Title: Pelvic motion during running: sex differences and the relationship between posture and motion
Name: Madison Mach
Primary Presenters: Madison Mach
College of Health Sciences
Research Doctorate (PhD)
Faculty Sponsor(s): Jennifer Earl-Boehm

Introduction: Anterior pelvic tilt is a lower extremity malalignment that has limited research despite being related to injury and faulty movement. Findings on sex differences for pelvic tilt are conflicting and have not been explored during running. No research connecting standing pelvic tilt (STP), and pelvic motion during running exist. The common clinical measurement tool for STP is the Palpation Meter (PALM) has not been validated against 3D motion capture. Filling this knowledge gap will allow clinicians to create better treatment plans for their patients. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to 1) determine if sex differences exist for static and dynamic pelvic tilt; 2) identify the relationship between STP and pelvic motion during running; 3) determine the construct validity of the PALM. Methods: 25 healthy, physically active individuals [10 men; 15 females; 26.6 ± 8.1 years; 1.70 ± 0.1 m; 69.86 ± 12.4 kg] participated. Height, weight, leg length, and STP were collected prior to the running task. The PALM is a caliper-inclinometer combination instrument with palpation tips that is used clinically to measure pelvic tilt angle. The task involved the participants running 10 m over a force plate 5 times while having 3D kinematic data collected. The variables of interest included, sex, STP, pelvic tilt at initial contact (PTIC), pelvic tilt at toe off (PTTO), and the PALM STP measurement. A MANOVA was performed to identify sex differences between the dependent variables of SPT, PTIC, and PTTO. Pearson’s correlations were performed to determine the relationship between STP and pelvic motion variables and to determine the validity of the PALM compared to the gold standard SPT. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between males and females for any of the pelvic tilt variables of SPT, PTIC, PTTO, or PTROM. We found significant large positive relationships between SPT and PTIC (r = .751, N = 25, p <.001) and SPT and PTTO (r = .761, N = 25, p <.001). The relationship between the PALM STP and the 3D STP measurements was small and not statistically significant. Conclusions: Our study contributes to the knowledge gaps that will better inform clinicians and allow them to create better treatment plans for their patients. Sex differences were not present for any of the pelvic tilt variables indicating that clinicians may not have to take sex into account when creating a treatment plan. Pelvic posture is strongly related to pelvic motion during running, indicating clinicians can get a general idea of pelvic motion from measuring standing pelvic posture. However, the PALM was not valid, indicating that clinicians should interpret the PALM measurements with caution.

https://sites.uwm.edu/healthresearchsymposium-2022/files/formidable/2/MACH_sources-d3bdc1.pdf