Low back pain (LBP) and lifting technique — A review

Hsiang, Simon M.; Brogmus, George E.; Courtney, Theodore K.

doi:10.1016/0169-8141(95)00086-0

Cited by 74 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A focus of the literature to date has been the relationship between lifting technique and low back pain, with particular emphasis on the relative merits of the stoop versus squat lifting technique (Hsiang, Brogmus, & Courtney, 1997;van Dieen, Hoozemans, & Toussaint, 1999). However, very few studies have examined manual handling tasks performed by two or more persons.…”

Section: Studies Of Manual Handling Tasks 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

Section: Studies Of Manual Handling Tasks Performed By Lifting Teamsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ergonomic issues in team lifting

Barrett

Dennis

2005

Hum. Factors Man.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Compression force limits have been recommended for safer manual material handling (MMH) maneuvers based on the premise that excessive compression loads could cause injury. Despite the well-recognized role of lifting in low back injuries [4,12,17,33,53], the literature on safer lifting techniques remains controversial [25,48]. In search of optimal lifting methods, squat lift (i.e., knee bent and back straight) is generally considered to be safer than the stoop lift (i.e., knee straight and back bent) in bringing the load closer to the body and, hence, reducing the extra demand on back muscles while counterbalancing the moments of external loads.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In search of optimal lifting methods, squat lift (i.e., knee bent and back straight) is generally considered to be safer than the stoop lift (i.e., knee straight and back bent) in bringing the load closer to the body and, hence, reducing the extra demand on back muscles while counterbalancing the moments of external loads. The importance of the squat versus stoop lifting technique has, however, been downplayed due to the lack of a clear biomechanical rationale for the promotion of either style [25,48,66]. Many workers, despite instruction to the contrary, prefer the stoop lift due to its easier operation, lower energy consumption in repetitive lifting tasks [38,42] and better balance [97].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the well-recognized role of lifting in back injuries, the relative biomechanical merits of squat versus stoop lifting remain controversial. In vivo kinematics measurements and model studies are combined to estimate trunk muscle forces and internal spinal loads under dynamic squat and stoop lifts with and without load in hands. Measurements were performed on healthy subjects to collect segmental rotations during lifts needed as input data in subsequent model studies. The model accounted for nonlinear properties of the ligamentous spine, wrapping of thoracic extensor muscles to take curved paths in flexion and trunk dynamic characteristics (inertia and damping) while subject to measured kinematics and gravity/ external loads. A dynamic kinematics-driven approach was employed accounting for the spinal synergy by simultaneous consideration of passive structures and muscle forces under given posture and loads. Results satisfied kinematics and dynamic equilibrium conditions at all levels and directions. Net moments, muscle forces at different levels, passive (muscle or ligamentous) forces and internal compression/shear forces were larger in stoop lifts than in squat ones. These were due to significantly larger thorax, lumbar and pelvis rotations in stoop lifts. For the relatively slow lifting tasks performed in this study with the lowering and lifting phases each lasting~2 s, the effect of inertia and damping was not, in general, important. Moreover, posterior shift in the position of the external load in stoop lift reaching the same lever arm with respect to the S1 as that in squat lift did not influence the conclusion of this study on the merits of squat lifts over stoop ones. Results, for the tasks considered, advocate squat lifting over stoop lifting as the technique of choice in reducing net moments, muscle forces and internal spinal loads (i.e., moment, compression and shear force).

show abstract

“…Several occupational exposures such as static loading, heavy lifting, and repetitive bending have been noted as important risk factors (Riihimä ki et al, 1989;Hsiang et al, 1997;Elders and Burdorf, 2004). Since most of these factors are closely related to muscle fatigue, localized torso fatigue can be considered as at least a surrogate measure of LBP risk.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%