The Exception Case about the Diagnose Forward Head Posture using the CranioVertebra Angle, CranioRotation Angle and Cobb angle : a Case Report

Park, Han-Kyu;Lee, Sang-Yeol;Kim, Tae-Ho

  • Received : 2015.02.24
  • Accepted : 2015.04.02
  • Published : 2015.05.31


PURPOSE: The purpose of present study was to introduces an exceptional case in measurement methods (CVA, CRA and Cobb angle) to identify the FHP with verified reliability and validity. Subjects: Three males aged 30 years were recruited: A Normal, B and C who have FHP. METHODS: All the subjects were measured CVA, CRA and Cobb angle with the Photogrammetry and Radiography. RESULTS: The results revealed that it is not enough for measurement methods to identify the FHP using CVA, CRA and Cobb angle. On Photogrammetry values; CVA had $65^{\circ}$, CRA was $148^{\circ}$ of Normal subject A and CVA had $61^{\circ}$, CRA was $149^{\circ}$ of FHP subject B and CVA had $51^{\circ}$, CRA was $149^{\circ}$ of FHP subject C. On Radiography values; CVA had $73^{\circ}$, CRA was $148^{\circ}$ and Cobb was $50^{\circ}$ of Normal subject A and CVA had $70^{\circ}$, CRA was $150^{\circ}$ and Cobb was $53^{\circ}$ of FHP subject B and CVA had $61^{\circ}$, CRA was $153^{\circ}$ and Cobb was $31^{\circ}$ of FHP subject C. CONCLUSION: The reliable CVA, CRA and Cobb angle use methods from the previous studies might not be suitable for the diagnose the FHP. We think that it is necessary to have more detailed evaluation methods and the radiography is also needed for clear evaluations because of some possible exceptions.


Cobb angle;Craniorotation Angle;Craniovertebra Angle


  1. Brunton J, Brunton E, Aoife NM. Reliability of measuring natural head posture using the craniovertebral angle. Irish Ergonomics Review. 2003;37-41.
  2. Chansirinukor W, Wilson D, Grimmer K, et al. Effects of backpacks on students: measurement of cervical and shoulder posture. Aust J Physiother. 2001;47(2):110-6.
  3. Chae YW. The measurement of forward head posture and pressure pain threshold in neck muscle. J Korean soc Phys Ther. 2002;14(1):117-24.
  4. Cuccia AM, Carola C. The measurement of craniocervical posture: a simple method to evaluate head position. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;73(12):1732-6.
  5. Hagberg M, Wegman DH. Prevalence rates and odds ratios of shoulder-neck diseases in different occupational groups. Br J Ind Med. 1987;44(9):602-10.
  6. Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, et al. Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method: which to choose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine. 2000;25(16):2072-8.
  7. Kendall PF, Kendall ME, Geise PP, et al. Muscles: Testing and Function with Posture and Pain. Baltimore, MD:Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. 2005.
  8. Miyazaki M, Hymanson HJ, Morishita Y, et al. Kinematic analysis of the relationship between sagittal alignment and disc degeneration in the cervical spine. Spine. 2008;33(23):870-6.
  9. Salahzadeh Z, Maroufi N, Ahmadi A, et al. Assessment of forward head posture in females: observational and photogrammetry methods. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2014;27(2):131-9.
  10. Seaman D, Troyanovich S. The Forward Head Posture, Dynamic Chiropractic. 2000;18:1-7.
  11. Quek J, Pua YH, Clark RA, et al. Effects of thoracic kyphosis and forward head posture on cervical range of motion in older adults. Man Ther. 2013;18(1):65-71.
  12. Wickens JS, Kiputh OW. Body mechanic analysis of Yale University freshmen. Research Quarterly. 1937;8(4):37-48.
  13. Yoo WG. Effect of the Neck Retraction Taping (NRT) on Forward Head Posture and the Upper Trapezius Muscle during Computer Work. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013;25(5):581-2.