No abstract

Investigating the effects of load carriage on military soldiers using optical motion capture is challenging. However, inertial measurement units (IMUs) provide a promising alternative. Our purpose was to compare optical motion capture with an Xsens IMU system in terms of movement reconstruction using principal component analysis (PCA) using correlation coefficients and joint kinematics using root mean squared error (RMSE). Eighteen civilians performed military-type movements while their motion was recorded using both optical and IMU-based systems. Tasks included walking, running, and transitioning between running, kneeling, and prone positions. PCA was applied to both the optical and virtual IMU markers, and the correlations between the principal component (PC) scores were assessed. Full-body joint angles were calculated and compared using RMSE between optical markers, IMU data, and virtual markers generated from IMU data with and without coordinate system alignment. There was good agreement in movement reconstruction using PCA; the average correlation coefficient was 0.81 ± 0.14. RMSE values between the optical markers and IMU data for flexion-extension were less than 9°, and 15° for the lower and upper limbs, respectively, across all tasks. The underlying biomechanical model and associated coordinate systems appear to influence RMSE values the most. The IMU system appears appropriate for capturing and reconstructing full-body motion variability for military-based movements.

Background Musculoskeletal injuries (MSkIs) are a leading cause of health care utilization, as well as limited duty and disability in the US military and other armed forces. MSkIs affect members of the military during initial training, operational training, and deployment and have a direct negative impact on overall troop readiness. Currently, a systematic overview of all risk factors for MSkIs in the military is not available. Methods A systematic literature search was carried out using the PubMed, Ovid/Medline, and Web of Science databases from January 1, 2000 to September 10, 2019. Additionally, a reference list scan was performed (using the “snowball method”). Thereafter, an international, multidisciplinary expert panel scored the level of evidence per risk factor, and a classification of modifiable/non-modifiable was made. Results In total, 176 original papers and 3 meta-analyses were included in the review. A list of 57 reported potential risk factors was formed. For 21 risk factors, the level of evidence was considered moderate or strong. Based on this literature review and an in-depth analysis, the expert panel developed a model to display the most relevant risk factors identified, introducing the idea of the “order of importance” and including concepts that are modifiable/non-modifiable, as well as extrinsic/intrinsic risk factors. Conclusions This is the qualitative systematic review of studies on risk factors for MSkIs in the military that has attempted to be all-inclusive. A total of 57 different potential risk factors were identified, and a new, prioritizing injury model was developed. This model may help us to understand risk factors that can be addressed, and in which order they should be prioritized when planning intervention strategies within military groups.

Sedentary office work has been shown to cause low back discomfort and potentially cause injury. Prolonged standing work has been shown to cause discomfort. The implementation of a sit-stand paradigm is hypothesised to mitigate discomfort and prevent injury induced by prolonged exposure to each posture in isolation. This study explored the potential of sit-stand to reduce discomfort and prevent injury, without adversely affecting productivity. Twenty-four participants performed simulated office work in three different conditions: sitting, standing and sit-stand. Variables measured included: perceived discomfort, L4-L5 joint loading and typing/mousing productivity. Working in a sit-stand paradigm was found to have the potential to reduce discomfort when compared to working in a sitting or standing only configuration. Sit-stand was found to be associated with reduced lumbar flexion during sitting compared to sitting only. Increasing lumbar flexion during prolonged sitting is a known injury mechanism. Therefore, sit-stand exhibited a potentially beneficial response of reduced lumbar flexion that could have the potential to prevent injury. Sit-stand had no significant effect on productivity. Practitioner Summary: This study has contributed foundational elements to guide usage recommendations for sit-stand workstations. The sit-stand paradigm can reduce discomfort; however, working in a sit-stand ratio of 15:5 min may not be the most effective ratio. More frequent posture switches may be necessary to realise the full benefit of sit-stand.