Mark Greenhalgh1, Eline Blaauw, Nikitha Deepak, Matthew St Laurent, Rosemarie Cooper, Roxanna Bendixen, Garrett G Grindle, Alicia M Koontz, Rory A Cooper. 1. From the Human Engineering Research Laboratories, US Department of Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (MG, EB, ND, RC, GGG, AMK, RAC); School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (MG, EB, ND, RC, RB, GGG, AMK, RAC); Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda Naval Station, Bethesda, Maryland (MSL); Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda Naval Station, Bethesda, Maryland (MSL); and Center of Assistive Technology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (RC, RAC).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The robotic assisted transfer device was developed as an updated lift technology to reduce adjustments in posture while increasing capabilities offered by transfer devices. The purpose of this study was to compare the trunk biomechanics of a robotic assisted transfer device and a mechanical floor lift in the transfer of a care recipient by a caregiver during essential transfer tasks. METHODS: Investigators enrolled 28 caregiver/care recipient dyads to complete 36 transferring tasks. Surface electromyography for the back muscles and motion data for trunk range of motion were collected for selected surfaces, phase, and direction tasks using a robotic assisted transfer device and a mechanical floor lift. RESULTS: Robotic assisted transfer device transfers required significantly smaller range of trunk flexion (P < 0.001), lateral bend (P < 0.001), and axial rotation (P = 0.01), in addition to smaller distance covered (P < 0.001), average instantaneous velocity (P = 0.01), and acceleration (P < 0.001) compared with a mobile floor lift. The robotic assisted transfer device transfers required significantly smaller peak erector spinae (left: P = 0.001; right: P < 0.001) and latissimus dorsi (right: P < 0.001) and integrated erector spinae left (P = 0.001) and latissimus dorsi right (P = 0.01) electromyography signals compared with the floor lift. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic assisted transfer device provides additional benefits to mobile floor lifts which, coupled with statistically lower flexion, extension, and rotation, may make them an appealing alternative intervention.
BACKGROUND: The robotic assisted transfer device was developed as an updated lift technology to reduce adjustments in posture while increasing capabilities offered by transfer devices. The purpose of this study was to compare the trunk biomechanics of a robotic assisted transfer device and a mechanical floor lift in the transfer of a care recipient by a caregiver during essential transfer tasks. METHODS: Investigators enrolled 28 caregiver/care recipient dyads to complete 36 transferring tasks. Surface electromyography for the back muscles and motion data for trunk range of motion were collected for selected surfaces, phase, and direction tasks using a robotic assisted transfer device and a mechanical floor lift. RESULTS: Robotic assisted transfer device transfers required significantly smaller range of trunk flexion (P < 0.001), lateral bend (P < 0.001), and axial rotation (P = 0.01), in addition to smaller distance covered (P < 0.001), average instantaneous velocity (P = 0.01), and acceleration (P < 0.001) compared with a mobile floor lift. The robotic assisted transfer device transfers required significantly smaller peak erector spinae (left: P = 0.001; right: P < 0.001) and latissimus dorsi (right: P < 0.001) and integrated erector spinae left (P = 0.001) and latissimus dorsi right (P = 0.01) electromyography signals compared with the floor lift. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic assisted transfer device provides additional benefits to mobile floor lifts which, coupled with statistically lower flexion, extension, and rotation, may make them an appealing alternative intervention.
Authors: Tilak Dutta; Pamela Jean Holliday; Susan Margaret Gorski; Mohammad Sadegh Baharvandy; Geoff Roy Fernie Journal: Appl Ergon Date: 2011-08-27 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Hailee R Kulich; Sarah R Bass; Jefferson S Griscavage; Amogha Vijayvargiya; Jonathan S Slowik; Alicia M Koontz Journal: Appl Ergon Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Lars L Andersen; Alex Burdorf; Nils Fallentin; Roger Persson; Markus D Jakobsen; Ole S Mortensen; Thomas Clausen; Andreas Holtermann Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 5.024