Assessment of Workers?? Compensation Claims for Back Strains/Sprains

Klein, Bruce P.; Jensen, Roger C.; Sanderson, Lee M.

doi:10.1097/00043764-198406000-00017

Cited by 249 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most compensation claims related to back injury (87 percent) are for strains and sprains, most of which (72 percent) are due to overexertion, as in lifting and handling. 4 Back schools are educational programs developed by physical therapists for patients with back pain. [5][6][7] Most such programs include information on back anatomy and physiology, the mechanisms of pain, pain management, good posture, safe techniques of lifting and handling, and muscle strengthening and stretching; the training is given in small groups.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Controlled Trial of an Educational Program to Prevent Low Back Injuries

et al. 1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Controlled Trial of an Educational Program to Prevent Low Back Injuries

et al. 1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Various studies report association between musculoskeletal disorders, occupational injury, impairment, disability (Klein et al 1984;Daraiseh et al 2003;Sherehiy et al 2004;Karwowski et al 2005;Karahan et al 2009) and work-related risk factors for musculoskeletal complaints in the nursing profession. Among work-related risk factors, the physical events like lifting, awkward postures and stooping (Engels et al 1996;Schenk et al 2007), are considered the most important sources of this kind of disorders.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Musculoskeletal injuries among operating room nurses: results from a multicenter survey in Rome, Italy

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Chronic disorders of the musculoskeletal system, particularly low back pain (LBP), are increasing and represent a social and economic problem of growing importance, especially if correlated with working conditions. Health care workers are at higher risk of developing LBP during work shifts in the hospital. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of LBP among operating room nurses and to investigate the risk factors for musculoskeletal injuries in the operating room. Methods: We carried out a cross-sectional study that included operating room nurses from nine hospitals. Information on sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle habits, working activity and psychological attitude of nurses was collected using an anonymous self-administered structured questionnaire. We evaluated the association of frequency, localization and intensity of LBP (FLI) with qualitative variables, making use of univariate analysis, chi-square test and Fisher's exact test. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the variables that affected the FLI. The covariates included in the model were the variables that had a p < 0.25 in the univariate analysis. The significance level was fixed at p < 0.05. Results: We studied a total of 185 (60.5% male) operating room nurses with a mean age of 36.08 (SD = 7.08). The chi-square test showed that FLI is associated with age (p = 0.042), physical activity (p = 0.036) and work shift (p = 0.01). The logistic regression indicated that age >35 years vs. age <35 (OR = 2.68; 95% CI = 1.17–6.18) and diurnal work shift vs. diurnal/ nocturnal (OR = 4.00; 95% CI = 1.72–9.0) represent risk factors associated with FLI, while physical activity is a protective factor (OR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.20–1.08). Conclusion: The data suggest that it is important to promote new programs of prevention based on professional training and physical activity among nurses and to improve the organization of work shifts in the hospital

show abstract

“…Manual material handling tasks, especially repetitive lifting, is most commonly reported as the cause of back injuries (Chaffin and Park, 1973, Frymoyer et al, 1983, Klein et al, 1984. This is because the repetitive lifting produces high compressive stresses on the back, especially the lower back (Dolan et al, 1994), which can cause the degeneration on the annulus fibrosus of the intervertebral discs and then cause the lumbar disc to prolapse posteriorly Hutton, 1983, 1985).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Constraining Barrier on the 5th Lumbar and 1st Sacral joint Compressive Force during Manual Lifting

Budihardjo¹,

Derrick²

2004

itbj.eng.sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to examine the mechanical stresses on the lower back as the response of different heights of constraining barrier. Ten male subjects lifted a load from the floor to the knuckle height under the non-constrained and the constrained conditions with 4 different heights of constraining barrier (80%, 100%, 120% and 140% of knee height). The constrained condition was defined as the condition where a load was placed on the floor behind a certain level of bar. When lifting of the constrained conditions, subjects significantly increased the peak compressive forces at L5/S1 compared to the non-constrained (3868.8 ± 527.5 N, 4175.0 ± 486.0 N, 4162.4 ± 462.3 N, 4136.0 ± 553.1 N, 4079.4 ± 468.9 N for 0%, 80%, 100%, 120% and 140% barrier height conditions respectively). The subjects moved the load further from L5/ S1 in the horizontal direction when lifting during the constrained conditions. While lifting during the constrained conditions subjects generated an increase in the sacral angle and a decrease of the knee flexion. The peak compressive forces at L5/S1 showed a statistically significant quadratic trend. However, the magnitude of the difference of peak compressive forces during the constrained conditions was small. Keywords back injury, constraint barrier, L5/S1 disc, manual lifting, peak compressive forces. Abstract. The purpose of this study was to examine the mechanical stresses on the lower back as the response of different heights of constraining barrier. Ten male subjects lifted a load from the floor to the knuckle height under the nonconstrained and the constrained conditions with 4 different heights of constraining barrier (80%, 100%, 120% and 140% of knee height). The constrained condition was defined as the condition where a load was placed on the floor behind a certain level of bar. When lifting of the constrained conditions, subjects significantly increased the peak compressive forces at L5/S1 compared to the non-constrained (3868.8 ± 527.5 N, 4175.0 ± 486.0 N, 4162.4 ± 462.3 N, 4136.0 ± 553.1 N, 4079.4 ± 468.9 N for 0%, 80%, 100%, 120% and 140% barrier height conditions respectively). The subjects moved the load further from L5/S1 in the horizontal direction when lifting during the constrained conditions. While lifting during the constrained conditions subjects generated an increase in the sacral angle and a decrease of the knee flexion. The peak compressive forces at L5/S1 showed a statistically significant quadratic trend. However, the magnitude of the difference of peak compressive forces during the constrained conditions was small.

show abstract

Assessment of Workers?? Compensation Claims for Back Strains/Sprains

Cited by 249 publications

References 0 publications

A Controlled Trial of an Educational Program to Prevent Low Back Injuries

A Controlled Trial of an Educational Program to Prevent Low Back Injuries

Musculoskeletal injuries among operating room nurses: results from a multicenter survey in Rome, Italy

Influence of Constraining Barrier on the 5th Lumbar and 1st Sacral joint Compressive Force during Manual Lifting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About