Repetitive lifting and spinal shrinkage, effects of age and lifting technique

Dieën, Jaap H. van; Creemers, M.R.; Draisma, I.; Toussaint, H.M.; Kingma, Idsart

doi:10.1016/0268-0033(94)90067-1

Cited by 45 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Equipment and procedures were similar to those in previous studies (Eklund and Corlett, 1984;van Dieë n et al, 1994van Dieë n et al, , 2001. In short, the stadiometer allows for reproducible measurements of stature.…”

Section: Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Static and dynamic postural loadings during computer work in females: Sitting on an office chair versus sitting on an exercise ball

Kingma¹,

Dieën²

2009

Applied Ergonomics

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Static and dynamic postural loadings during computer work in females: Sitting on an office chair versus sitting on an exercise ball

Kingma¹,

Dieën²

2009

Applied Ergonomics

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It should be emphasized that the relative merits of these lifting techniques depend not only on the relative rotations at the thorax, pelvis and lumbar spine but also on other factors such as position of external loads, voluntary alterations in the lumbar curvature and speed of movement. These could partly be the reason why the literature remains yet inconclusive as some report smaller net moment and trunk load in squat lifting [13,43,58,83] while others indicate otherwise [23,28,57,59,98]. The reduction in net moment in squat lifts, under all cases with and without external load, is due primarily to smaller pelvic and lumbar (and hence thorax) rotations in this technique resulting in much reduced net moments from the mass of the upper body and the external load about the L5-S1 (Fig.…”

Section: Effect Of Lifting Techniquesmentioning

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

“…This is interesting, because a difference in preparatory actions implies that the balance-threatening effect of load pick-up was not the same in both techniques. Although the backlift and leglift often have been subjected to research to identify and study differences in, for instance, low-back loading (Toussaint et al 1992), metabolic energy expenditure (de Looze et al 1992b ) or spinal shrinkage (Van Diee È n et al 1994), differences in control of balance have never been assessed. A signi® cant difference in preparation between techniques was found for the p h o r , suggesting a differential effect of load pick-up on the body' s CoG position.…”

Section: Control Of Balanc E and Lifting Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%