain and the sex of the participants, the level of PA practiced, height, hip girth or waist-to-hip ratio. Adolescents with spinal pain were older, had a lower quality of life in all dimensions and spent more than 2 h of leisure-time on sedentary behaviors per day. Adolescents with LBP were heavier and had a greater BMI and hip girth than subjects who did not report pain. MS showed an association between LBP and misalignment in the lumbar spine.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.G.-G., R.V.-C. and P.J.M.-P.; methodology, N.G.-G., R.V.-C. and P.J.M.-P.; formal analysis, N.G.-G., R.V.-C. and P.J.M.-P.; investigation, N.G.-G., R.V.-C., A.L.-V., M.A.-S. and P.J.M.-P.; data curation, N.G.-G., R.V.-C., A.L.-V., M.A.-S. and P.J.M.-P.; writing—original draft preparation, N.G.-G., R.V.-C. and P.J.M.-P.; writing—review and editing, N.G.-G., R.V.-C., A.L.-V., M.A.-S. and P.J.M.-P.; supervision, N.G.-G., R.V.-C. and P.J.M.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the school center for its support and thank the students who participated in this study. The authors are also grateful to the Physical Education department, for their help, especially to Marcos Ortiz Sebastian, for his support with the intervention program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Calvo-Muñoz, I.; Kovacs, F.M.; Roqué, M.; Fernández, I.G.; Calvo, J.S. Risk Factors for Low Back Pain in Childhood and Adolescence: A Systematic Review. Clin. J. Pain 2018, 34, 468–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Scarabottolo, C.C.; Pinto, R.Z.; Oliveira, C.B.; Zanuto, E.F.; Cardoso, J.R.; Christofaro, D.G.D. Back and neck pain prevalence and their association with physical inactivity domains in adolescents. Eur. Spine J. 2017, 26, 2274–2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Hoy, D.; March, L.; Brooks, P.; Blyth, F.; Woolf, A.; Bain, C.; Williams, G.; Smith, E.; Vos, T.; Barendregt, J.; et al. The global burden of low back pain: Estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2014, 73, 968–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Kamper, S.J.; Henschke, N.; Hestbaek, L.; Dunn, K.M.; Williams, C.M. Musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2016, 20, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Harreby, M.; Neergaard, K.; Hesselsøe, G.; Kjer, J. Are radiologic changes in the thoracic and lumbar spine of adolescents risk factors for low back pain in adults? A 25-year prospective cohort study of 640 school children. Spine 1995, 20, 2298–2302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hestbaek, L.; Leboeuf-Yde, C.; Kyvik, K.O. Is comorbidity in adolescence a predictor for adult low back pain? A prospective study of a young population. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2006, 7, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Wirth, B.; Potthoff, T.; Rosser, S.; Humphreys, B.K.; De Bruin, E.D. Physical risk factors for adolescent neck and mid back pain: A systematic review. Chiropr. Man. Ther. 2018, 26, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Briggs, A.M.; Smith, A.J.; Straker, L.M.; Bragge, P. Thoracic spine pain in the general population: Prevalence, incidence and associated factors in children, adolescents and adults. A systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2009, 10, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Blanco-Morales, M.; Abuín-Porras, V.; Romero-Morales, C.; de la Cueva-Reguera, M.; De-La-Cruz-Torres, B.; Rodríguez-Costa, I. Implementation of a Classroom Program of Physiotherapy among Spanish Adolescents with Back Pain: A Collaborative Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Panjabi, M.M. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part, I. Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement. J. Spinal Disord. 1992, 5, 383–389, discussion 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Baliki, M.N.; Geha, P.Y.; Jabakhanji, R.; Harden, N.; Schnitzer, T.J.; Apkarian, A.V. A preliminary fMRI study of analgesic treatment in chronic back pain and knee osteoarthritis. Mol. Pain 2008, 4, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Baliki, M.N.; Geha, P.Y.; Fields, H.L.; Apkarian, A.V. Predicting value of pain and analgesia: Nucleus accumbens response to noxious stimuli changes in the presence of chronic pain. Neuron 2010, 66, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Miñana-Signes, V.; Monfort-Pañego, M. Knowledge on health and back care education related to physical activity and exercise in adolescents. Eur. Spine J. Off. Publ. Eur. Spine Soc. Eur. Spinal Deform. Soc. Eur. Sect. Cerv. Spine Res. Soc. 2016, 25, 755–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Cardon, G.M.; De Clercq, D.L.R.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.M.M. Back education efficacy in elementary schoolchildren: A 1-year follow-up study. Spine 2002, 27, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Cardon, G.M.; de Clercq, D.L.R.; Geldhof, E.J.A.; Verstraete, S.; de Bourdeaudhuij, I.M.M. Back education in elementary schoolchildren: The effects of adding a physical activity promotion program to a back care program. Eur. Spine J. Off. Publ. Eur. Spine Soc. Eur. Spinal Deform. Soc. Eur. Sect. Cerv. Spine Res. Soc. 2007, 16, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Dolphens, M.; Cagnie, B.; Danneels, L.; De Clercq, D.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Cardon, G. Long-term effectiveness of a back education programme in elementary schoolchildren: An 8-year follow-up study. Eur. Spine J. Off. Publ. Eur. Spine Soc. Eur. Spinal Deform. Soc. Eur. Sect. Cerv. Spine Res. Soc. 2011, 20, 2134–2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Leboeuf-Yde, C.; Kyvik, K.O. At what age does low back pain become a common problem? A study of 29,424 individuals aged 12-41 years. Spine 1998, 23, 228–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rodríguez-Oviedo, P.; Santiago-Pérez, M.I.; Pérez-Ríos, M.; Gómez-Fernández, D.; Fernández-Alonso, A.; Carreira-Núñez, I.; García-Pacios, P.; Ruano-Ravina, A. Backpack weight and back pain reduction: Effect of an intervention in adolescents. Pediatr. Res. 2018, 84, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. González-Gálvez, N.; Marcos-Pardo, P.J.; Carrasco-Poyatos, M. Functional improvements after a pilates program in adolescents with a history of back pain: A randomised controlled trial. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 2019, 35, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. González-Gálvez, N.; Marcos-Pardo, P.J.; Trejo-Alfaro, H.; Vaquero-Cristóbal, R. Effect of 9-month Pilates program on sagittal spinal curvatures and hamstring extensibility in adolescents: Randomised controlled trial. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 9977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Steenholt, C.B.; Pisinger, V.S.C.; Danquah, I.H.; Tolstrup, J.S. School and class-level variations and patterns of physical activity: A multilevel analysis of Danish high school students. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Sainz de Baranda, P.; Cejudo, A.; Martínez-Romero, M.T.; Aparicio-Sarmiento, A.; Rodríguez-Ferrán, O.; Collazo-Diéguez, M.; Hurtado-Avilés, J.; Andújar, P.; Santonja-Medina, F. Sitting Posture, Sagittal Spinal Curvatures and Back Pain in 8 to 12-Year-Old Children from the Region of Murcia (Spain): ISQUIOS Programme. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Sjolie, A.N. Low-back pain in adolescents is associated with poor hip mobility and high body mass index. Scand. J. Med. Sci Sport. 2004, 14, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Harreby, M.; Nygaard, B.; Jessen, T.; Larsen, E.; Storr-Paulsen, A.; Lindahl, A.; Fisker, I.; Laegaard, E. Risk Factors for Low Back Pain in a Cohort of 1389 Danish School Children: An Epidemiologic Study. Eur Spine J. 1999, 8, 444–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Amorim, B.; Simic, A.; Pappas, M.; Zadro, E.; Carrillo, J.R.; Ordoñana, E.; Ferreira, J.R. Is occupational or leisure physical activity associated with low back pain? Insights from a cross-sectional study of 1059 participants. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2019, 23, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Husky, M.M.; Ferdous Farin, F.; Compagnone, P.; Fermanian, C.; Kovess-Masfety, V. Chronic back pain and its association with quality of life in a large French population survey. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2018, 16, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Grabara, M.; Bieniec, A.; Nawrocka, A. Spinal curvatures of children and adolescents - A cross-sectional study. Biomed. Hum. Kinet. 2017, 9, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Mayorga-Vega, D.; Merino-Marban, R.; Manzano-Lagunas, J.; Blanco, H.; Viciana, J. Effects of a Stretching Development and Maintenance Program on Hamstring Extensibility in Schoolchildren: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2016, 15, 65–74. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee, K.T.H.; Lewis, R.W.; Kataoka, S.; Schenke, K.; Vandell, D.L. Out-of-School Time and Behaviors During Adolescence. J. Res. Adolesc. 2018, 28, 284–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zwierzchowska, A.; Tuz, J.; Grabara, M. Can BAI be better than BMI to estimate the increment of lumbar lordosis for Caucasians population? J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 2020, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sweeney, E.A.; Daoud, A.K.; Potter, M.N.; Ritchie, L.; Howell, D.R. Association Between Flexibility and Low Back Pain in Female Adolescent Gymnasts. Clin. J. Sport Med. Off. J. Can. Acad. Sport Med. 2019, 29, 379–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Muyor, J.M.; López-Miñarro, P.A.; Casimiro, A.J. Effect of stretching program in an industrial workplace on hamstring flexibility and sagittal spinal posture of adult women workers: A randomized controlled trial. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 2012, 25, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Kellis, E.; Adamou, G.; Tzilios, G.; Emmanouilidou, M. Reliability of Spinal Range of Motion in Healthy Boys Using a Skin-Surface Device. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2008, 31, 570–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Santonja Medina, F. Exploración Clínica y Radiográfica del Raquis Sagital, sus Correlaciones; Universidad de Murcia: Murcia, Spain, 1993; ISBN 8476844395. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sainz de Baranda, P.; Cejudo, A.; Moreno-Alcaraz, V.J.; Martinez-Romero, M.T.; Aparicio-Sarmiento, A.; Santonja-Medina, F. Sagittal spinal morphotype assessment in 8 to 15 years old Inline Hockey players. PeerJ 2020, 8, e8229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Muyor, J.M.; Vaquero-Cristóbal, R.; Alacid, F.; López-Miñarro, P.A. Criterion-Related Validity of Sit-and-Reach and Toe-Touch Tests as a Measure of Hamstring Extensibility in Athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 546–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Martínez-Crespo, G.; Rodríguez-Piñero Durán, M.; López-Salguero, A.I.; Zarco-Periñan, M.J.; Ibáñez-Campos, T.; Echevarría-Ruiz de Vargas, C. Back pain among adolescents: Prevalence and associated factors. Rehabilitacion 2009, 43, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Department of Health and Human E Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee; Department of Health and Human E: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
  39. World Health Organization Physical Activity: Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health Consequences of Physical Inactivity; WHO Region: Ginebra, Spain, 2015; ISBN 978 92 4 159 997 9.
  40. Cole, T.J.; Donnet, M.L.; Stanfield, J.P. Weight-for-height indices to assess nutritional status—A new index on a slide-rule. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1981, 34, 1935–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dehghan, M.; Akhtar-Danesh, N.; Merchant, A.T. Childhood obesity, prevalence and prevention. Nutr. J. 2005, 4, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Mederico, M.; Paoli, M.; Zerpa, Y.; Camacho, N.; Cichetti, R.; Molina, Z.; Mora, Y.; Valeri, L. Reference values of waist circumference and waist/hip ratio in children and adolescents of Mérida, Venezuela: Comparison with international references. Endocrinol. Y Nutr. 2013, 60, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ravens-Sieberer, U.; Auquier, P.; Erhart, M.; Gosch, A.; Rajmil, L.; Bruil, J.; Power, M.; Duer, W.; Cloetta, B.; Czemy, L.; et al. The KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: Psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Qual. Life Res. 2007, 16, 1347–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Aymerich, M.; Berra, S.; Guillamón, I.; Herdman, M.; Alonso, J.; Ravens-Sieberer, U.; Rajmil, L. Development of the Spanish version of the KIDSCREEN, a health-related quality of life instrument for children and adolescents. Gac. Sanit. 2005, 19, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New York, NY, USA, 1988; ISBN 0-8058-0283-5. [Google Scholar]
  46. Swain, M.S.; Henschke, N.; Kamper, S.J.; Gobina, I.; Ottová-Jordan, V.; Maher, C.G. An international survey of pain in adolescents. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Stewart, S.E.; Mitchell, M.F. Instructional Variables and Student Knowledge and Conceptions of Fitness. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2003, 22, 533–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Froehle, A.W.; Grannis, K.A.; Sherwood, R.J.; Duren, D.L. Relationships Between Age at Menarche, Walking Gait Base of Support, and Stance Phase Frontal Plane Knee Biomechanics in Adolescent Girls. PM R 2017, 9, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Tsigkanos, C.; Gaskell, L.; Smirniotou, A.; Tsigkanos, G. Static and dynamic balance deficiencies in chronic low back pain. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 2016, 29, 887–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kyllönen, E.S.; Heikkinen, J.E.; Väänänen, H.K.; Kurttila-Matero, E.; Wilen-Rosenqvist, G.; Lankinen, K.S.; Vanharanta, J.H. Influence of estrogen-progestin replacement therapy and exercise on lumbar spine mobility and low back symptoms in a healthy early postmenopausal female population: A 2-year randomized controlled trial. Eur. Spine J. 1998, 7, 381–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Shin, G.; D’Souza, C.; Liu, Y.-H. Creep and fatigue development in the low back in static flexion. Spine 2009, 34, 1873–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Bakker, E.W.P.; Verhagen, A.P.; van Trijffel, E.; Lucas, C.; Koes, B.W. Spinal mechanical load as a risk factor for low back pain: A systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Spine 2009, 34, E281–E93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Solans, M.; Pane, S.; Estrada, M.-D.; Serra-Sutton, V.; Berra, S.; Herdman, M.; Alonso, J.; Rajmil, L. Health-related quality of life measurement in children and adolescents: A systematic review of generic and disease-specific instruments. Value Heal. J. Int. Soc. Pharm. Outcomes Res. 2008, 11, 742–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Macedo, R.B.; Coelho-e-Silva, M.J.; Sousa, N.F.; Valente-dos-Santos, J.; Machado-Rodrigues, A.M.; Cumming, S.P.; Lima, A.V.; Gonçalves, R.S.; Martins, R.A. Quality of life, school backpack weight, and nonspecific low back pain in children and adolescents. J. Pediatr. 2015, 91, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Balagué, F.; Ferrer, M.; Rajmil, L.; Acuña, A.P.; Pellisé, F.; Cedraschi, C. Assessing the association between low back pain, quality of life, and life events as reported by schoolchildren in a population-based study. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2012, 171, 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Koh, M.J.; Park, S.Y.; Woo, Y.S.; Kang, S.H.; Park, S.H.; Chun, H.J.; Park, E.J. Assessing the Prevalence of Recurrent Neck and Shoulder Pain in Korean High School Male Students: A Cross-sectional Observational Study. Korean J. Pain 2012, 25, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Gonçalves, T.R.; Mediano, M.F.F.; Sichieri, R.; Cunha, D.B. Is Health-related Quality of Life Decreased in Adolescents With Back Pain? Spine 2018, 43, E822–E829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Banikarim, C.; Chacko, M.R.; Kelder, S.H. Prevalence and impact of dysmenorrhea on Hispanic female adolescents. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2000, 154, 1226–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Kolip, P. Gender differences in health status during adolescencet a remarkable shift. Int. J. Adolesc. Med. Health 2011, 9, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chen, H.-M.; Hu, H.-M. Randomized Trial of Modified Stretching Exercise Program for Menstrual Low Back Pain. West. J. Nurs. Res. 2019, 41, 238–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Holtzman, D.A.; Petrocco-Napuli, K.L.; Burke, J.R. Prospective case series on the effects of lumbosacral manipulation on dysmenorrhea. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2008, 31, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fernandes, J.A.A.; Dos Santos Genebra, C.V.; Maciel, N.M.; Fiorelli, A.; de Conti, M.H.S.; De Vitta , A. Low back pain in schoolchildren: A cross-sectional study ub a western city of Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Acta Ortopédica Bras. 2015, 23, 235–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Balagué, F.; Dutoit, G.; Waldburger, M. Low back pain in schoolchildren. An epidemiological study. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med. 1988, 20, 175–179. [Google Scholar]
  64. McCook, D.T.; Vicenzino, B.; Hodges, P.W. Activity of deep abdominal muscles increases during submaximal flexion and extension efforts but antagonist co-contraction remains unchanged. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. Off. J. Int. Soc. Electrophysiol. Kinesiol. 2009, 19, 754–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jubany, J.; Danneels, L.; Angulo-Barroso, R. The influence of fatigue and chronic low back pain on muscle recruitment patterns following an unexpected external perturbation. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2017, 18, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Bauer, C.M.; Rast, F.M.; Ernst, M.J.; Meichtry, A.; Kool, J.; Rissanen, S.M.; Suni, J.H.; Kankaanpää, M. The effect of muscle fatigue and low back pain on lumbar movement variability and complexity. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. Off. J. Int. Soc. Electrophysiol. Kinesiol. 2017, 33, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Möller, D.; Ballenberger, N.; Ackermann, B.; Zalpour, C. Potential Relevance of Altered Muscle Activity and Fatigue in the Development of Performance-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries in High String Musicians. Med. Probl. Perform. Art. 2018, 33, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Smidt, G.; Herring, T.; Amundsen, L.; Rogers, M.; Russell, A.; Lehmann, T. Assessment of abdominal and back extensor function. A quantitative approach and results for chronic low-back patients. Spine 1983, 8, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chimera, N.J.; Smith, C.A.; Warren, M. Injury history, sex, and performance on the functional movement screen and Y balance test. J. Athl. Train. 2015, 50, 475–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Tousignant-Laflamme, Y.; Martel, M.O.; Joshi, A.B.; Cook, C.E. Rehabilitation management of low back pain—It’s time to pull it all together! J. Pain Res. 2017, 10, 2373–2385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Baliki, M.N.; Apkarian, A.V. Nociception, Pain, Negative Moods, and Behavior Selection. Neuron 2015, 87, 474–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Riberto, M.; Chiappetta, L.M.; Lopes, K.A.; Chiappetta, L.R. A transversal multicenter study assessing functioning, disability and environmental factors with the comprehensive ICF core set for low back pain in Brazil. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2014, 50, 153–160. [Google Scholar]
  73. Breen, A.C.; van Tulder, M.W.; Koes, B.W.; Jensen, I.; Reardon, R.; Bronfort, G. Mono-disciplinary or multidisciplinary back pain guidelines? How can we achieve a common message in primary care? Eur. Spine J. Off. Publ. Eur. Spine Soc. Eur. Spinal Deform. Soc. Eur. Sect. Cerv. Spine Res. Soc. 2006, 15, 641–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Masiero, S.; Carraro, E.; Celia, A.; Sarto, D.; Ermani, M. Prevalence of nonspecific low back pain in schoolchildren aged between 13 and 15 years. Acta Paediatr. 2008, 97, 212–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Balagué, F.; Nordin, M.; Skovron, M.L.; Dutoit, G.; Yee, A.; Waldburger, M. Non-specific low-back pain among schoolchildren: A field survey with analysis of some associated factors. J. Spinal Disord. 1994, 7, 374–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Trompeter, K.; Fett, D.; Platen, P. Prevalence of Back Pain in Sports: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sports Med. 2017, 47, 1183–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Valenza, M.C.; Rodríguez-Torres, J.; Cabrera-Martos, I.; Díaz-Pelegrina, A.; Aguilar-Ferrándiz, M.E.; Castellote-Caballero, Y. Results of a Pilates exercise program in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: A randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2017, 31, 753–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gomes da Silva, S.; Arida, R.M. Physical activity and brain development. Expert Rev. Neurother. 2015, 15, 1041–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lima, L.V.; Abner, T.S.S.; Sluka, K.A. Does exercise increase or decrease pain? Central mechanisms underlying these two phenomena. J. Physiol. 2017, 595, 4141–4150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Simpson, R.J.; Kunz, H.; Agha, N.; Graff, R. Exercise and the Regulation of Immune Functions. Prog. Mol. Biol. Transl. Sci. 2015, 135, 355–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Suchert, V.; Isensee, B.; Hansen, J.; Johannsen, M.; Krieger, C.; Müller, K.; Sauer, I.; Weisser, B.; Sargent, J.D.; Hanewinkel, R. “läuft.”--a school-based multi-component program to establish a physically active lifestyle in adolescence: Study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Trials 2013, 14, 416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Smith, A.; O’Sullivan, P.; Straker, L. Classification of sagittal thoraco-lumbo-pelvic alignment of the adolescent spine in standing and its relationship to low back pain. Spine 2008, 33, 2101–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Korovessis, P.; Koureas, G.; Papazisis, Z. Correlation between backpack weight and way of carrying, sagittal and frontal spinal curvatures, athletic activity, and dorsal and low back pain in schoolchildren and adolescents. J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 2004, 17, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jones, M.A.; Stratton, G.; Reilly, T.; Unnithan, V.B. Biological risk indicators for recurrent non-specific low back pain in adolescents. Br. J. Sports Med. 2005, 39, 137–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Mean values (±SD) of curvatures, hamstring extensibility and anthropometric variables and differences between sexes.
Table 1. Mean values (±SD) of curvatures, hamstring extensibility and anthropometric variables and differences between sexes.
Total
100% (n = 273)		MS
49.08%
(n = 134)		FS
50.92%
(n = 139)		Diff. MS-FS95%CIpEffect Size d
Thoracic curvature in standing (°)35.3 ± 11.432.1 ± 10.838.4 ± 11.1−6.3−8.9; −3.70.0000.57
Lumbar curvature
in standing (°)		−35.3 ± 7.2−33.4 ± 7.3−37.0 ± 6.63.62.0; 5.30.0000.52
Pelvic tilt in standing (°)25.0 ± 7.326.0 ± 8.024.1 ± 6.41.90.2; 3.60.0330.24
Distance in SR (cm)−8.7 ± 9.4−12.8 ± 8.1−4.7 ± 8.7−8.1−19.1; −6.10.0000.97
Pelvic tilt in SR (°)−13.9 ± 9.4−20.4 ± 9.6−7.7 ± 12.9−12.7−15.5; 10.00.0001.12
PSLR (°)81.8 ± 14.474.8 ± 9.288.6 ± 15.3−13.8−16.8; −10.80.0001.09
Age13.2 ± 1.213.3 ± 1.313.1 ± 1.20.2−0.1; 0.60.0990.20
Body mass (kg)54.2 ± 12.155.5 ± 13.052.9 ± 11.22.6−0.3; 5.50.0780.21
Height (cm)161.3 ± 9.4163.2 ± 10.8159.6 ± 7.33.71.5; 5.90.0010.40
BMI (kg/m2)20.7 ± 3.820.7 ± 3.920.7 ± 3.8−0.02−0.9; 0.90.9740.00
Waist girth (cm)72.3 ± 9.974.9 ± 10.569.9 ± 8.65.02.8; 7.30.0000.53
Hip girth (cm)90.3 ± 8.889.8 ± 9.190.9 ± 8.6−1.1−3.2; 1.00.3190.12
W/H ratio0.8 ± 0.10.8 ± 0.10.8 ± 0.10.10.5; 0.10.0000.60
MS: male; FS: female; SR: Sit-and-reach test; PLSR: Passive straight leg raise; W/H ratio: Waist to hip ratio.
Table
Table 2. Percentages (counts) of curvature classification, PA practice, leisure-time sedentary behaviors and SP and differences between sexes.
Table 2. Percentages (counts) of curvature classification, PA practice, leisure-time sedentary behaviors and SP and differences between sexes.
General Sample
100% (n = 273)		MS
49.08%
(n = 134)		FS
50.92%
(n = 139)		r *p
Thoracic curvature classification
Hypokyphosis8.8(24)13.4 (18)4.3(6)0.2410.000
Normal71.4(195)75.4(101)67.6(94)
Hyperkyphosis19.8(54)11.2(15)28.1(39)
Lumbar curvature classification
Hypolordosis2.2(6)4.5(6)0.0(0)0.2230.001
Normal72.5(198)78.4(105)66.9(93)
Hyperlordosis25.3(69)17.2(23)33.1(46)
PA practice
No15.7(43)10.4(14)20.9(29)-0.1430.018
Yes84.2(230)89.6(120)79.1(110)
Practice h PA/week
0 h16.7(43)11.3(14)21.6(29)0.2770.000
1-5 h49.2(127)41.9(52)56.0(75)
6-10 h27.9(72)36.3 (45)20.1(27)
+10 h6.2(16)10.4(13)2.2(3)
Leisure-time sedentary behaviors
≤ 2 h74.8(202)70.9(95)78.7(107)0.0900.141
>2 h25.2(68)29.1(39)21.3(29)
SP
No83.9(229)83.6(112)84.2(117)0.0080.894
Yes16.1(44)16.4(22)15.8(22)
CP
No97.7(255)98.4(124)97.0(131)0.0460.459
Yes2.3(6)1.6(2)3.0(4)
TSP
No94.2(246)96.8(122)91.8(124)0.1070.085
Yes5.7(15)3.2(4)8.1(11)
LBP
No89.7(234)89.7(113)89.6(121)0.0010.989
Yes10.3(27)10.3(13)10.4(14)
MS: male; FS: female; PA: physical activity; SP: spinal pain; CP: cervical pain; TSP: thoracic spine pain; LBP: low back pain; *: Cramer’s V or Coefficient contingence.
Table
Table 3. Mean values (±SD) of curvatures, anthropometric variables and HRQL and differences between SP and sex.
Table 3. Mean values (±SD) of curvatures, anthropometric variables and HRQL and differences between SP and sex.
General Sample
100% (n = 273)		MS
49.08% (n = 134)		FS
50.92% (n = 139)
Without SP
83.88%
(n = 229)		With SP
16.12%
(n = 44)		pWithout SP
83.58%
(n = 112)		With SP
16.42%
(n = 22)		pWithout SP
84.17%
(n = 117)		With SP
15.83%
(n = 22)		p
Thoracic curve in standing (°)35.3 ± 11.635.5 ± 10.40.93131.6 ± 11.034.8 ± 9.60.20438.8 ± 11.136.1 ± 11.40.291
Lumbar curve in standing (°)−35.3 ± 7.2−34.8 ± 7.50.661−33.5 ± 7.1−33.6 ± 8.60.883−37.2 ± 6.7−36.0 ± 6.30.434
Pelvic tilt in standing (°)25.0 ± 7.425.6 ± 6.60.58926.0 ± 8.225.9 ± 7.10.96523.9 ± 6.525.2 ± 6.20.370
Pelvic tilt in SR (°)−14.0 ± 13.0−14.5 ± 13.70.753−20.3 ± 10.0−21.1 ± 7.30.729−7.7 ± 12.5−7.9 ± 15.50.936
Distance in SR (cm)−8.6 ± 9.5−9.3 ± 8.70.647−12.6 ± 8.5−14.3 ± 5.10.378−4.8 ± 8.7−4.3 ± 8.90.820
PSLR (°)81.8 ± 14.282.1 ± 15.10.87074.7 ± 9.475.6 ± 7.70.66688.5 ± 14.888.7 ± 17.80.966
Age13.1 ± 1.213.7 ± 1.30.01113.0 ± 1.113.3 ± 1.20.39813.2 ± 1.314.1 ± 1.250.006
Body mass (kg)53.7 ± 12.056.7 ± 12.80.14354.9 ± 12.858.7 ± 13.90.21752.6 ± 11.154.7 ± 11.60.428
Height (cm)161.0 ± 9.4162.9 ± 9.20.231162.8 ± 10.9165.1 ± 10.60.381159.3 ± 7.4160.7 ± 7.30.412
BMI (kg/m2)20.6 ± 3.721.3 ± 4.40.28820.6 ± 3.821.4 ± 4.10.38620.6 ± 3.721.2 ± 4.70.529
Waist girth (cm)72.3 ± 9.872.6 ± 10.50.84374.9 ± 10.374.9 ± 11.50.98669.8 ± 8.670.3 ± 9.00.806
Hip girth (cm)90.1 ± 8.791.3 ± 9.20.42489.5 ± 9.091.3 ± 9.30.40890.8 ± 8.591.4 ± 9.20.768
W/H ratio0.8 ± 0.10.8 ± 0.10.4920.8 ± 0.10.8 ± 0.10.2370.8 ± 0.10.8 ± 0.10.997
Health related quality of life (HRQL)
Physical well being4.0 ± 0.63.6 ± 0.80.0014.1 ± 0.63.9 ± 0.60.1973.9 ± 0.63.4 ± 0.80.001
Psychological well being1.9 ± 0.51.7 ± 0.70.0504.1 ± 0.63.9 ± 0.60.2613.9 ± 0.63.4 ± 0.80.038
Autonomy and relationship with parents4.4 ± 0.64.1 ± 0.60.0024.4 ± 0.64.1 ± 0.60.0754.4 ± 0.64.0 ± 0.60.009
Social and peer support4.7 ± 0.54.5 ± 0.60.0994.6 ± 0.64.5 ± 0.60.7784.8 ± 0.54.5 ± 0.60.023
MS: male; FS: female; SR: Sit-and-reach test; PLSR: Passive straight leg raise; W/H ratio: Waist to hip ratio.
Table
Table 4. Percentages (counts) of curvatures classification, PA and leisure-time sedentary behaviors and differences between SP and sex.
Table 4. Percentages (counts) of curvatures classification, PA and leisure-time sedentary behaviors and differences between SP and sex.
General Sample
100% (n = 273)		MS
49.08% (n = 134)		FS
50.92% (n = 139)
Without SP
83.88%
(n = 229)		With SP
16.12%
(n = 44)		pWithout SP
83.58%
(n = 112)		With SP
16.42%
(n = 22)		pWithout SP
84.17%
(n = 117)		With SP
15.83%
(n = 22)		p
Thoracic curvature classification
Hypokyphosis9.2(21)6.8(3)0.88015.2(17)4.6(1)0.2583.4(4)9.1(2)0.439
Normal71.2(163)72.7(32)75.0(84)77.3(17)67.5(79)68.2(15)
Hyperkyphosis11.6(45)20.4(9)9.8(11)18.2(4)29.1(34)22.7(5)
Lumbar curvature classification
Hypolordosis1.7(4)4.6(2)0.4843.6(4)9.1(2)0.1700.0(0)0.0(0)0.105
Normal72.5(166)72.7(32)81.2(91)63.6(14)64.1(75)81.8(18)
Hyperlordosis25.8(59)22.7(10)15.2(17)27.3(6)35.9(42)18.2(4)
PA practice
No14.8(34)20.4(9)0.35010.7(12)9.1(2)0.82018.8(22)31.8(7)0.168
Yes85.1(195)79.5(35)89.3(100)90.9(20)81.2(95)68.2(15)
Practice h PA/week
0 h15.6(34)22.5(9)0.74111.4(12)10.5(2)0.68419.5(22)33.3(7)0.292
1–5 h50.0(109)45.0(18)42.9(45)36.8(7)56.6(64)52.4(11)
6–10 h28.0(61)27.5(11)34.3(36)47.4(9)22.1(25)9.5(2)
+10 h6.4(14)5.0(2)11.4(12)5.3(1)1.8(2)4.8(1)
Leisure-time sedentary behaviors
≤ 2 h77.9(176)59.1(26)0.00972.3(81)63.6(14)0.41283.3(95)54.6(12)0.003
>2 h22.1(50)40.9(18)27.7(31)36.4(8)16.7(19)45.4(10)
MS: male; FS: female; PA: physical activity; SP: Spinal pain.
Table
Table 5. Percentages (counts) of sedentary and active behaviors variable and differences between SP and sex.
Table 5. Percentages (counts) of sedentary and active behaviors variable and differences between SP and sex.
General Sample
100% (n = 273)		MS
49.08% (n = 134)		FS
50.92% (n = 139)
Without SP
83.88%
(n = 229)		With SP
16.12%
(n = 44)		pWithout SP
83.58%
(n = 112)		With SP
16.42%
(n = 22)		pWithout SP
84.17%
(n = 117)		With SP
15.83%
(n = 22)		p
Not sedentary and active86.59(71)13.41(11)0.01484(42)16(8)0.58590.63(29)9.38(3)0.011
Not sedentary and not active88.24(105)11.76(14)88.64(39)11.36(5)88(66)12(9)
Sedentary and active87.50(14)12.50(2)85.71(12)14.29(2)100(2)0(0)
Sedentary and Not active69.23(36)30.77(16)76(19)24(6)62.96(17)37.04(10)
MS: male; FS: female; PA: physical activity; SP: Spinal pain.
Table
Table 6. Stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis of the predictor variable of SP according to age and leisure time sedentary behaviors.
Table 6. Stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis of the predictor variable of SP according to age and leisure time sedentary behaviors.
Predictor Variable of SPAdjusted Odd RatioSE95% Confidence Intervalp
LowerUpper
Model 1Age1.420.1311.101.840.007
Model 2Age1.350.1341.041.760.023
Leisure-time sedentary behaviors ± 2 h2.100.3551.044.210.037

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

González-Gálvez, N.; Vaquero-Cristóbal, R.; López-Vivancos, A.; Albaladejo-Saura, M.; Marcos-Pardo, P.J. Back Pain Related with Age, Anthropometric Variables, Sagittal Spinal Curvatures, Hamstring Extensibility, Physical Activity and Health Related Quality of Life in Male and Female High School Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7293. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197293

AMA Style

González-Gálvez N, Vaquero-Cristóbal R, López-Vivancos A, Albaladejo-Saura M, Marcos-Pardo PJ. Back Pain Related with Age, Anthropometric Variables, Sagittal Spinal Curvatures, Hamstring Extensibility, Physical Activity and Health Related Quality of Life in Male and Female High School Students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(19):7293. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197293

Chicago/Turabian Style

González-Gálvez, Noelia, Raquel Vaquero-Cristóbal, Abraham López-Vivancos, Mario Albaladejo-Saura, and Pablo Jorge Marcos-Pardo. 2020. "Back Pain Related with Age, Anthropometric Variables, Sagittal Spinal Curvatures, Hamstring Extensibility, Physical Activity and Health Related Quality of Life in Male and Female High School Students" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 19: 7293. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197293

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop