Literature DB >> 17103232

Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads.

Babak Bazrgari1, Aboulfazl Shirazi-Adl, Navid Arjmand.   

Abstract

Despite the well-recognized role of lifting in back injuries, the relative biomechanical merits of squat versus stoop lifting remain controversial. In vivo kinematics measurements and model studies are combined to estimate trunk muscle forces and internal spinal loads under dynamic squat and stoop lifts with and without load in hands. Measurements were performed on healthy subjects to collect segmental rotations during lifts needed as input data in subsequent model studies. The model accounted for nonlinear properties of the ligamentous spine, wrapping of thoracic extensor muscles to take curved paths in flexion and trunk dynamic characteristics (inertia and damping) while subject to measured kinematics and gravity/external loads. A dynamic kinematics-driven approach was employed accounting for the spinal synergy by simultaneous consideration of passive structures and muscle forces under given posture and loads. Results satisfied kinematics and dynamic equilibrium conditions at all levels and directions. Net moments, muscle forces at different levels, passive (muscle or ligamentous) forces and internal compression/shear forces were larger in stoop lifts than in squat ones. These were due to significantly larger thorax, lumbar and pelvis rotations in stoop lifts. For the relatively slow lifting tasks performed in this study with the lowering and lifting phases each lasting approximately 2 s, the effect of inertia and damping was not, in general, important. Moreover, posterior shift in the position of the external load in stoop lift reaching the same lever arm with respect to the S1 as that in squat lift did not influence the conclusion of this study on the merits of squat lifts over stoop ones. Results, for the tasks considered, advocate squat lifting over stoop lifting as the technique of choice in reducing net moments, muscle forces and internal spinal loads (i.e., moment, compression and shear force).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17103232      PMCID: PMC2213554          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-0240-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  91 in total

1.  Transverse-contour modeling of trunk muscle-distributed forces and spinal loads during lifting and twisting.

Authors:  J R Davis; G A Mirka
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Dynamic forces acting on the lumbar spine during manual handling. Can they be estimated using electromyographic techniques alone?

Authors:  P Dolan; I Kingma; J van Dieen; M P de Looze; H M Toussaint; C T Baten; M A Adams
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Muscle activity, internal loads, and stability of the human spine in standing postures: combined model and in vivo studies.

Authors:  Marwan El-Rich; Aboulfazl Shirazi-Adl; Navid Arjmand
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  The distance between the load and the body with three bi-manual lifting techniques.

Authors:  T Bendix; S E Eid
Journal:  Appl Ergon       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 3.661

5.  Lumbar spine loads during the lifting of extremely heavy weights.

Authors:  J Cholewicki; S M McGill; R W Norman
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 5.411

Review 6.  Positive and negative evidence of risk factors for back disorders.

Authors:  A Burdorf; G Sorock
Journal:  Scand J Work Environ Health       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 5.024

7.  The abdominal muscles and vertebral stability.

Authors:  K M Tesh; J S Dunn; J H Evans
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Partitioning of the L4-L5 dynamic moment into disc, ligamentous, and muscular components during lifting.

Authors:  S M McGill; R W Norman
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Application of a stereoradiographic method for the study of intervertebral motion.

Authors:  A Plamondon; M Gagnon; G Maurais
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Role of muscles in lumbar spine stability in maximum extension efforts.

Authors:  M Gardner-Morse; I A Stokes; J P Laible
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 3.494

View more
  21 in total

1.  Predictors of new vertebral endplate signal (Modic) changes in the general population.

Authors:  Tue Secher Jensen; Per Kjaer; Lars Korsholm; Tom Bendix; Joan S Sorensen; Claus Manniche; Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-11-18       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Prediction of complications and fusion outcomes of fused lumbar spine with or without fixation system under whole-body vibration.

Authors:  Qing-Dong Wang; Li-Xin Guo
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Trunk-Pelvis motions and spinal loads during upslope and downslope walking among persons with transfemoral amputation.

Authors:  Julian C Acasio; Iman Shojaei; Rajit Banerjee; Christopher L Dearth; Babak Bazrgari; Brad D Hendershot
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Trunk muscle forces and spinal loads in persons with unilateral transfemoral amputation during sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit activities.

Authors:  Iman Shojaei; Brad D Hendershot; Julian C Acasio; Christopher L Dearth; Matthew Ballard; Babak Bazrgari
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 2.063

5.  Persons with unilateral transfemoral amputation experience larger spinal loads during level-ground walking compared to able-bodied individuals.

Authors:  Iman Shojaei; Brad D Hendershot; Erik J Wolf; Babak Bazrgari
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2015-12-04       Impact factor: 2.063

6.  Walking speed differentially alters spinal loads in persons with traumatic lower limb amputation.

Authors:  Brad D Hendershot; Iman Shojaei; Julian C Acasio; Christopher L Dearth; Babak Bazrgari
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 2.712

7.  A new method to approximate load-displacement relationships of spinal motion segments for patient-specific multi-body models of scoliotic spine.

Authors:  Athena Jalalian; Francis E H Tay; Soheil Arastehfar; Gabriel Liu
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2016-09-26       Impact factor: 2.602

8.  Management of a patient with lumbar segmental instability using a clinical predictor rule.

Authors:  Anna Ribaudo
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2013-08-14

9.  Effects of the weight configuration of hand load on trunk musculature during static weight holding.

Authors:  Saman Madinei; Xiaopeng Ning
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2017-10-09       Impact factor: 2.778

10.  A model-based approach for estimation of changes in lumbar segmental kinematics associated with alterations in trunk muscle forces.

Authors:  Iman Shojaei; Navid Arjmand; Judith R Meakin; Babak Bazrgari
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 2.712

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.