Morphotypological Prevalence of Individuals Assessed by the Method of Global Postural Reeducation by Proprioceptive and Muscular Rebalancing (GPR/PMR)

• Published in: Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology 2018-06, Vol.3 (2), p.33-0
• Main Authors: Silva de Souza, Nélio, Ramos Barcellos, Renan, G. Martins, Ana, M. M. Vianna da Rosa, Glória, A. Araújo Leite, Marco, P. Ayres da Silva, Carla, Teixeira, Silmar, Hugo Bastos, Victor
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: global postural reeducation; morphotypology; prevalence
• ISSN: 2411-5142; 2411-5142
• DOI: 10.3390/jfmk3020033

Introduction: Postural control integrates information from the visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive systems, controlling the body position in space. Global Posture Reeducation (GPR) is a clinically well-accepted method that mainly addresses the proprioceptive component of this postural system. Although the GPR presents relevant evidence, the postural morphotypology prevalence in the general population is not yet known. Objective: To investigate the morphotypological profile prevalence of individuals evaluated with the GPR method by proprioceptive and muscular rebalancing (GPR/PMR). Methodology: A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed (prevalence analysis) of patients evaluated by the GPR/PMR method at the Physiotherapy School Clinic of the Serra dos Órgãos University Center. The morphotypological evaluation data were collected and stored in a spreadsheet using the Microsoft Office Excel® program, where the prevalence of each morphotypology (opening, closing, and mixed) was calculated. Results: A total of 123 evaluation sheets were analyzed, of which 50 were men (41%) and 74 were women (59%) with a mean age of 46 years. In the morphotypological diagnosis, the following values were observed: closing (n = 107; 87%); opening (n = 6; 5%) and mixed (n = 9; 7%). The postural diagnosis in closing (87%) presented a statistically significant difference, when compared to the morphotypologies in opening (p < 0.0001) and mixed (p < 0.0001). Few subjects in the sample (n = 5), presented a relation between the mixed work position (standing and sitting) and the mixed morphotypology (p < 0.005). Conclusion: The morphotypological profile of the analyzed population appears to be in closing and does not correlate with the individual's work position.