Comparative evaluation of six quantitative lifting tools to estimate spine loads during static activities

Rajaee, Mohammadreza; Arjmand, Navid; Shirazi‐Adl, A.; Plamondon, André; Schmidt, Hendrik

doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2014.11.002

Cited by 82 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Age: No study has investigated changes in age while employing a detailed trunk musculoskeletal model; existing studies (Boocock et al, 2015;Shojaei et al, 2016;Song and Qu, 2014) employed link-segment models (for limitations and shortcomings see Rajaee et al, 2015). In contrast to our findings, Shojaei et al (2016) reported significantly lower shear force at the L5-S1 in younger participants.…”

Section: Comparisonscontrasting

confidence: 56%

Effects of sex, age, body height and body weight on spinal loads: Sensitivity analyses in a subject-specific trunk musculoskeletal model

Ghezelbash

Shirazi‐Adl

Arjmand

et al. 2016

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five symmetric sagittal loading conditions were considered, and main effect plots and analyses of variance were employed to identify influential parameters. In all 5 tasks simulated, BW (98.9% in compression and 96.1% in shear) had the greatest effect on spinal loads at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels followed by sex (0.7% in compression and 2.1% in shear), BH (0.4% in compression and 1.5% in shear) and finally age (<5.4%). At identical BH and BW, spinal loads in females were slightly greater than those in males by ~4.7% in compression and ~8.7% in shear. In tasks with no loads in hands, BW-normalized spinal loads further increased with BW highlighting the exponential increase in spinal loads with BW that indicates the greater risk of back disorders especially in obese individuals. Uneven distribution of weight in obese subjects, with more 17 BW placed at the lower trunk, further (though slightly <7.5%) increased spinal loads.

show abstract

Section: Comparisonscontrasting

confidence: 56%

Effects of sex, age, body height and body weight on spinal loads: Sensitivity analyses in a subject-specific trunk musculoskeletal model

Ghezelbash

Shirazi‐Adl

Arjmand

et al. 2016

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, spine loads in pencil lifts, which ranged from 2600 to 3500N across lifting techniques, may seem high when compared with previous findings for static full trunk flexion, ranging from 1532 to 2332N across five estimation methods (Rajaee et al, 2015) and when compared to 1.6 MPa measured in vivo (Wilke et al, 2001). However, it has been shown previously that dynamic lifting results in higher forces compared to static or slow lifts (e.g., de Looze et al, 1994;Kingma et al, 2001;Lavender et al, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 40%

“…However, absolute shear force estimates should be treated even more cautiously than compression forces. While shear forces substantially above 1000N have been reported before for comparable lifts (Bazrgari et al, 2007;Ferguson et al, 2002;Marras et al, 2003), others report lower values (Potvin et al, 1991;Rajaee et al, 2015). Shear force estimates are, more than compression force estimates, sensitive to modelling and postural details.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Supporting the upper body with the hand on the thigh reduces back loading during lifting

Kingma

Faber

Dieën

2016

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tWhen picking objects from the floor, low back pain patients often tend to support the upper body by leaning with one hand on a thigh. While this strategy may reduce back load, this has not yet been assessed, probably due to the difficulty of measuring the forces between hand and thigh.Ten healthy male subjects lifted a pencil and a crate from the floor, with four lifting techniques (free, squat, stoop and a Weight Lifters Technique (WLT)), each of which was performed with and without supporting with one hand on the thigh. A six Degrees of Freedom force transducer, with a comfortable surface to support the hand on, was mounted just above the subject's left knee. Hand forces, ground reaction forces, full body kinematics, and trunk EMG were measured. Using inverse dynamics and taking the forces between hand and thigh into account, we calculated 3D L5S1 joint moments, and subsequently estimated spine forces using an EMG-assisted trunk model.For lifting a pencil, hand support reduced average peak total moments by 17-25%, dependent on lifting technique. For crate lifting, hand support reduced total moments by 13-19% compared with onehanded lifting and by 14 À 26% compared to two-handed lifting. Hand support slightly increased asymmetric motions and caused a substantial increase in asymmetric moments in crate lifting. For compression forces, reductions (up to 28%) were seen in all techniques except in stoop lifts. It is concluded that leaning with a hand on the thigh can lead to substantial reductions of low back loading during lifting.

show abstract

“…The results of this study showed that 3DSSPP software can be appropriate for symmetrical/asymmetrical tasks with low to moderate forward bending from the waist to perform tasks. In general, the results showed a major difference among tools to estimate the forces on the spinal cord especially compressive forces (14).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Adequacy of NIOSH Equation to to Determine the Rate of Stresses Exerted on the Back Based on Compressive Force Estimation

Afshari

Kord

Latifi

et al. 2016

Jundishapur J Health Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Manual handling may cause workers to deal with various risk factors. Workers performing such tasks repeatedly for a long time are more prone to bodily injuries and physical problems such as back pain. Objectives: The current study aimed to assess the compressive loads estimation and analysis of forces exerted on the workers' back in manual load lifting tasks using the national institute for occupational safety and health (NIOSH) equation and compare them with the recommended weight limit (RWL). Methods: It was a cross-sectional study in a laboratory setting on 15 healthy male workers in 2015. The participants were required to randomly perform 25 tasks with four iterations. The lifting index (LI) was calculated by NIOSH equation in simple tasks and compressive loads on the low back (L4/L5) for each task were calculated using the 3DSSPP. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 16. Results:The results showed that the highest compressive force exerted on the back was equal to 4002 N and the lowest force 1425 N. Moreover, 76% of the tasks were reported to have the highest compressive force greater than the recommended limit; 72% of the tasks had an LI 1 -3 and 28% of them had an LI less than 1. There was a weak direct correlation between compressive force and RWL. Conclusions: The NIOSH equation and compressive force estimation function were partially similar to identify high-risk tasks, however, by the compressive force estimation, biomechanical analysis of tasks can be done better since it is quantitative and can determine the exact amount of forces exerted on the back.

show abstract

Comparative evaluation of six quantitative lifting tools to estimate spine loads during static activities

Cited by 82 publications

References 28 publications

Effects of sex, age, body height and body weight on spinal loads: Sensitivity analyses in a subject-specific trunk musculoskeletal model

Effects of sex, age, body height and body weight on spinal loads: Sensitivity analyses in a subject-specific trunk musculoskeletal model

Supporting the upper body with the hand on the thigh reduces back loading during lifting

The Adequacy of NIOSH Equation to to Determine the Rate of Stresses Exerted on the Back Based on Compressive Force Estimation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About