Furthermore, the quality is incredible according to the price tag. The lumbar support, height adjustment and overall adjustability options are the winners. The lumbar support is excellent as it gives a very natural curve to your spine.
The mesh is extremely breathable, and you will thank Jumei for creating this during summers. You can also flip the armrests as they are not fixed. This chair is not a mesh chair but guys, this is so comfortable that it has to be one of the best ones. The backrest and the seat are composed of PU leather, which is incredibly soft and profoundly satisfying. The lumbar support ensures extra comfort and the double pillow headrest is undoubtedly the scene-stealer here.
It is a swivel chair which makes it perfect for home and office both as you can manage several tasks with ease. Being a gamer, you can understand the amount of pain your upper and lower back have to go through.
However, Homall releases this and has one of the best lumbar support chairs for all gamers. The design is super cool, and the comfort level is also impeccable. From comfortable padding to the significant lower back lumbar support; everything is top-notch in this chair. It is simple in outlook but offers you great support at the back and for the arms too, which makes it easier to sit for longer hours.
It has a good backrest and comes with the height adjustment feature also. However, this chair does not come with lumbar support.
You will have to invest in one. But it is incredibly comfortable. So you can buy it without a doubt. Herman Miller Embody Chair has been a hit for the office goers, and people have adored it a lot too.
It comes with lumbar support, which provides incredible alignment to the spine. This also reduces the pressure on the lower back, making it easier to sit for longer hours.
The entire material of the chair is exceptionally breathable, which makes it comfortable during the summers. The manufacturers promise that it stimulates proper oxygen and blood flow throughout the body as well.
This is another incredible choice to make if you are buying lumbar support office chair under USD. Flash Furniture is offering all the necessary and amazing features that anyone would need in a budget-friendly chair.
It has lumbar support which provides spine alignment and pressure-free seating. The adjustable headrest makes the chair even more amazing. This is a mesh chair, and it is highly breathable. It allows for excellent ventilation and promotes proper blood flow as well. Without lumbar back support, it's more difficult to maintain the correct posture - and the lumbar spine and large muscles in the lower back have to work harder to support the proper curvature and alignment.
Over time, as the body tires, the muscles holding the spine in such a position tend to become weak, and the head and upper back tend to lean forward to compensate the weakening of the lumbar muscles. With good lumbar back support from the office chair, the muscles surrounding the spine are relieved of much of the responsibility of having to keep the spine naturally curved. This support is especially important when seated for a long period. In addition to lower back support, there are many simple ways to make sure that one's office chair provides the right support for the back and neck.
For example, for computer users:. For more guidelines on how to best support the back and spine while sitting in an office chair, see Choosing the Right Ergonomic Office Chair. Treatment for Neck Strain or Sprain Video. Data were selected for three distinct epochs minutes 2—4; minutes 15—17; and minutes 27—29 for analysis to represent behaviour over the full minute test interval.
To calculate the sample size for a three-factor repeated measures design, we used an approximate approach based on a paired t-test for the comparison between chair support.
A sample size of 14 was required for each group. Three-factor repeated measures ANOVAs with group, condition and epoch were used to identify any significant main effects or their interactions on the lumbar and thoracolumbar angles. There were two levels of group healthy and LBP , three levels of condition standing, lumbar support and standard chair , and three time intervals epochs 1, 2 and 3.
The R-Project statistical software version 2. The posture data for only 25 participants were used 11 healthy individuals and 14 patients with LBP as it was determined during data analysis that the markers had moved during collection for three participants and the data were not accurate. The comfort data from all 28 participants were used for analysis. For lumbar angle, there were no significant interaction effects. The main effects of Group and Epoch were not significant.
The mean lumbar angle was 7. The mean lumbar angle was The difference between the lumbar support and standard chair conditions was 2. The lumbar support condition was closer to neutral standing than was the standard chair in the lumbar spine. When testing for a significant effect in static stance, the lumbar angle between healthy individuals and patients with LBP was not significantly different. See Figure 5 for a graphical representation of the angle means in the standing, lumbar support and regular chair conditions.
Mean lumbar angle across the standing, lumbar support and regular chair conditions. For thoracolumbar angle, there were no significant interaction effects.
The main effects of Epoch and Group were not significant. The mean thoracolumbar angle was 4. The mean thoracolumbar angle was 1. The difference between the lumbar support and standard chair conditions was The standard chair was closer to neutral standing than was the lumbar support condition in the thoracolumbar spine. When testing for a significant effect in static stance, the thoracolumbar angle between healthy individuals and patients with LBP was not significantly different.
Figure 6 illustrates the angle means for the standing, lumbar support and regular chair conditions. Mean thoracolumbar angle across the standing, lumbar support and regular chair conditions.
A detailed review of the descriptive statistics for the lumbar and thoracolumbar angles can also be found in Table 1. Means standard deviations of lumbar and thoracolumbar angles across condition, group and epoch. The lack of any significant interaction effects, however, suggested that the effect of Condition was consistent over Epoch, in that the LSR was consistently lower in the lumbar support condition for both healthy and LBP groups than in the standard chair condition, suggesting greater comfort.
The VAS was lower with the lumbar support than with the standard chair. Unadjusted mean standard deviation VAS scores for each body region in the healthy group. Sitting has been shown to have a higher low back compressive load than standing [ 26 ] and deviation from the neutral posture has been linked with increased static muscular effort [ 3 , 4 ]. While several investigators have studied the effect of various lumbar support pillows on asymptomatic individuals [ 15 - 17 ], the current study investigated the effect of a lumbar support pad that accounted for the posterior pelvic bulk on the posture and comfort of healthy individuals and patients with LBP.
Similar to previous studies investigating healthy individuals [ 15 , 16 ], the results of this study indicated that a lumbar support pad was better at increasing or preserving the natural lumbar lordosis in sitting in both healthy individuals and patients with LBP. However, the reverse was seen in the thoracolumbar spine, whereby the neutral curvature was increased with the support pad compared to the standard chair.
This is not surprising given the closed-chain nature of the seated task. Changes in one region of the spine may be compensated for by changes in other regions along the linked kinetic chain [ 28 ]. Furthermore, use of the lumbar pillow often did not allow participants to make contact with the upper part of the back rest, which may account for the thoracolumbar change.
Measures of comfort were not negatively affected, suggesting that any compensations that were employed may have been acceptable. A cadaveric study has shown that minimal amount of flexion removes the stress peaks in the posterior annulus but may increase stresses in the nucleus and anterior annulus [ 30 ]. In addition, the objective measure of comfort was improved in the current study with use of the pillow. The radius of the CoP shifting was lower for the lumbar support condition versus the standard chair in healthy individuals and in patients with LBP.
However, the objective changes were not accompanied by subjective improvements, as the current study found no significant effects in reported comfort. While past studies have indicated that 30 minutes of sitting is adequate to determine comfort levels [ 22 ], it is possible that longer use of the device would have yielded more significant results.
Carcone and Keir [ 17 ] noted subjective improvements in the middle lower back and upper back when using a lumbar support pillow for 15 minutes, however, the magnitude of the changes was small and clinical benefit is unknown.
While this study used a pain population and quantified the degree of discomfort in different seating systems, it has some limitations. Firstly, the sensors used for determining the thoracolumbar and lumbar postures were placed on the skin surface. While the electromagnetic equipment and methods used in the current study are commonly adopted in biomechanics research [ 9 ], it is possible that a more direct method, such as radiographic measurement, would have yielded more accurate angular changes of the vertebral column [ 16 , 31 ].
The benefit of using the current equipment, however, was that it posed little to no risk to the participants, and it avoided any harmful effects of radiation that are associated with radiographic investigation [ 16 ]. While all participants with pain had experienced an episode of LBP for at least three consecutive days over the last three consecutive weeks, not all patients were symptomatic at the time of data collection. This study did not include female participants as it has been shown that the female sitting posture is different from that of males [ 4 ].
While it would be interesting to study the effect of the lumbar support pillow on female participants, controlling for gender effects helped reduce the complexity of the analysis and the need for a much larger sample size. Moreover, the foundations of the chair were constrained, lowering arm rests and fixing the base to prevent rolling, to limit alternate strategies for changing comfort other than postural shifts with respect to the seat pan.
Finally, while shorter term 30 minutes static postural environments are reportedly adequate to determine comfort levels [ 22 ], the results may not generalize to longer seated exposure. Future studies investigating the effect of different seating systems on patient postures and symptoms ought to include patients with higher pain levels, longer follow-up and female participants, so as to more realistically replicate the range of demographics and development of symptoms in those who work in seated environments.
While past authors have advocated the quantitative assessment of comfort through CoP shifting [ 22 ], the current study employed a novel method of determining CoP shift [ 23 ] and its potential to represent the full range relationship of comfort to posture remains to be explored.
Use of a lumbar support pillow that allows space for the posterior pelvic bulk significantly decreased lumbar flattening during sitting in healthy individuals and patients with LBP. However, thoracolumbar curvature was increased.
The difference in angular change was small and further study is required to determine clinical relevance over the long term. Furthermore, an objective measure of comfort was improved with the pillow but subjective reports on comfort were not significantly affected. Future studies should investigate the long term clinical benefit of using a lumbar pillow in males and females with a higher intensity of LBP. DG participated in the study design, data collection, analysis and manuscript writing.
JT participated in the study design, analysis and manuscript writing. ST carried out the data collections, processing and reviewed the manuscript. DS carried out the analysis and reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. They did not contribute to the writing of the manuscript, nor did they play a role in deciding to submit the manuscript.
National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Chiropr Man Therap v. Chiropr Man Therap. Published online Jul 4. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Corresponding author. Diane E Grondin: ac. Received Apr 27; Accepted Jun 5.
0コメント