Spine loading as a function of lift frequency, exposure duration, and work experience

Marras, William S.; Parakkat, Julia; Chany, Anne-Marie; Yang, Gang; Burr, Deborah; Lavender, Steven A.

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.10.004

Cited by 122 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The non-involvement of manual work identified as a predictor, which predicted 3.66 (OR) (1.22-10.95 95% CI) times more likely respond to the traction approach, than those have manual work job. Our study finding agrees to previous review [27,34] suggestions that manual work influences low back pain possibly by muscle fatigue, spine loading and cumulative trauma. The management concern for those patients having manual work job status should be more comprehensive, regarding their job status and working environment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with mechanical lumbar traction

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of the study was to develop a clinical prediction rule for identifying patients with low back pain, who improved with mechanical lumbar traction. A prospective, cohort study was conducted in a physiotherapy clinic at a local hospital. Patients with low back pain, referred to physiotherapy were included in the study. The intervention was a standardized mechanical lumbar traction program, which comprised three sessions provided within 9 days. Patient demographic information, standard physical examination, numeric pain scale, fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire and Oswestry low back pain disability index (pre-and post-intervention) were recorded. A total of 129 patients participated in the study and 25 had positive response to the mechanical lumbar traction. A clinical prediction rule with four variables (non-involvement of manual work, low level fear-avoidance beliefs, no neurological deficit and age above 30 years) was identified. The presence of all four variables (positive likelihood ratio = 9.36) increased the probability of response rate with mechanical lumbar traction from 19.4 to 69.2%. It appears that patients with low back pain who were likely to respond to mechanical lumbar traction may be identified.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with mechanical lumbar traction

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies found that inexperienced subjects generally demonstrated greater spinal loading than experienced manual material handlers when the moment exposure was the same (Marras et al, 2006). Future study with experts in crab pot lifting could result in different low back biomechanical responses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of a lower extremity kinematic constraint on lifting biomechanics

Jin

Mirka

2011

Applied Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leaning against a stationary barrier during manual materials handling tasks is observed in many industrial environments, but the effects of this kinematic constraint on low back mechanics are unknown. Thirteen participants performed two-handed lifting tasks using both a leaning posture and no leaning posture while trunk kinematics, muscle activity and ground reaction force were monitored. Results revealed that lifting with the leaning posture required significantly less activity in erector spinae (26% vs. 36% MVC) and latissimus dorsi (8% vs. 14% MVC), and less passive tissue moment compared with the no leaning posture. Peak sagittal accelerations were lower when leaning, but the leaning posture also had significantly higher slip potential as measured by required coefficient of friction (0.05 vs. 0.36). The results suggested that the leaning lifting strategy provides reduced low back stress, but does so at the cost of increased slip potential.

show abstract

“…Likewise, Marras and colleagues 46 found that spinal loading was greater for inexperienced lifters when performing the same lifting task as experienced lifters. Indeed, Barrett and Dennis 3 reported that using study participants with "limited skill and experience in lifting," that is, college students, was a serious limitation of lift-team studies.…”

Section: Discussion Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Lift Teams on Kinematics and Muscle Activity of the Upper Extremity and Trunk in Bricklayers

Anton¹,

Mizner²,

Hess³

2013

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design Workplace-simulation study using a crossover design. Objectives To evaluate the effect of lift teams on trunk and upper extremity kinematics and muscle activity among bricklayers. Background Healthcare practitioners often instruct individuals with work-related musculoskeletal disorders in proper lifting techniques. Bricklayers are especially affected by lifting-related musculoskeletal disorders. Lift teams are a possible intervention for reducing exposure to heavy lifting. Methods Eighteen apprentice bricklayers constructed walls with concrete blocks alone (1 person) and in 2-person lift teams. Peak shoulder and trunk kinematics and normalized mean surface electromyography of the upper trapezius, lumbar paraspinals, and flexor forearm muscles were collected bilaterally. Differences between construction methods and rows 1, 3, and 6 of the wall were calculated with repeated-measures analyses of variance. Results Working in lift teams required less trunk flexion (P = .008) at row 1 but more sidebending at row 6 (P<.001) than working alone. Dominant-side lumbar paraspinal activity was lower at row 3 (P = .008) among lift-team workers. Lift-team peak shoulder flexion was lower at row 3 (P = .002), whereas abduction was higher at rows 1 (P = .007) and 6 (P<.001). Concomitantly, nondominant upper trapezius activity and flexor forearm activity were significantly higher for lift teams at row 6 (P<.001 and P = .007). Block moment arm was significantly greater for lift teams at all rows (P≤.002). Conclusion Working in lift teams may be a beneficial intervention for reducing trunk flexion and lumbar paraspinal activity when bricklayers work at heights between the knees and waist, but lift teams are not recommended at higher working heights. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013;43(4):232–241. Epub 14 January 2013. doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.4249

show abstract

Spine loading as a function of lift frequency, exposure duration, and work experience

Cited by 122 publications

References 40 publications

A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with mechanical lumbar traction

A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with mechanical lumbar traction

The effect of a lower extremity kinematic constraint on lifting biomechanics

The Effect of Lift Teams on Kinematics and Muscle Activity of the Upper Extremity and Trunk in Bricklayers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About