Effect of a mattress on lumbar spine alignment in supine position in healthy subjects: an MRI study
European Radiology Experimental volume 7, Article number: 47 (2023)
Humans should sleep for about a third of their lifetime and the choice of the mattress is very important from a quality-of-life perspective. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to assess the changes of lumbar angles, evaluated in a supine position using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), on a mattress versus a rigid surface.
Twenty healthy subjects (10 females, 10 males), aged 32.3 ± 6.5 (mean ± standard deviation), with body mass index 22.4 ± 2.9, completed three evaluations: (i) spine MRI in supine position on a mattress (MAT); (ii) spine MRI in supine position on rigid surface (CON); and (iii) biplanar radiographic imaging in standing position. The following indexes were calculated for both MAT and CON: lumbar lordosis angles L1–L5, L1–S1, L5–S1, and the sacral slope (SS). Further, pelvic incidence (PI) was calculated from the biplanar radiographic images.
Main findings were (i) L1–L5 and SS were greater in MAT than CON (L1:L5: +2.9°; SS: +2.0°); (ii) L5–S1 was lower in MAT than CON (−1.6°); (iii) L1–S1 was greater in MAT than CON only for male subjects (+2.0°); (iv) significant and positive correlations between PI and L1–L5, L1–S1 and SS were observed in both CON and MAT.
The use of a mattress determined small but statistically significant changes in lumbar angles.
The use of a mattress determines small but statistically significant changes in radiological angles describing the sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine when lying in the supine position.
• Lordosis angle L1–L5 was greater in MAT than in CON condition (+2.9°).
• Sacral slope was greater in MAT than in CON condition (+2.0°).
• Lordosis angle L5–S1 was lower in MAT than in CON condition (−1.6°).
Sleep is an essential biological process with a myriad of psychophysiological functions . Humans should sleep for about a third of their lifetime (i.e., 7−9 h a day); however, 30−50% of the general population reports sleep problems such as insomnia symptoms, short sleep duration, or low sleep quality [2, 3].
The National Sleep Foundation, USA, highlighted that 93% of people recognize a comfortable mattress as an important instrument being able to get quality sleep . Thus, the choice of the mattress is very important from a quality-of-life perspective . In a survey conducted by orthopedic surgeons and addressed to patients diagnosed with low back pain following sleep, it was observed that 95% of participants considered the mattress important in the management of low back pain and 75% recommended mattresses of moderately hard or medium rigidity to relieve back pain [6, 7]. Therefore, sleeping supports are considered important environmental components influencing physical comfort during sleep and thus affecting health .
The mechanical characteristics of the mattress are crucial for sleep quality and body comfort. If the mattress is too soft, the mechanical support to musculotendinous structures may be lower leading to higher tension to posterior soft tissue elements, while the intervertebral discs will be under tension at the anterior side. Conversely, if the mattress is too firm, the lumbar section of the spine will not smoothen immediately when lying down . Since spinal alignment or curvature and contact pressure are the predominant variables of interest, it is important to know their value/desirable range to reach the optimization of design and realize high-quality mattresses .
Different methods have been described in literature to evaluate bed comfort, such as spine shape reconstruction [10, 11], electromyography , pressure mapping , and subjective evaluations . Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), being the technique of choice in the multicompartmental evaluation of the spine, including bone, discs, nerves, and soft tissues , is the ideal method to assess the behavior of the spine in lying patients. In a study of Mauch et al. , the subjects were examined using MRI while lying recumbently (supine) and while standing in a weight-bearing position. The analysis of the two positions showed a high significant increase in lumbar lordosis in the weight-bearing position (approximately +6.3°). On the contrary, Hirasawa et al.  studied the lordosis L1–S1 angle in supine and standing positions with the same method, showing no significant differences between conditions. In any case, the assessment of spinal alignment in the supine position on the bed remains challenging because of the lack of back exposure and the fact that instrument placement may interfere with body support.
To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies examined the changes in spine angles in healthy adults while lying down on surfaces with different rigidities in a supine position. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to assess the changes of the L1–L5, L1–S1, L5–S1, and sacral slope (SS) angles, evaluated by MRI, between two conditions: (1) in a supine position on a mattress; (2) in a supine position on hard surface. The second aim was to analyze the correlation between the spine angles evaluated in a standing position, using the EOS system, and L1–L5, L1–S1, L5–S1, and SS angles in both supine conditions (mattress and control). We hypothesized to detect significant changes in spine angles between mattress and control conditions.
This observational, cross-sectional, pilot study was approved by the Ethics Committee of San Raffaele Hospital (Ref. 158/INT/2020). All procedures were performed in compliance with current national and international laws and regulations governing the use of human subjects (Declaration of Helsinki). The study protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Ref. No. NCT04638374). All subjects received clear explanation of purpose, methods, potential risks, and benefits of the study, and before the beginning of the experimental procedures, written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study was conducted at the IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi (Milan, Italy), in accordance with the STROBE guidelines  for cross-sectional studies, between February 2021 and May 2021.
Subjects and biometric data
Subjects were invited to participate in the study at the Radiology Service of IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy. Exclusion criteria were recent fracture; surgery within the past 12 months; history of low back pain in the previous 12 months; spinal disorder including degenerative disease and deformities (e.g., scoliosis); contraindications to MRI (e.g., pacemaker, claustrophobia). Therefore, healthy subjects aged between 18 and 45 years old who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. All subjects completed the following clinical evaluations to assess the spine angles: (i) spine MRI in supine position on a mattress (MAT); (ii) spine MRI in supine position on hard surface, as control condition (CON); (iii) EOS imaging (EOS system, see below for details).
The order of execution of imaging MAT and CON conditions was randomized. Before MRI, height and weight data were obtained using a mobile stadiometer (Seca 217; Vogel & Halke, Hamburg, Germany). Height was rounded to the nearest 1 cm and body mass to the nearest 0.5 kg. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated using the standard formula (weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared).
Mattress material and size
The mattress used in this study was a medium firm mattress composed of a single layer of polyurethane (Dorelan, B&T SpA, Forlì, Italy). The mattress size was adapted for the 1.5-T MRI scanner (Espree, Siemens Healthineers AG, Erlangen, Germany); in detail: 50 cm width and 190 cm length. Total mattress thickness was 22 cm. The rigid surface utilized in this study was the standard MRI scanning bed. Figure 1 shows a study subject laying down on the mattress before MRI acquisition.
Standard T2-weighted sagittal images of the lumbar spine were performed with turbo spin-echo sequences for the assessment of the radiological angles (repetition time/echo time = 4,100/102 ms; slice thickness = 4 mm; number of excitations = 2). The following indexes were calculated for each subject on the midsagittal slice in both MAT and CON: (i) lumbar lordosis angle (L1–L5) ; (ii) L1–S1 angle (L1–S1) ; and (iii) sacral slope (SS) . Further, the difference between L1-S1 and L1–L5 was calculated to obtain the L5–S1 angle. The angles were assessed by using the manual measurement tools provided by the Picture Archiving and Communication System (IDS7, SectraAB, Linköping, Sweden).
Digitized images of the thoracolumbar spine and pelvis were performed with the EOS Imaging System (EOS Imaging, Paris, France), which simultaneously acquires images in coronal and sagittal planes, with subjects in standing position. No further calibration procedures were required. The following indexes were calculated for each subject, again using the IDS7 system measurement tools: (i) L1-L5 angle; (ii) L1–S1 angle; (iii) SS, i.e., the angle between the horizontal line and the superior endplate of the sacrum; and (iv) pelvic incidence (PI), i.e., the angle between the line perpendicular to the sacral plate and the line connecting the midpoint of the sacral plate to the midpoint of the femoral heads.
Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism version 6.00 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).
The normality of the distribution of the anthropometric and demographic variables (weight, height, BMI and age), both for the entire study sample and for male and female subjects separately, was checked using graphical methods and the Shapiro–Wilk test. Since all variables were normally distributed, the baseline differences between genders were checked with unpaired Student’s t test.
Intra- and inter-rater reliability
Four different investigators (J.V., S.B., L.M.S., and F.B.) manually performed all measurements on MRI and EOS images for all subjects and the analysis was repeated two times, a month away, by only one investigator (S.B.). Intra- and inter-rater reliability was tested for each studied outcome in MAT and CON. For the inter-rater reliability, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on a single rating, consistency, 2-way mixed-effects model. Further, for the intra-rater reliability, ICC estimates, and their 95% CIs were calculated based on a single rating, absolute agreement, 2-way mixed-effects model. As previously described , values less than 0.5 were considered indicative of poor reliability, values between 0.5 and 0.75 of moderate reliability, values between 0.75 and 0.9 of good reliability, and values greater than 0.90 of excellent reliability. ICCs were calculated with MATLAB (MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA).
Mattress versus rigid surface
The normality of the distribution of each MRI and EOS measurements, both for the entire study sample and for male and female subjects separately, was checked using graphical methods and the Shapiro–Wilk test. All variables were normally distributed with the exception for L1–L5 and SS, evaluated by the EOS system, for females. Differences between MAT and CON were tested through paired Student’s t test; further, delta values (MAT minus CON) were calculated for males and females and were compared using unpaired Student’s t tests or with the Mann–Whitney rank test for non-normally distributed variables. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Effect sizes (ES) were used to determine the magnitude of the effect for all significant outcomes of pairwise comparison using Cohen’s d and considered to be either trivial (< 0.20), small (0.21–0.60), moderate (0.61–1.20), large (1.21–2.00), or very large (2.00) .
The existence of a correlation between PI, as evaluated by the EOS system, and L1–L5, L1–S1, L5–S1, and SS in MAT or CON (and delta values too) was tested by the means of the Pearson correlation coefficient. Correlations were considered significant when r > 0.25 and p < 0.05.
Participants’ characteristics at baseline
Twenty-one subjects met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study (10 females, 11 males). One male subject was dropped a posteriori because of the presence of spondylolisthesis at L3–L4 level as diagnosed by an expert radiologist (L.M.S.). Data on age, height, body mass, BMI, and spine angles evaluated in a standing position by the EOS are presented in Table 1.
Reliability and ICCs
Table 2 shows the inter-rater and intra-rater ICCs and their 95% CI for each variable in MAT or CON. Intra-rater ICCs were classified as excellent (100%) and inter-rater ICCs were classified as good (70%) or excellent (30%).
Table 3 shows the comparison between MAT and CON and multipanel Fig. 2 displays the whiskers plots, with individual data plots too, of all spine variables in MAT and CON. L1–L5 was greater in MAT than CON (+2.9°) with the only exception for female subjects whereas L1-S1 angle was +2.0° greater in MAT than CON only for males (p = 0.006; ES 0.30, small). SS was always significantly greater in MAT than CON (+2.0°) and, conversely, L5–S1 was lower in MAT than CON only for the entire sample (−1.60°, p = 0.008; ES 0.50, small). Further, no significant differences were observed in the comparisons of delta values between male and female subjects (L1–L5, p = 0.179; L1–S1, p = 0.052; L5–S1: p = 0.630; SS: p = 0.895).
Multipanel Fig. 3 graphically shows the correlation between PI and L1–L5, L1–S1, L5–S1, and SS in CON, MAT, and associated delta values. Significant and positive correlations between PI and L1–L5, L1–S1, and SS were observed both in CON (L1–L5, r2 = 0.228 and p = 0.033; L1–S1, r2 = 0.247 and p = 0.026; SS, r2 = 0.485 and p < 0.001) and MAT (L1–L5, r2 = 0.236 and p = 0.030; L1–S1, r2 = 0.210 and p = 0.045; SS, r2 = 0.317 and p = 0.010) whereas no significant correlations between PI and L5–S1, both in MAT and CON, and between PI and delta values were detected.
The lack of sleep negatively impact an individual’s cognitive and physical performances, mood, quality of life, social interaction and can lead to a decreased work productivity and increased injury risk too [6, 22, 23]. These consequences in response to sleep restriction or sleep disturbances are severe enough to research which is the best surface available to promote a night-time quality sleep. Previous studies reported that the mechanical characteristics of the mattress can play a key role for sleep quality. However, the existing data are still controversial . Mattress firmness seems to have an effect since different studies showed that medium-firm mattress might reduce pain  and medium firmness bedding systems are correlated with higher sleep quality . In line with this, two recent systematic reviews [24, 27] evaluating the effect of mattress design on sleep quality and pain concluded that medium-firm mattresses are beneficial for individual’s sleep and comfort and, in addition, these kinds of surfaces are typically perceived as more comfortable than soft bedding systems. Nevertheless, the spine alignment on different sleep surfaces has been little investigated in the past. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the changes of the radiological alignment of the lumbar spine in supine position between two conditions: on a mattress versus a rigid surface. Further, we also evaluated possible correlations of lumbar angles between a standing and a supine condition (both in MAT and CON).
The main findings of this study were (i) L1–L5 and SS were greater in MAT than CON; (ii) L5–S1 was lower in MAT than CON; (iii) L1–S1 was greater in MAT than CON only for male subjects; iv) significant and positive correlations between PI and L1–L5, L1–S1, and SS were observed. Our initial hypotheses were only partially confirmed. The mattress used in the study was composed of a single layer of polyurethane and is typically considered a medium firm mattress. In the comparison between CON and MAT, significant differences were observed for three variables (i.e., L1–L5, L5–S1, and SS) but not for the L1–S1 angle. Namely, L1–L5 and SS increased when participants were on the mattress, indicating that the mattress significantly influenced some of the lumbar angles, ultimately contributing to an increased sense of comfort. The underlying mechanisms explaining these differences are likely related to effect of mattress firmness on muscular stiffness and pressure distribution when lying supine . Noteworthy is that we observed a different trend in superior and inferior lumbar angles: upper lordosis (i.e., L1–L5) increased whereas lumbosacral lordosis (i.e., L5–S1) decreased when subjects were laying down on the mattress compared to the control condition. Further, L1–L5 angle, but not L5–S1, positively correlated with PI in standing position for both MAT and CON, with no significant differences between the two conditions. This result is in line with previous studies showing that the proximal lumbar lordosis has a stronger correlation with PI than distal lumbar lordosis, both in standing and supine positions [29, 30].
For what concerns gender differences, male participants showed a significant increase in L1–L5, L1–S1, and SS angles in MAT whereas female subjects registered a significant increase only in SS. These results are only partially in line with previous studies showing that range of motion of spine segments during different motion tasks is significantly greater for females than for males . Further, it has also been shown that, in static position, the mean values for lumbar lordosis and sacral slope are different between females and males, but a definitive consensus has not yet been found. Gelb et al.  assessed one-hundred healthy participants by a standing lateral radiograph of the entire spine and the authors observed that female subjects had a significant greater segmental lordosis at L2–L3, L3–L4, and L4–L5 compared to males. Legaye et al.  reported that men had greater L1–L5 values than women (61.4° ± 10.2° versus 58.1° ± 10.8°) while Bailey et al.  evaluated 200 healthy adults and found that lumbar angle was 7.3° greater in women than men in a standing position (60.3° ± 1.6° versus 53.0° ± 1.4°). Korovessis et al.  found that men had a higher sacral inclination than women (38° ± 10° versus 43° ± 12°). Conversely, the lordosis angle was not significantly different in a supine position (females, 49.4° ± 1.5°; males, 46.5° ± 1.7°; p = 0.208). On the contrary, our data suggest no significant differences between sex in L1–L5 angle (females, 46.0° ± 9.2°; males, 44.4° ± 8.4°), L1–S1 angle (females, 57.6° ± 7.4°; males, 55.3° ± 9.7°), SS (females, 38.3° ± 10.6°; males, 35.6° ± 6.4°), and PI (females, 47.0° ± 11.8°; males, 49.8° ± 7.3°).
One strength of this study is that both intra- and inter-rater reliability were tested for each outcome in MAT and CON. In detail, the intra-rater ICC was classified as excellent (> 0.9) for each variable, while the inter-rater ICC was classified as good (0.75–0.9) in seven variables and excellent in three variables (L1–S1 in CON, SS in CON, L1–S1 in EOS). Second, a validated assessment with MRI was used in the study so the high quality of the data makes the results reliable and repeatable. In addition, x-ray-based images were acquired with the EOS imaging system, which allows for low-dose biplanar images obtained in standing position. The full trunk, femoral heads, and the pelvis were included in the images with the advantage of having a non-conical projection that is typical of standard x-ray studies. PI, L1–L5, L1–S1 and SS indexes were therefore measured in a highly reproducible way . PI is a position-independent parameter used to quantify spinopelvic sagittal balance , and has the characteristic of being an anatomical parameter that is independent of patient position and posture. In the present study, we observed, as expected, that PI had a significant and positive correlation with L1–L5, L1–S1, SS, but not with L5–S1, measured in both CON and MAT.
Some limitations need to be acknowledged. First, only one type of mattress was used in the study and the patients were evaluated only in the supine position; the results could change by using a mattress with different characteristics (material, density and/or structure) or with the patient laying in a prone position. Second, the sample size is small in the study (n = 20); however, the participants were recruited on the basis of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, therefore the study sample was very homogenous, and the gender distribution was equal (10 males, 10 females). Additionally, we evaluated how the spinal alignment changed in the very short term, but we don't know how the column behaves may have changed after a full night of sleep. It is likely that the muscles relax with subsequent greater change in spinal angles. Further studies are warranted to evaluate this aspect.
In conclusion, this is the first study describing, with an accurate protocol and high-quality evaluations (i.e., MRI), the changes of lumbar angles comparing rigid surface and mattress. We observed that the use of a mattress determines small but statistically significant changes in radiological angles describing the sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine when lying in the supine position. Our results do not have a direct clinical impact but they could represent the basis of future studies for the improvement of comfort and sleep quality. Authors also highlight the importance to design short- and long-term randomized controlled trials aiming to study spine alignment, sleep quality, and pain using different sleeping surfaces with various levels of firmness.
Availability of data and materials
The dataset of the study is available on the following URL: https://zenodo.org/record/5751798#.YqL3zKhBy5d.
Body mass index
Intraclass correlation coefficient
Magnetic resonance imaging
Itani O, Jike M, Watanabe N, Kaneita Y (2017) Short sleep duration and health outcomes: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Sleep Med 32:246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2016.08.006
Simonelli G, Marshall NS, Grillakis A, Miller CB, Hoyos CM, Glozier N (2018) Sleep health epidemiology in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of poor sleep quality and sleep duration. Sleep Heal 4:239–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2018.03.001
Lei J-X, Yang P-F, Yang A-L, Gong Y-F, Shang P, Yuan X-C (2021) Ergonomic consideration in pillow height determinants and evaluation. Healthcare (Basel) 9:1333. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9101333
Suni E, Truong K (2022) Sleep Statistics. https://www.sleepfoundation.org/how-sleep-works/sleep-facts-statistics. Accessed 11 Dec 2022.
Son J, Jung S, Song H, Kim J, Bang S, Bahn S (2020) A Survey of Koreans on sleep habits and sleeping symptoms relating to pillow comfort and support. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:302. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010302
Jacobson BH, Boolani A, Dunklee G, Shepardson A, Acharya H (2010) Effect of prescribed sleep surfaces on back pain and sleep quality in patients diagnosed with low back and shoulder pain. Appl Ergon 42:91–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.05.004
Levy H, Hutton WC (1996) Mattresses and sleep for patients with low back pain: a survey of orthopaedic surgeons. J South Orthop Assoc 5:185–187
Wong DW-C, Wang Y, Lin J, Tan Q, Chen TL-W, Zhang M (2019) Sleeping mattress determinants and evaluation: a biomechanical review and critique. PeerJ 7:e6364. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6364
Haex B (2004) Back and bed: ergonomic aspects of sleeping. back-and-bed-ergonomic-aspects-of-sleeping.pdf.
Huysmans T, Haex B, De Wilde T, Van Audekercke R, Vander Sloten J, Van der Perre G (2006) A 3D active shape model for the evaluation of the alignment of the spine during sleeping. Gait Posture 24:54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.07.002
DeVocht JW, Wilder DG, Bandstra ER, Spratt KF (2006) Biomechanical evaluation of four different mattresses. Appl Ergon 37:297–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2005.07.002
Kim J-Y, Min S-N, Lee M-H, Jeong J-H, An J-H, Shin Y-S (2011) Measurement of user experience to select a comfortable mattress. In: Marcus A, ed. Design, user experience, and usability. Theory, methods, tools and practice. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 6770:449–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21708-1_51
Tonetti L, Martoni M, Fabbri M, Natale V (2011) Relationship between mattress technological features and sleep quality: an actigraphic study of healthy participants. Biol Rhythm Res 42:247–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/09291016.2010.528633
Park SJ, Kim JS, Kim C-B (2009) Comfort evaluation and bed adjustment according to sleeping positions. Human Fact Ergonomics Manufact 19:145–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20142
Mauch F, Jung C, Huth J, Bauer G (2010) Changes in the lumbar spine of athletes from supine to the true-standing position in magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1002–1007. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bdb2d3
Hirasawa Y, Bashir WA, Smith FW, Magnusson ML, Pope MH, Takahashi K (2007) Postural changes of the dural sac in the lumbar spines of asymptomatic individuals using positional stand-up magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:136–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000255202.94153.ca
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370:1453–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X
Polly DW Jr, Kilkelly FX, McHale KA, Asplund LM, Mulligan M, Chang AS (1996) Measurement of lumbar lordosis. Evaluation of intraobserver, interobserver, and technique variability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:1530–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199607010-00008
Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2005) Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:346–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000152379.54463.65
Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15:155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112:155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Vitale JA, Mathieu N, Sabrina S, Michele L (2021) Editorial: the reciprocal relationship between sleep and stress in elite athletes. Front Psychol 12:797847. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.797847
Filipas L, Ferioli D, Banfi G, La TA, Vitale JA (2021) Single and combined effect of acute sleep restriction and mental fatigue on basketball free-throw performance. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 16:415–420. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2020-0142
Radwan A, Fess P, James D et al (2015) Effect of different mattress designs on promoting sleep quality, pain reduction, and spinal alignment in adults with or without back pain; Systematic review of controlled trials. Sleep Heal 1:257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2015.08.001
Jacobson BH, Wallace T, Gemmell H (2006) Subjective rating of perceived back pain, stiffness and sleep quality following introduction of medium-firm bedding systems. J Chiropr Med 5:128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-3467.07.60145-1
Jacobson BH, Wallace TJ, Smith DB, Kolb T (2008) Grouped comparisons of sleep quality for new and personal bedding systems. Appl Ergon 39:247–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2007.04.002
Caggiari G, Talesa GR, Toro G, Jannelli E, Monteleone G, Puddu L (2021) What type of mattress should be chosen to avoid back pain and improve sleep quality? Review of the literature. J Orthop Traumatol 22:51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-021-00616-5
Kovacs FM, Abraira V, Peña A et al (2003) Effect of firmness of mattress on chronic non-specific low-back pain: randomised, double-blind, controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet 362:1599–1604. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14792-7
Li Y, Sun J, Wang G (2021) Lumbar lordosis morphology correlates to pelvic incidence and erector spinae muscularity. Sci Rep 11:802. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80852-7
Chevillotte T, Coudert P, Cawley D et al (2018) Influence of posture on relationships between pelvic parameters and lumbar lordosis: comparison of the standing, seated, and supine positions. a preliminary study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 104:565–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2018.06.005
Cook DJ, Yeager MS, Cheng BC (2015) Range of motion of the intact lumbar segment: a multivariate study of 42 lumbar spines. Int J Spine Surg 9:5. https://doi.org/10.14444/2005
Gelb DE, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Blanke K, McEnery KW (1995) An analysis of sagittal spinal alignment in 100 asymptomatic middle and older aged volunteers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:1351–1358
Legaye J, Duval-Beaupère G, Hecquet J, Marty C (1998) Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J 7:99–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s005860050038
Bailey JF, Sparrey CJ, Been E, Kramer PA (2016) Morphological and postural sexual dimorphism of the lumbar spine facilitates greater lordosis in females. J Anat 229:82–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12451
Korovessis P, Stamatakis M, Baikousis A (1999) Segmental roentgenographic analysis of vertebral inclination on sagittal plane in asymptomatic versus chronic low back pain patients. J Spinal Disord 12:131–137. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-199904000-00009
Garg B, Mehta N, Bansal T, Malhotra R (2020) EOS® imaging: Concept and current applications in spinal disorders. J Clin Orthop Trauma 11:786–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2020.06.012
Lee CM, Liu RW (2022) Comparison of pelvic incidence measurement using lateral x-ray, standard ct versus ct with 3d reconstruction. Eur Spine J 31:241–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-07024-7
This study was supported by a grant from Dorelan, B&T S.P.A. (Forlì, Italy), which provided mattress used in the study, and by the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente).
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This observational, cross-sectional, pilot study was approved by the Ethics Committee of IRCC Ospedale San Raffaele (Ref. 158/INT/2020). All procedures were performed in compliance with current national and international laws and regulations governing the use of human subjects (Declaration of Helsinki). The study protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Ref. No. NCT04638374). All subjects received clear explanation of purpose, methods, potential risks, and benefits of the study, and before the beginning of the experimental procedures, informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Consent for publication
Consent for publication was obtained by a subject to report His image, with darkened eyes, in Fig. 1 as example of MRI acquisition with the mattress.
Two of the authors of this paper, JAV and SB, have disclosed potential conflicts of interest which include receipt of payment as scientific consultants by Dorelan B&T S.P.A. (Forlì, Italy). Nobody from that company participated in study design or in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. Data can be accessed directly only by authors.
LMS and FG are a member of the European Radiology Experimental Editorial Board. They have not taken part in the review or selection process of this article.
The are no further conflicts of interest to report.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Vitale, J.A., Borghi, S., Bassani, T. et al. Effect of a mattress on lumbar spine alignment in supine position in healthy subjects: an MRI study. Eur Radiol Exp 7, 47 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-023-00361-w