Literature DB >> 16649007

Safe lifting in patients with chronic low back pain: comparing FCE lifting task and Niosh lifting guideline.

Wietske Kuijer1, Pieter U Dijkstra, Sandra Brouwer, Michiel F Reneman, Johan W Groothoff, Jan H B Geertzen.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Both the floor-to-waist lifting task of the Isernhagen Work Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation (IWS FCE) and recommended weight limit (RWL) of the NIOSH produce safe lifting weights and are used world-wide nowadays. It is unknown whether they produce similar safe lifting weights. Aim of this study was to compare FCE performance on the floor-to-waist lifting task and RWL of the NIOSH lifting guideline for this task, in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).
METHODS: Ninety-two patients performed the FCE lifting task. RWL was calculated for this task. Performance was compared with RWL. A lifting index was calculated by dividing performance by RWL. Differences between groups with a lifting index < or =1, 1-3, and >3 were calculated for pain intensity, scores on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and work status.
RESULTS: Men lifted on average 32.5 kg (SD 15.4) and women 18.8 kg (SD 7.8). RWL for this task was 12.8 kg. Mean difference between performance and RWL was 15.0 kg (SD 14.7; range -8.8 to 59.2). The Roland Morris Disability score of patients with a lifting index < or =1 was significantly lower than patients with a lifting index 1-3 and >3. No difference in pain intensity and work status was found between groups.
CONCLUSION: It was concluded that performance on the FCE floor-to-waist lifting task and RWL of the NIOSH for this task produce different safe lifting weights in individual patients with CLBP, which may result in contradictory recommendations about need for rehabilitation and return to work.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16649007     DOI: 10.1007/s10926-005-9010-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Occup Rehabil        ISSN: 1053-0487


  32 in total

1.  Flexion and rotation of the trunk and lifting at work are risk factors for low back pain: results of a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  W E Hoogendoorn; P M Bongers; H C de Vet; M Douwes; B W Koes; M C Miedema; G A Ariëns; L M Bouter
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  Attentional control of pain and the process of chronification.

Authors:  M Hasenbring
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.453

3.  Validity of work-related assessments.

Authors:  Ev Innes; Leon Straker
Journal:  Work       Date:  1999

Review 4.  Active despite pain: the putative role of stop-rules and current mood.

Authors:  Johan W S Vlaeyen; Stephen Morley
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 6.961

5.  Validity of the dictionary of occupational titles residual functional capacity battery.

Authors:  D A Fishbain; R B Cutler; H Rosomoff; T Khalil; E Abdel-Moty; R Steele-Rosomoff
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.442

6.  Accuracy of recall of usual pain intensity in back pain patients.

Authors:  Jennifer E Bolton
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 6.961

7.  The prognostic value of functional capacity evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain: part 2: sustained recovery.

Authors:  Douglas P Gross; Michele C Battié
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments.

Authors:  A J H M Beurskens; H C W de Vet; A J A Köke
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 6.961

9.  Evaluation and quantification of manual materials handling risk factors.

Authors:  Richard Sesek; David Gilkey; Phillip Drinkaus; Donald S Bloswick; Robin Herron
Journal:  Int J Occup Saf Ergon       Date:  2003

Review 10.  Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Assessment of the quality of four disease-specific questionnaires.

Authors:  A J Beurskens; H C de Vet; A J Köke; G J van der Heijden; P G Knipschild
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  5 in total

1.  Quantification of the safe maximal lift in functional capacity evaluations: comparison of muscle recruitment using SEMG and therapist observation.

Authors:  Carole James; Lynette Mackenzie; Mike Capra
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2013-09

2.  Clinical and Ergonomic Comparison Between a Robotic Assisted Transfer Device and a Mobile Floor Lift During Caregiver-Assisted Wheelchair Transfers.

Authors:  Mark Greenhalgh; Eline Blaauw; Nikitha Deepak; Matthew St Laurent; Rosemarie Cooper; Roxanna Bendixen; Garrett G Grindle; Alicia M Koontz; Rory A Cooper
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 3.  Evaluation of the Impact of the Revised National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Lifting Equation.

Authors:  Ming-Lun Lu; Vern Putz-Anderson; Arun Garg; Kermit G Davis
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 2.888

4.  Reproducibility of improvements in patient-reported functional ability following functional capacity evaluation.

Authors:  Martin Schindl; Harald Zipko; Matthias Bethge
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Pain response of healthy workers following a functional capacity evaluation and implications for clinical interpretation.

Authors:  Remko Soer; Johan W Groothoff; Jan H B Geertzen; Cees P van der Schans; David D Reesink; Michiel F Reneman
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2008-04-11
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.