Determining the Relationship Between Cervical Lordosis and Neck Complaints

Authors

• Jeb McAviney, MS(Chiro)
  
• Dan Schulz, BSc
• Richard Bock, MS(Chiro)
• Deed E. Harrison, DC
• Burt Holland, PhD

Publication

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. March/April 2005;28:187-193

Article Link

Determining the Relationship Between Cervical Lordosis and Neck Complaints

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the presence of a "functionally normal" cervical lordosis and identify if this and the amount of forward head posture are related to neck complaints.
Methods: Using the posterior tangent method, an angle of cervical lordosis was measured from C2 through C7 vertebrae on 277 lateral cervical x-rays. Anterior weight bearing was measured as the horizontal distance of the posterior superior body of the C2 vertebra compared to a vertical line drawn superiorly from the posterior inferior body of the C7 vertebra. The measurements were sorted into 2 groups, cervical complaint and noncervical complaint groups. The data were then partitioned into age by decades, sex, and angle categories.
Results: Patients with lordosis of 208 or less were more likely to have cervicogenic symptoms ( P b .001). The association between cervical pain and lordosis of 08 or less was significant ( P b .0001). The odds that a patient with cervical pain had a lordosis of 08 or less was 18 times greater than for a patient with a noncervical complaint. Patients with cervical pain had less lordosis and this was consistent over all age ranges. Males had larger median cervical lordosis than females (208 vs 148) (2-sided Mann-Whitney U test, P = .016). When partitioned by age grouping, this trend is significant only in the 40- to 49-year-old range (2-sided Mann-Whitney U test, P b .01).
Conclusion: We found a statistically significant association between cervical pain and lordosis b208 and a "clinically normal" range for cervical lordosis of 318 to 408. Maintenance of a lordosis in the range of 318 to 408 could be a clinical goal for chiropractic treatment. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2005;28:187-193)