Simulift: A Simulation Model of Human Trunk Motion

Reilly, Charles H.; Marras, William S.

doi:10.1097/00007632-198901000-00002

Cited by 50 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A subject specific, biologically assisted (electromyographic (EMG)-assisted) biomechanical model that has been under continuous development and validation in the Biodynamics Laboratory over the past 20 years was used to estimate spine forces resulting from the patient handling tasks (Marras and Reilly 1988, Reilly and Marras 1989, Marras and Sommerich 1991a,b, Granata and Marras 1993, 1995a,b, Mirka and Marras 1993, Marras and Granata 1995, 1997a,b, Davis et al 1998, Granata et al 1999, Marras et al 1999b, Jorgensen et al 2001. The model is unique to the individual subject and is calibrated to their specific anthropometry, muscle origins and insertions, as well as their specific EMG activities.…”

Section: Spine Load Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar spine forces during manoeuvring of ceiling-based and floor-based patient transfer devices

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient handling continues to represent a high risk task for low back pain (LBP) among health caregivers. Previous studies indicated that manual transfers of patients impose unacceptable loads on the spine even when two caregivers perform the transfer. Patient lift devices are considered a potential intervention; however, few biomechanical analyses have investigated the spine loads and LBP risk associated with these transfer devices. This study analysed the 3-D spine forces imposed upon the lumbar spine when 10 subjects manipulated ceiling-based and floor-based patient lifts through various patient handling conditions and manoeuvres. The results indicated that ceiling-mounted patient lift systems imposed spine forces upon the lumbar spine that would be considered safe, whereas floor-based patient handling systems had the potential to increase anterior/posterior shear forces to unacceptable levels during patient handling manoeuvres. Given these findings, ceiling-based lifts are preferable to floor-based patient transfer systems.

show abstract

Section: Spine Load Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar spine forces during manoeuvring of ceiling-based and floor-based patient transfer devices

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the past two decades, our laboratory has developed a three-dimensional dynamic biomechanical model that determines spine loading at L 5 /S 1 (Marras and Reilly, 1988;Reilly and Marras, 1989;Marras and Sommerich, 1991a, b;Marras, 1993, 1995a, b;Granata, 1995, 1997a, b;Granata et al, 1999). The model predicts compression, A/P shear and lateral shear forces experienced by the subject during an exertion.…”

Section: Spine Loading Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Workplace design guidelines for asymptomatic vs. low-back-injured workers

Ferguson

Marras

Burr³

2005

Applied Ergonomics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The lifts in both Phase I and II were repeated twice for a total of 80 lifts. The dependent variables in both Phase I and II were spinal loads predicted from an EMG-assisted biomechanical model developed over the past two decades in the Biodynamics Laboratory (Marras and Reilly 1988, Reilly and Marras 1989, Marras and Sommerich 1991a,b, Granata and Marras 1993, 1995a,b, Marras and Granata 1995. The model has recently been customized to account for gender-speci®c cross-sectional areas and lines of action of muscles from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) …”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spinal loading when lifting from industrial storage bins

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study documented three-dimensional spinal loading during lifting from an industrial bin. Two lifting styles and two bin design factors were examined in Phase I. The lifting style measures in Phase I were one hand versus two hand and standing on one foot versus two feet. The bin design variables were region of load in the bin and bin height. The Phase II study examined one-handed lifting styles with and without supporting body weight with the free hand on the bin as well as region and the number of feet. Twelve male and 12 female subjects lifted an 11.3 kg box from the bin. Spinal compression, lateral shear and anterior - posterior shear forces were estimated using a validated EMG-assisted biomechanical model. Phase I results indicated that the bin design factor of region had the greatest impact on spinal loading. The upper front region minimized spinal loading for all lifting styles. Furthermore, the lifting style of two hands and two feet minimized spinal loading. However, comparing Phase I two-handed lifting with Phase II one-handed supported lifting, the one-handed supported lifting techniques had lower compressive and anterior - posterior shear loads in the lower regions as well as the upper back region of the bin. A bin design that facilitates lifting from the upper front region of the bin reduces spinal loading more effectively than specific lifting styles. Furthermore, a bin design with a hand hold may facilitate workers using a supported lifting style that reduces spinal loading.

show abstract

Simulift: A Simulation Model of Human Trunk Motion

Cited by 50 publications

References 0 publications

Lumbar spine forces during manoeuvring of ceiling-based and floor-based patient transfer devices

Lumbar spine forces during manoeuvring of ceiling-based and floor-based patient transfer devices

Workplace design guidelines for asymptomatic vs. low-back-injured workers

Spinal loading when lifting from industrial storage bins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About