Postural adaptations of female elite Rock Climbers

Females « Climber’s back »L. Rolland!L. Allet!C. Linhart!J-L. Ziltener

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

I. Introduction!

II. Method!

a. Population!

b. Spinal shape and mobility!

c. Muscular length!

III. Results!

a. Spinal shape!

b. Spine mobility!

c. Muscular extensibility!

IV. Discussion!

V. Conclusion

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

Introduction

High level rock climbing & overhanging walls:!

❖ Back and abdominal muscles heavily used!❖ Compressive forces on spine 1!❖ Lumbar pain 1, 2, 3, 4!

!➡ Biomechanical stresses on the spine !

➡ functional and postural adaptations 5

1. Burtscher and al; 1987!2. Folkl; 2013!3. Schweizer; 2012 !4. Neuhof and al; 2011!5. Dalichau; 2001

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

Males…

!

❖ Increase of the spine curves in the sagittal plan!!

❖ Proportional to performance level !!

❖ Hyper-solicitation of pectoralis muscles

Förster and al; 2009

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

Question

Do female rock climbers present the same static and dynamic spine alterations?

http://www.climbing.com/skill/new-workouts-to-refresh-your-gym-training/

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

Population❖ 19 Elite rock climbers!

‣ French and Swiss national team!

‣ > 9 UIAA level!

❖ 17 non-climbers!

‣ Medicine faculty of Geneva!

‣ Sport on a non-regular basis

❖ Inclusion criteria: female, > 18 years-old!

❖ Exclusion criteria: Dorso-lumbar pain during the examination. Recreational or regular climber for the non-climbers group.

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

Spinal shape & mobilityMedimouse® (Idiag, Fehraltdorf, Suisse) ๏ Shape in upright, flexion and extension positions!

‣ Thoracic and lumbar curves!‣ Segmental angles!

๏ Mobility between maximal flexion and extension!‣ Thoracic and lumbar movement amplitude!

‣ segmental movement amplitude!

๏ Precise, objective, reproducible, validated, reliable, noninvasive and non-irradiating !

๏ Statistical differences: Unpaired Student’s t-test

1. Mannion and al; 2004 2. Post and al;2004

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

Muscular length❖ Muscular groups tested:!

• Pectoralis major!• Iliopsoas!• Hamstrings !

!❖ Jenda's protocol 1: !

• 0 = no shortening!• 1= minor shortening!• 2 = major shortening!

!❖ Statistical differences: !

• “Cochran-Armitage test”

1. Janda; 2000 http

://r

hm00

1.bl

ogsp

ot.fr

/201

1/12

/cha

pter

5-fu

ndam

enta

l-kno

wle

dge-

of.h

tml

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

Pectoralis MajorSternocostal part

Arm relaxed at 90° of abduction. !

• Reach horizontal spontaneously -> score 0!

• With external help -> score 1!

• Not even with help -> score 2!

!Abdominal part

Arm is relaxed at 160° of abduction. !

• Spine of scapula spontaneously touches table -> score is 0. !

• With help -> score 1!

• Not even with help -> score 2.

Janda; 2000

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

Hamstrings & IliopsoasHamstrings!

Hip is in passive flexion with knee in extension. !

• Hip flexion reaches at least 90° -> scored 0!

• 80° to 90° of flexion -> scored 1 !

• < 80° -> scored 2!

!

Iliopsoas!

• Hip extension > 0° -> score 0!

• With vertical pressure on the knee -> score 1 !

• Not even with help -> score 2!

Janda; 2000

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

Results - Spinal shape

Upright position: !• Reduced thoracic kyphosis

✓ Th1/2!✓ Th2/3!

!• Cranial displacement of thoraco-lumbar curves inflection point !

✓ Th11-Th12

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

 

 

* p < 0,05. ** p < 0,01

Results - Spinal Shape

Flexion position: • Decrease of thoracic kyphosis

‣ Th2/3 , Th5/6, Th6/7, Th11/12 !

• Increase of lumbar kyphosis

‣ L1/2, L2/3, and L3/4

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

* p < 0,05. ** p < 0,01

Results - Spine mobility

Decrease of thoracic mobility!‣ Th4/5, Th5/6, Th6/7, Th7/8!

Increase of lumbar mobility!‣ L1/2, L2/3, L3/4

 

 

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

* p < 0,05. ** p < 0,01

Results - Muscular extensibility

✦ Pectoralis major : not significantly shortened!

✦ Hamstrings & Ilio-Psoas : shortened (scores 1 and 2) on the left side

http://www.sports-extremes.net/2012/05/15/les-pin-up-du-mardi-grimpeuses-sexy/

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

DiscussionGender differences in climbers’ thoracic spine :

➡ different climbing techniques? ✴ Lower muscular strength and muscle power !

✴ Focus on technique!

✴ More stretched positions, using maximum amplitudes -> highest possible point of wall.!

✦ Dorsal muscles (latissimus dorsi, rhomboid and serratus anterior muscles) -> decrease of the thoracic kyphosis. !

✴ No shortening of pectoralis major -> no increase of thoracic kyphosis.!

✴ Bouldering vs lead climbing

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

Discussion

Shortening of hamstrings : ✴ Heeling technique: flexion of hip and knee + strong

contraction of hamstrings. !

✴ Physiologically more flexible -> lower muscular shortenings -> more limited impact on posture. !

Lateralization on the left … ✴ Right-handed ?

http://www.sports-extremes.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/escalade-sexy-06.jpg

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

ConclusionSpinal adaptations of high-level female rock climbers different from male counterparts.

✓ Climbing technique

✓ Muscles morphology

!

Further studies are needed to:

✓ confirm results

✓ understand the mechanisms involved

✓ evaluate the pathological consequences

✓ provide evidence based prevention recommendations to the climbers

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

References

1. Burtscher M, Jenny E. Häufigste. Trainingsbedingte Beschwerden und Verletzungen bei Sportkletterern. Praktische Sport- und Traumatologie und Sportmedizin 1987;2/87:15–21.!

2. Folkl AK. Characterizing the consequences of chronic climbing-related injury in sport climbers and boulderers. Wilderness Environ Med. 2013 Jun;24(2):153-8. doi: 10.1016/j.wem.2012.11.010. Epub 2013 Feb 21.!

3. Schweizer A. Sport climbing from a medical point of view. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012 Oct 11;142:w13688. doi: 10.4414/smw.2012.13688.!4. Neuhof A, Hennig FF, Schöffl I. Injury risk in sport climbing. Int J Sports Med. 2011 Oct;32(10):794-800. doi: 10.1055/

s-0031-1279723. Epub 2011 Sep 12. !5. Dalichau S. Der Einfluss sportmechanischer Belastungsprofile auf die thorakolumbale Wirbelsäulenform. Butzbach-Griedel : Afra ; 2001 :

88!6. R. Förster, G. Penka, T. Bösl, R. V. Schöffl. Climber’s back – Form and mobility of the thoracolombar spine leading to postural adaptations

in male high ability rock climbers. Int J Sports Med 2009 ; 30 : 53-59!7. Mannion AF, Knecht K, Balaban G, Dvorak J, Grob D. A new skin-surface device for measuring the curvature and global and segmental

ranges of motion of the spine : reliability of measurements and comparison with data reviewed from the literature. Eur Spine J 2004; 13: 122-136!

8. Post RB, Leferink VJ. Spinal mobility: sagittal range of motion measured with the spinalmouse, a new non-invasive device. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2004; 124:187-1921. !

9. Janda V. Manuelle Muskelfunktionsdiagnostik. 4th ed. München: Urban & Fischer; 2000

L. Rolland, Pontresina 19/09/14

Thanks for your attention !

http://www.theclimbinghangar.com/page/10/