Relationships of low back outcomes to internal spinal load: a prospective cohort study of professional drivers

Bovenzi, Massimo; Schust, Marianne; Menzel, Gerhard; Prodi, Andrea; Mauro, Marcella

doi:10.1007/s00420-014-0976-z

Cited by 24 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our cross‐sectional study design limits our ability to draw firm conclusions about causality, since exposures and outcomes were measured at the same time. However, associations between our study's work exposures and health outcomes have been shown to be causally related in prospective studies 15,38–40 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Occupational risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders among railroad maintenance‐of‐way workers

Landsbergis

Johanning

Stillo

et al. 2020

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Our objective was to examine occupational risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, back, and knee among railroad maintenance‐of‐way (MOW) workers. Methods Four thousand eight‐hundred sixteen active, retired, and disabled members of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED) completed a survey. We computed adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) using Poisson regression for neck, back, and knee musculoskeletal symptoms by work exposures, adjusted for age, region, race/ethnicity, smoking, and potential second job and spare time vehicle vibration exposure. Results Among active male BMWED members, we found associations between use of high‐vibration vehicles and neck pain (aPR = 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07‐2.03) and knee pain (aPR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.04‐1.82) for more than 1.9 years (vs 0) of full‐time equivalent use; but not back pain. Back pain radiating below the knee (sciatica indicator) was associated with high‐vibration vehicle use greater than 0.4 and less than 1.9 years (aPR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.15‐2.18). We also found significant associations between often or always lifting, pushing, pulling, or bending on the job (vs seldom or never) and neck pain (aPR = 2.43, 95% CI: 1.20‐4.90), back pain (aPR = 1.94, 95% CI: 1.24‐3.03), the sciatica indicator (aPR = 5.18, 95% CI: 1.28‐20.95), and knee pain (aPR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.47‐5.51), along with positive gradients in the outcome by exposure time. Conclusions Biomechanical work exposures, including force and nonneutral postures, were associated with neck, lower back, and knee pain. Whole‐body vibration, as measured by the duration of use of high‐vibration vehicles, was associated with neck pain, knee pain, and sciatica. Prevention programs should address occupational risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders among MOW workers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…2112 13 . Recent studies also provide evidence that internal spinal load and WBV are risk factors for low back pain and sciatica 14,15 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders among railroad maintenance‐of‐way workers

Landsbergis

Johanning

Stillo

et al. 2020

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More significantly, in a recent prospective study of 537 professional drivers [61], the occurrence of low back symptoms was related to internal forces caused by WBV and acting upon the spine. These were estimated from models that incorporated the static gravitational force acting on vertebral endplates, the vibration-related peaks of dynamic compression on vertebrae, individual characteristics of the drivers (e.g.…”

Section: Low Back Pain and Sciaticamentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Prevalence rate ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were adjusted for age, smoking, and drinking habits, assuming the controls as the reference category [14]. Relationships of 7-day low back outcomes to daily compressive dose S ed and risk factor R in a three-year prospective cohort study of 537 professional drivers [61]. The changes in odds ratio (OR * ) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for a change of 0.…”

Section: Research Agendamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, in a cross-sectional study of 1,155 tractor drivers and 220 unexposed controls, cumulative exposure to WBV and postural load were found to be independently associated with 'chronic' LBP (daily experience of LBP or several episodes of LBP lasting more than 30 days in the previous 12 months), such that tractor drivers with high exposure to both factors had a more than threefold elevated risk of chronic LBP relative to subjects scoring low on these counts [54]. Analysis took account of many risk factors for LBP such as age, smoking habit, body mass index, recreational activity, mental health status and previous injuries to the back.More significantly, in a recent prospective study of 537 professional drivers [61], the occurrence of low back symptoms was related to internal forces caused by WBV and acting upon the spine. These were estimated from models that incorporated the static gravitational force acting on vertebral endplates, the vibration-related peaks of dynamic compression on vertebrae, individual characteristics of the drivers (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rheumatic effects of vibration at work

Palmer

Bovenzi

2015

Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occupational exposures to vibration come in many guises and are very common at a population level. It follows that an important minority of working-aged patients seen by medical services will have been exposed to this hazard of employment. Vibration can cause human health effects which may manifest in the patients that rheumatologists see. In this chapter we identify the health effects of relevance to them, and review their epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, differential diagnosis, and vocational and clinical management. On either side of this, we describe the nature and assessment of the hazard, the scale and common patterns of exposure to vibration in the community, and the legal basis for controlling health risks, and comment on the role of health surveillance in detecting early adverse effects and what can be done to prevent the rheumatic effects of vibration at work. Keywords vibration; occupation; Raynaud's; back pain; carpal tunnel syndrome The nature and measurement of vibration at workVibration is an oscillatory motion, characterised by the frequency of the oscillatory cycle, its magnitude, and its direction. Its potential to cause injury is believed to relate to the average intensity of energy imparted to tissues.The magnitude of oscillatory motion can be quantified in terms of its maximum displacement or velocity, but is normally expressed in terms of its acceleration, and timeaveraged (the so-called 'root mean square (r.m.s.) magnitude'). The frequency of motion is expressed in cycles per second (Hertz). Biodynamic investigations have shown that the response of the body to vibration is frequency dependent and to account for this, standards for exposure evaluation weight the frequencies of measured vibration according to the assumed effects at each frequency. Frequency weightings are applied to measurements taken Conflict of interestNone. Europe PMC Funders Group Europe PMC Funders Author ManuscriptsEurope PMC Funders Author Manuscripts in three axes at right angles to one another, sited at the boundary between the body and the vibration (e.g. using accelerometers mounted on the handle of a powered tool or the seat of a vibrating vehicle). 'Dose' of vibration is based on specific relations between duration of exposure and vibration magnitude defined in ISO standards [1,2], allowing the daily vibration exposure to be re-expressed in terms of the equivalent acceleration that would impart the same energy over an 8-hour reference period (a notional average working day). This is called the A (8 Health surveillance is required for workers who remain regularly exposed above the EAV. These values have been translated into guidelines based upon typical patterns of exposure. For example, use of hammer-action tools for >1 hour/day, or of some rotary-action tools for >2 hours/day regularly is likely to exceed the ELV for HTV and the EAV may be breached by as little as 15 minutes/day of exposure to certain hammer-action tools [5]. (Some employers employ a 'traffic light' labelling syste...

show abstract

Common Musculoskeletal Disorders

ابیانه¹,

فرخی²

2022

Musculoskeletal Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relationships of low back outcomes to internal spinal load: a prospective cohort study of professional drivers

Cited by 24 publications

References 28 publications

Occupational risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders among railroad maintenance‐of‐way workers

Occupational risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders among railroad maintenance‐of‐way workers

Rheumatic effects of vibration at work

Common Musculoskeletal Disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About