Literature DB >> 12043799

Biomechanical comparison of isokinetic lifting and free lifting when applied to chronic low back pain rehabilitation.

S Bouilland1, P Loslever, F X Lepoutre.   

Abstract

The study compares free and isokinetic lifting using a multivariate statistical analysis. Each of the 13 male subjects performed three free lifts and three isokinetic lifts using a CYBEX LIFTASK. The measurement variables were obtained from a 3D video system, two force plates and two strain-gauge transducers. Coupling of fuzzy space-time windowing and multiple correspondence analysis was used to show the links between the variables and the differences between the experimental situations. Isokinetic lifting had almost no points in common with free-lifting, but there was a similar range of extension for the different joints. Most free-lifting strategies could not be used in isokinetic lifting, as constraints between the subject and his environment were different. The main drawback of the isokinetic lifting was due to the necessity for individuals to reach the machine speed, yielding high transient efforts. The maximum vertical effort at the L5/S1 joint was about 1600, 1500 and 1400N for low, medium and high speed, whereas it was lower than 1300N, irrespective of the load, during free lifting. In the context of chronic low back pain rehabilitation, movement strategies used in free lifting could not be relearnt using an isokinetic machine. A better understanding of the common points and differences between isokinetic movement and free movement could help rehabilitation physicians to plan rehabilitation programmes, taking advantage of each kind of movement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12043799     DOI: 10.1007/bf02348123

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput        ISSN: 0140-0118            Impact factor:   2.602


  42 in total

1.  Muscular mechanical energy expenditure as a process for detecting potential risks in manual materials handling.

Authors:  M Gagnon; G Smyth
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Efficiency and effectiveness of stoop and squat lifting at different frequencies.

Authors:  E Welbergen; H C Kemper; J J Knibbe; H M Toussaint; L Clysen
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 2.778

3.  Isokinetic trunk strength and lifting strength measures. Differences and similarities between low-back-injured and noninjured workers.

Authors:  P J Mandell; E Weitz; J I Bernstein; M H Lipton; J Morris; D Bradshaw; K P Bodkin; B Mattmiller
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Descriptive multidimensional statistical methods for analysing signals in a multifactorial biomedical database.

Authors:  P Loslever; F X Lepoutre; A Kebab; H Sayarh
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  An energy 'sources' and 'fractions' approach to the mechanical energy expenditure problem--I. Basic concepts, description of the model, analysis of a one-link system movement.

Authors:  S Y Aleshinsky
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  Joint moments and muscle activity in the lower extremities and lower back in lifting and lowering tasks.

Authors:  M P de Looze; H M Toussaint; J H van Dieën; H C Kemper
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 7.  Trunk strength testing with iso-machines. Part 1: Review of a decade of scientific evidence.

Authors:  M Newton; G Waddell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Trunk strength testing with iso-machines. Part 2: Experimental evaluation of the Cybex II Back Testing System in normal subjects and patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  M Newton; M Thow; D Somerville; I Henderson; G Waddell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  A dynamic biomechanical evaluation of lifting maximum acceptable loads.

Authors:  A Freivalds; D B Chaffin; A Garg; K S Lee
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 2.712

10.  Isokinetic and non-dynamometric tests in low back pain patients related to pain and disability index.

Authors:  A Rissanen; H Alaranta; P Sainio; H Härkönen
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Gait disorder rehabilitation using vision and non-vision based sensors: a systematic review.

Authors:  Asraf Ali; Kenneth Sundaraj; Badlishah Ahmad; Nizam Ahamed; Anamul Islam
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.363

Review 2.  Isokinetic Trunk Strength in Acute Low Back Pain Patients Compared to Healthy Subjects: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Waleska Reyes-Ferrada; Luis Chirosa-Rios; Angela Rodriguez-Perea; Daniel Jerez-Mayorga; Ignacio Chirosa-Rios
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 3.390

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.