Response of trunk muscle coactivation to changes in spinal stability

Granata, Kevin P.; Orishimo, Karl F.

doi:10.1016/s0021-9290(01)00081-1

Cited by 207 publications

(130 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the estimates of spinal load during pushing ignore the influence of trunk muscle cocontraction, which can dramatically increase the spinal load (Granata & Marras, 1995b;Hughes et al, 1995). Published models (Gardner-Morse & Stokes, 1998) and empirical data (Cholewicki et al, 1997;Granata & Orishimo, 2001) suggest that antagonistic cocontraction is recruited to augment spinal stability. Recognizing that the model described in Equation 5 indicates reduced spinal stability during pushing exertions, one must expect the neurocontroller to recruit high levels of trunk muscle cocontraction to restore stability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Future efforts must include muscle recruitment patterns in calculations of spinal load during pushing (Marras & Granata, 1997). To maintain static stability, the second derivative of potential energy must be greater than zero Granata & Orishimo, 2001). Hence trunk rotational stiffness must be greater than critical stiffness, k Cr , which satisfies the stability equality…”

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Low-Back Biomechanics and Static Stability During Isometric Pushing

Granata

Bennett

2005

Hum Factors

Self Cite

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%

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-Back Biomechanics and Static Stability During Isometric Pushing

Granata

Bennett

2005

Hum Factors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The issue of structural stability remains an important consideration in avoiding injury and functioning safely. Considerable attention has recently been given to the study of the stability of the spinal column [2,5,6,7,9,10,13,14,16]. These works have performed buckling analyses of the often simplified system based on the second variation of the potential energy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spinal muscle forces, internal loads and stability in standing under various postures and loads—application of kinematics-based algorithm

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Lifting motions involve increases in intra-abdominal pressure achieved through simultaneous contraction of the back and abdominal muscles 2,3) . The abdominal muscles serve important roles in lumbar stabilization when loads are imposed on the trunk 4) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in the Thickness of Trunk Stabilizer Muscles According to Increased Lifting Loads in Stoop Lifting

Yang

Lee

2013

J Phys Ther Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.[Purpose] The aim of this study was to identify how the lumbar stabilizer muscles respond to increased lifting loads. Twenty-four healthy subjects (10 males, 14 females) participated in this study. [Subjects and Methods] The thicknesses of the internal oblique (IO), transverse abdominis (TrA), and lumbar multifidus (LM) muscle were measured by ultrasonography during lifting of loads 10%, 20%, and 30% of body weight. The data was analyzed measured by one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).[Results] There were statistically significant increases in thicknesses of the TrA and LM muscles when lifting a load of 20% of subject's body weight. The thickness of IO was not significantly different at different loads.[Conclusion] The findings of this study suggest that TrA and LM play important roles as lumbar spine stabilizers during lifting activities of less than 20% of body weight. Further study is needed to find the mechanisms of lumbar stability during stoop lifting of loads greater than 20% of body weight.

show abstract

Response of trunk muscle coactivation to changes in spinal stability

Cited by 207 publications

References 24 publications

Low-Back Biomechanics and Static Stability During Isometric Pushing

Low-Back Biomechanics and Static Stability During Isometric Pushing

Spinal muscle forces, internal loads and stability in standing under various postures and loads—application of kinematics-based algorithm

Changes in the Thickness of Trunk Stabilizer Muscles According to Increased Lifting Loads in Stoop Lifting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About