Idsart Kingma1, Gert S Faber, Anja J M Bakker, Jaap H van Dieën. 1. Institute of Fundamental and Clinical Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, van der Boechorststraat 9, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands. i_kingma@fbw.vu.nl
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Lifting technique could, through its effect on low back loading, affect the risk of developing low back pain. In this study, 2 lifting techniques (a straddle technique and a 1-leg kneeling technique), which aimed to reduce low back loading by placing one leg beside a load, were compared with stoop lifting and squat lifting with respect to their effect on low back loading. SUBJECTS: Twelve men with no history of low back pain participated in the study. METHODS: The subjects lifted wide and narrow 20-kg boxes from 2 initial hand heights. With measured kinematics, ground reaction forces, and electromyography, 3-dimensional spinal forces were calculated. RESULTS: When the subjects lifted a narrow box from a 290-mm height, peak L5-S1 compression forces were 5,060 (SD = 827), 3,980 (SD = 701), 4,208 (SD = 762), and 4,719 (SD = 1,015) N for the stoop, squat, straddle, and kneeling techniques, respectively. When the subjects lifted a wide box from 50 mm, spinal compression forces were much higher and distributed differently over lifting techniques: 5,926 (SD = 610), 6,868 (SD = 924), 6,472 (SD = 1,042), and 6,064 (SD = 968) N, respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The authors conclude that no single lifting technique can be advised for all lifting conditions.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Lifting technique could, through its effect on low back loading, affect the risk of developing low back pain. In this study, 2 lifting techniques (a straddle technique and a 1-leg kneeling technique), which aimed to reduce low back loading by placing one leg beside a load, were compared with stoop lifting and squat lifting with respect to their effect on low back loading. SUBJECTS: Twelve men with no history of low back pain participated in the study. METHODS: The subjects lifted wide and narrow 20-kg boxes from 2 initial hand heights. With measured kinematics, ground reaction forces, and electromyography, 3-dimensional spinal forces were calculated. RESULTS: When the subjects lifted a narrow box from a 290-mm height, peak L5-S1 compression forces were 5,060 (SD = 827), 3,980 (SD = 701), 4,208 (SD = 762), and 4,719 (SD = 1,015) N for the stoop, squat, straddle, and kneeling techniques, respectively. When the subjects lifted a wide box from 50 mm, spinal compression forces were much higher and distributed differently over lifting techniques: 5,926 (SD = 610), 6,868 (SD = 924), 6,472 (SD = 1,042), and 6,064 (SD = 968) N, respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The authors conclude that no single lifting technique can be advised for all lifting conditions.
Authors: Guido B van Solinge; Albert J van der Veen; Jaap H van Dieën; Idsart Kingma; Barend J van Royen Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2010-06-27 Impact factor: 3.134
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
Authors: Arno Bisschop; Barend J van Royen; Margriet G Mullender; Cornelis P L Paul; Idsart Kingma; Timothy U Jiya; Albert J van der Veen; Jaap H van Dieën Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2012-03-17 Impact factor: 3.134
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
Authors: Trung C Phan; Adrian Pranata; Joshua Farragher; Adam Bryant; Hung T Nguyen; Rifai Chai Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-09-04 Impact factor: 3.847