Literature DB >> 33500951

Passive Back Support Exoskeleton Improves Range of Motion Using Flexible Beams.

Matthias B Näf1, Axel S Koopman2, Saskia Baltrusch2,3, Carlos Rodriguez-Guerrero1, Bram Vanderborght1, Dirk Lefeber1.   

Abstract

In the EU, lower back pain affects more than 40% of the working population. Mechanical loading of the lower back has been shown to be an important risk factor. Peak mechanical load can be reduced by ergonomic interventions, the use of cranes and, more recently, by the use of exoskeletons. Despite recent advances in the development of exoskeletons for industrial applications, they are not widely adopted by industry yet. Some of the challenges, which have to be overcome are a reduced range of motion, misalignment between the human anatomy and kinematics of the exoskeleton as well as discomfort. A body of research exists on how an exoskeleton can be designed to compensate for misalignment and thereby improve comfort. However, how to design an exoskeleton that achieves a similar range of motion as a human lumbar spine of up to 60° in the sagittal plane, has not been extensively investigated. We addressed this need by developing and testing a novel passive back support exoskeleton, including a mechanism comprised of flexible beams, which run in parallel to the spine, providing a large range of motion and lowering the peak torque requirements around the lumbo-sacral (L5/S1) joint. Furthermore, we ran a pilot study to test the biomechanical (N = 2) and functional (N = 3) impact on subjects while wearing the exoskeleton. The biomechanical testing was once performed with flexible beams as a back interface and once with a rigid structure. An increase of more than 25% range of motion of the trunk in the sagittal plane was observed by using the flexible beams. The pilot functional tests, which are compared to results from a previous study with the Laevo device, suggest, that the novel exoskeleton is perceived as less hindering in almost all tested tasks.
Copyright © 2018 Näf, Koopman, Baltrusch, Rodriguez-Guerrero, Vanderborght and Lefeber.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomechanical testing; exoskeleton; industry; lower back pain; range of motion

Year:  2018        PMID: 33500951      PMCID: PMC7805753          DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2018.00072

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Robot AI        ISSN: 2296-9144


  19 in total

1.  Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination.

Authors:  A Cappozzo; F Catani; U Della Croce; A Leardini
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 2.063

2.  Lumbar loading during lifting: a comparative study of three measurement techniques.

Authors:  I Kingma; C T Baten; P Dolan; H M Toussaint; J H van Dieën; M P de Looze; M A Adams
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.368

3.  Kinematic design to improve ergonomics in human machine interaction.

Authors:  André Schiele; Frans C T van der Helm
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.802

4.  Mathematical and empirical proof of principle for an on-body personal lift augmentation device (PLAD).

Authors:  Mohammad Abdoli-Eramaki; Joan M Stevenson; Susan A Reid; Timothy J Bryant
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2007-04-26       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  The effect of a passive trunk exoskeleton on functional performance in healthy individuals.

Authors:  S J Baltrusch; J H van Dieën; C A M van Bennekom; H Houdijk
Journal:  Appl Ergon       Date:  2018-05-18       Impact factor: 3.661

6.  Biomechanical evaluation of the Eco-Pick lift assist: A device designed to facilitate product selection tasks in distribution centers.

Authors:  Steven A Lavender; Pei-Ling Ko; Carolyn M Sommerich
Journal:  Appl Ergon       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 3.661

Review 7.  The effect of lifting during work on low back pain: a health impact assessment based on a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Pieter Coenen; Vincent Gouttebarge; Aafje S A M van der Burght; Jaap H van Dieën; Monique H W Frings-Dresen; Allard J van der Beek; Alex Burdorf
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 4.402

8.  Towards low back support with a passive biomimetic exo-spine.

Authors:  Matthias B Naf; Laura De Rijcke; Carlos Rodriguez Guerrero; Matthew Millard; Bram Vanderborght; Dirk Lefeber
Journal:  IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot       Date:  2017-07

9.  The effects of a passive exoskeleton on muscle activity, discomfort and endurance time in forward bending work.

Authors:  Tim Bosch; Jennifer van Eck; Karlijn Knitel; Michiel de Looze
Journal:  Appl Ergon       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 3.661

10.  Bilateral, Misalignment-Compensating, Full-DOF Hip Exoskeleton: Design and Kinematic Validation.

Authors:  Karen Junius; Marc Degelaen; Nina Lefeber; Eva Swinnen; Bram Vanderborght; Dirk Lefeber
Journal:  Appl Bionics Biomech       Date:  2017-07-16       Impact factor: 1.781

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation and Test Methods of Industrial Exoskeletons In Vitro, In Vivo, and In Silico: A Critical Review.

Authors:  Liying Zheng; Brian Lowe; Ashley L Hawke; John Z Wu
Journal:  Crit Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2021

Review 2.  Towards a Functional Performance Validation Standard for Industrial Low-Back Exoskeletons: State of the Art Review.

Authors:  Mattia Pesenti; Alberto Antonietti; Marta Gandolla; Alessandra Pedrocchi
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 3.576

3.  Equivalent Weight: Connecting Exoskeleton Effectiveness with Ergonomic Risk during Manual Material Handling.

Authors:  Christian Di Natali; Giorgia Chini; Stefano Toxiri; Luigi Monica; Sara Anastasi; Francesco Draicchio; Darwin G Caldwell; Jesús Ortiz
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-07       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  Gaussian Mixture Models for Control of Quasi-Passive Spinal Exoskeletons.

Authors:  Marko Jamšek; Tadej Petrič; Jan Babič
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-09       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  Passive Trunk Exoskeleton Acceptability and Effects on Self-efficacy in Employees with Low-Back Pain: A Mixed Method Approach.

Authors:  S J Baltrusch; H Houdijk; J H van Dieën; J Th C M de Kruif
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2021-03

Review 6.  Wearables for Biomechanical Performance Optimization and Risk Assessment in Industrial and Sports Applications.

Authors:  Sam McDevitt; Haley Hernandez; Jamison Hicks; Russell Lowell; Hamza Bentahaikt; Reuben Burch; John Ball; Harish Chander; Charles Freeman; Courtney Taylor; Brock Anderson
Journal:  Bioengineering (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-13

7.  Development and Electromyographic Validation of a Compliant Human-Robot Interaction Controller for Cooperative and Personalized Neurorehabilitation.

Authors:  Stefano Dalla Gasperina; Valeria Longatelli; Francesco Braghin; Alessandra Pedrocchi; Marta Gandolla
Journal:  Front Neurorobot       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 2.650

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.