Biomechanical analyses of paramedics simulating frequently performed strenuous work tasks

Lavender, Steven A.; Conrad, Kendon J.; Reichelt, Paul A.; Johnson, Paul W; Meyer, Fred T.

doi:10.1016/s0003-6870(99)00040-x

Cited by 80 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Only two studies were found that reported spinal shear forces (deLooze et al,1995;Schibye et al, 2001), but they failed to achieve consensus. Estimated values ranged from 100 to 1400 N, whereas published estimates of compressive load range from 500 N (Schibye et al, 2001) to 5500 N (Kumar, 1994;Lavender, Conrad, Reichelt, Johnson, & Meyer, 2000), with the large difference resulting from exertion level and experimental design (deLooze et al, 1995;Lee, Chaffin, Herrin, & Waikar, 1991;Resnick & Chaffin, 1995).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-Back Biomechanics and Static Stability During Isometric Pushing

Granata

Bennett

2005

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pushing and pulling tasks are increasingly prevalent in industrial workplaces. Few studies have investigated low-back biomechanical risk factors associated with pushing, and we are aware of none that has quantified spinal stability during pushing exertions. Data recorded from 11 healthy participants performing isometric pushing exertions demonstrated that trunk posture, vector force direction of the applied load, and trunk moment were influenced (p < .01) by exertion level, elevation of the handle for the pushing task, and foot position. A biomechanical model was used to analyze the posture and hand force data gathered from the pushing exertions. Model results indicate that pushing exertions provide significantly (p < .01) less stability than lifting when antagonistic cocontraction is ignored. However, stability can be augmented by recruitment of muscle cocontraction. Results suggest that cocontraction may be recruited to compensate for the fact that equilibrium mechanics provide little intrinsic trunk stiffness and stability during pushing exertions. If one maintains stability by means of cocontraction, additional spinal load is thereby created, increasing the risk of overload injury. Thus it is important to consider muscle cocontraction when evaluating the biomechanics of pushing exertions. Potential applications of this research include improved assessment of biomechanical risk factors for the design of industrial pushing tasks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-Back Biomechanics and Static Stability During Isometric Pushing

Granata

Bennett

2005

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The highest and lowest spinal loads were associated with the two team lifting techniques, which indicated that the actions of the lifting partner can be beneficial, but may also be counterproductive if directed inappropriately. Further, Hignett (1996) Stretcher carriage Knapik et al (1999Knapik et al ( , 2000 11 Soldiers Two-person stretcher carry Heart rate, oxygen uptake, ventilation, RPE, subjective measures Lavender et al (2000a) 20 Paramedics Two-person transfers from bed to stretcher, stretcher to hospital gurney, transport down stairs Static, 3D, optimizationbased model (3DSSPP) Peak compression forces, LBD index Rice et al (1996aRice et al ( , 1996b 12 Males, 11 females Two-and four-person stretcher carry by male/females with and without a shoulder harness Carry time, heart rate, oxygen uptake, perceived exertion, subjective symptoms…”

Section: Studies Of Patient Transfers Performed By Lifting Teamsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ergonomic issues in team lifting

Barrett

Dennis

2005

Hum. Factors Man.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we review and critique the current body of scientific knowledge regarding the use of team lifting including: (a) psychophysical studies of team lifting capacity, and (b) studies of manual handling, patient handling, and stretcher carriage performed by lifting teams. The consensus of the research literature is that team-lifting capacity is greater than the lifting capacity of an individual, but that the capacity of lifting teams is less than the summed capacity of individual team members. Further, biomechanical, psychophysical, and physiological stress tends to be reduced compared to the equivalent lifts and transfers performed by individuals. However, the stress associated with team lifting depends on a broad range of individual team member, load, task and environmental factors, which can interact in unexpected ways. Caution is therefore recommended against making broad assumptions regarding the use of team lifting. Future studies are needed to examine how effort and load are distributed among lifting team members, with emphasis on identifying factors that may increase the risk of injury. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. BACKGROUNDTeam lifting is a manual handling strategy that is adopted when the requirements of the task are beyond the lifting capacity of a single worker and when mechanical assistance is not available or practical. Although the use of mechanical aids is recommended in preference to team lifting, many situations arise when team lifts are required. Team lifts are often used when handling heavy and awkward or bulky objects (Sadosky, 1977), and are commonly performed in many industries including mining, health care, transport, construction, manufacturing and retail.The usual assumption underlying the use of team lifting is that the lifting team has a greater lifting capacity than an individual, with the total load and effort shared among team members. Assuming loads are spread relatively evenly among team members, it would therefore be expected that team lifts would help to reduce the effort and risk of injury associated with lifting heavy loads. Lifting teams also have a relatively large base of support which may contribute to overall stability of the lift (Johnson & Lewis, 1989 (1972) suggested that the load each team member handles may not be equal even when the mass of the load is evenly distributed. The problem of uneven loading may be further compounded if team members are unmatched in factors such as strength, height, lifting experience, and perceptions. Other factors related to the load (e.g., size, shape, symmetry), task (e.g., height, distance moved) and environment (e.g., space, floor surface, obstructions) would also be expected to influence the way in which load and effort are distributed between team members. The need to "fit-in" with other team members may result in loss of coordination (WHS, 2000), the use of nonoptimal lifting postures, and diminished ability to respond to unexpected loading conditions such as a slip or trip or shifting of an unstable load. T...

show abstract

“…[1,2] Yapılan çalışmalar ASH'de çalışanlarının çok çeşitli mesleksel risk etmenleri ile karşılaştığını göstermektedir. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Alanda yapı-lan müdahale sırasında iğne batması sonucu kanla bulaşan hastalıklar, [3,12,13] hasta kaldırma ve taşımaya bağlı kas-iskelet sistemi yaralanmaları, [3,[14][15][16][17][18] hasta ya da yakınlarından kaynaklanan şiddet [19][20][21] ve ambulans kazaları sonucu yaralanma ambulans çalışanlarının başlıca mesleksel risk etmenleri arasında sıralanmaktadır. [4,5,[22][23][24] Bunların yanı sıra iş yükü ve stres, [6,[25][26][27][28] yangın, elektrik çarpması, patlama gibi çevresel etkenler, olağandışı durumlar, tıbbi ve teknik malzeme yetersizliklerine bağlı riskler, düzensiz mesai, gece ve hafta sonu uzun çalışma saatleri bu işkolunda yoğun olarak karşı karşıya kalınan mesleksel risklerdir.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified