M Gagnon1. 1. Laboratoire de biomécanique, Département d'éducation physique, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It was the objective of this study to investigate the kinematic and kinetic effects of two specific handling factors that differentiate expert and novice workers, namely the level of knee flexion and box tilt. DESIGN: Seven inexperienced subjects were required to lift a 12-kg box in the sagittal plane using three different strategies: (1) reduced knee flexion and a backward box tilt (more typical of experts); (2) large knee flexion and a backward box tilt; (3) large knee flexion and no box tilt (more typical of novices). BACKGROUND: The lifting techniques of highly skilled workers differ substantially from those of novices but only limited information is available to compare their biomechanical differences. METHODS: The methods included dynamic segmental analyses to calculate the net moments at all body joints and a planar single-muscle equivalent to estimate compression loadings at L5/S1; total work and joint work distribution were calculated using the integration of joint power. The 3-D kinematic data were acquired with three video cameras and force data were obtained with one AMTI force platform which were synchronized with the film data. RESULTS: Box tilt reduced the load trajectory and loadings on the lower back and shoulders; a reduced knee flexion affected body posture and reduced mechanical work and loadings on all body joints. The combination of these two factors, box tilt and reduced knee flexion, showed added effects for almost all variables. CONCLUSIONS: These two factors proper to experts were, in this context, biomechanically more advantageous.
OBJECTIVE: It was the objective of this study to investigate the kinematic and kinetic effects of two specific handling factors that differentiate expert and novice workers, namely the level of knee flexion and box tilt. DESIGN: Seven inexperienced subjects were required to lift a 12-kg box in the sagittal plane using three different strategies: (1) reduced knee flexion and a backward box tilt (more typical of experts); (2) large knee flexion and a backward box tilt; (3) large knee flexion and no box tilt (more typical of novices). BACKGROUND: The lifting techniques of highly skilled workers differ substantially from those of novices but only limited information is available to compare their biomechanical differences. METHODS: The methods included dynamic segmental analyses to calculate the net moments at all body joints and a planar single-muscle equivalent to estimate compression loadings at L5/S1; total work and joint work distribution were calculated using the integration of joint power. The 3-D kinematic data were acquired with three video cameras and force data were obtained with one AMTI force platform which were synchronized with the film data. RESULTS: Box tilt reduced the load trajectory and loadings on the lower back and shoulders; a reduced knee flexion affected body posture and reduced mechanical work and loadings on all body joints. The combination of these two factors, box tilt and reduced knee flexion, showed added effects for almost all variables. CONCLUSIONS: These two factors proper to experts were, in this context, biomechanically more advantageous.