Literature DB >> 15513714

Foot positioning instruction, initial vertical load position and lifting technique: effects on low back loading.

Idsart Kingma1, Tim Bosch, Louis Bruins, Jaap H van Dieën.   

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of initial load height and foot placement instruction in four lifting techniques: free, stoop (bending the back), squat (bending the knees) and a modified squat technique (bending the knees and rotating them outward). A 2D dynamic linked segment model was combined with an EMG assisted trunk muscle model to quantify kinematics and low back loading in 10 subjects performing 19 different lifting movements, using 10.5 kg boxes without handles. When lifting from a 0.05 m height with the feet behind the box, squat lifting resulted in 19.9% (SD 8.7%) higher net moments (p < 0.001) and 17.0% (SD 13.2%) higher compression forces (p < 0.01) than stoop lifting. This effect was reduced to 12.8% (SD 10.7%) for moments and a non-significant 7.4% (SD 16.0%) for compression forces when lifting with the feet beside the box and it disappeared when lifting from 0.5 m height. Differences between squat and stoop lifts, as well as the interaction with lifting height, could to a large extent be explained by changes in the horizontal L5/S1 intervertebral joint position relative to the load, the upper body acceleration, and lumbar flexion. Rotating the knees outward during squat lifts resulted in moments and compression forces that were smaller than in squat lifting but larger than in stoop lifting. Shear forces were small ( < 300 N) at the L4/L5 joint and substantial (1100 - 1400 N) but unaffected by lifting technique at the L5/S1 joint. The present results show that the effects of lifting technique on low back loading depend on the task context.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15513714     DOI: 10.1080/00140130410001714742

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ergonomics        ISSN: 0014-0139            Impact factor:   2.778


  6 in total

1.  A phased rehabilitation protocol for athletes with lumbar intervertebral disc herniation.

Authors:  Leonard H Vangelder; Barbara J Hoogenboom; Daniel W Vaughn
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2013-08

2.  Association of facet tropism with lumbar disc herniation.

Authors:  Manish Chadha; Gaurav Sharma; Shobha S Arora; Vivek Kochar
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Which factors prognosticate rotational instability following lumbar laminectomy?

Authors:  Arno Bisschop; Idsart Kingma; Ronald L A W Bleys; Albert J van der Veen; Cornelis P L Paul; Jaap H van Dieën; Barend J van Royen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Torsion biomechanics of the spine following lumbar laminectomy: a human cadaver study.

Authors:  Arno Bisschop; Jaap H van Dieën; Idsart Kingma; Albert J van der Veen; Timothy U Jiya; Margriet G Mullender; Cornelis P L Paul; Marinus de Kleuver; Barend J van Royen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  The impact of bone mineral density and disc degeneration on shear strength and stiffness of the lumbar spine following laminectomy.

Authors:  Arno Bisschop; Margriet G Mullender; Idsart Kingma; Timothy U Jiya; Albert J van der Veen; Jan C Roos; Jaap H van Dieën; Barend J van Royen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-24       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Failure of the human lumbar motion-segments resulting from anterior shear fatigue loading.

Authors:  Daniel M Skrzypiec; Katrin Nagel; Kay Sellenschloh; Anke Klein; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Gerd Huber
Journal:  Ind Health       Date:  2016-01-30       Impact factor: 2.179

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.