Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Med Probl Perform Art. 2018 Dec;33(4):251-257. doi: 10.21091/mppa.2018.4037.

Influence of Different Instrument Carrying Systems on the Kinematics of the Spine of Saxophonists.

Author information

1
University of Music Franz Liszt Weimar, Platz der Demokratie 2/3, 99423 Weimar, Germany. Tel +491706264778.

Abstract

AIMS:

Back strain is a common musculoskeletal complaint affecting musicians, which may be related to unsuitable playing positions causing fatigue and muscle tension. In this study, three saxophone-carrying systems (neck-strap, shoulder-strap, and Saxholder) were examined for their effects on spinal column kinematics.

METHODS:

The influence of saxophone-carrying systems was investigated in 14 physically healthy alto saxophonists using ultrasound topometry. Additional tests were performed on 1 subject to examine the influence of the different weights of alto, tenor, and baritone saxophones with the three different carrying systems.

RESULTS:

The clearest difference between two systems (shoulder-strap vs Saxholder) was found in the angle at which the player's head bows forward while playing (3.35°; 95% CI 0.44, 6.26; p=0.0272). The use of the Saxholder resulted in a physiologically favorable axial position of the head. The head posture to ankle distance showed that the shoulder-strap and Saxholder, compared to the neck-strap, allowed a sagittal straightening and therefore advantageous axially balanced body position, although the differences were not statistically significant. The Saxholder also enabled a stabilization in the frontal section of the shoulders. In additional tests on 1 subject, the coefficient of variation showed that the instruments' weights had a larger influence on the physiologically favorable balanced body position than the different carrying systems.

CONCLUSION:

This pilot study was able to show that the technique of sonometric examination (Zebris) is an effective way to investigate the influence of instrument-carrying systems on the kinematics of the spine. The Saxholder may be physiologically advantageous, but further research with a larger sample is needed to verify the findings.

PMID:
30508827
DOI:
10.21091/mppa.2018.4037

Supplemental Content

Loading ...
Support Center