Literature DB >> 7957027

The evaluation of a practical biomechanical model estimating lumbar moments in occupational activities.

M P de Looze1, I Kingma, W Thunnissen, M J van Wijk, H M Toussaint.   

Abstract

To estimate the mechanical load on the low back in manual materials handling, the Static Strength Prediction Model (SSPM, University of Michigan) is widely used in the occupational field. It requires (for practical reasons) only a small number of input variables (five body segment angles, standing height, total body mass, external load on the hands) on which basis the moment at the lumbo-sacral intervertebral joint (beside other parameters) is computed. The dynamic character of the activities is ignored in the calculations. To evaluate the validity of the SSPM in various situations, lumbar moments in lifting/lowering activities at different lifting techniques and speeds obtained by the SSPM, were compared with those obtained by a more comprehensive dynamic model (DM). An analysis of variance showed significant effects (p = 0.001) of the biomechanical model applied and the lifting speed used on the peak lumbar moment values. No effects of lifting technique were found. The differences in results from the SSPM and DM were dependent on the lifting speed: the SSPM peak lumbar moments were on average 9% (not significant), 21% (significant at p = 0.005) and 42% (p = 0.0001) smaller compared to the DM moments in the slow (mean velocity in a complete lifting/lowering cycle, 0.2 m s-1), normal (0.4 m s-1) and fast (0.8 m s-1) speed condition respectively. The results indicate that the static/dynamic difference between the models is a major source for the different lumbar moments, while other differences between the SSPM and DM are of minor importance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7957027     DOI: 10.1080/00140139408964929

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ergonomics        ISSN: 0014-0139            Impact factor:   2.778


  6 in total

1.  Biomechanical comparison of isokinetic lifting and free lifting when applied to chronic low back pain rehabilitation.

Authors:  S Bouilland; P Loslever; F X Lepoutre
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.602

2.  Gender differences in psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and forces for industrial workers observed after twenty years.

Authors:  Vincent M Ciriello; Rammohan V Maikala; Patrick G Dempsey; Niall V O'Brien
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2010-10-16       Impact factor: 3.015

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

Authors:  Babak Bazrgari; Aboulfazl Shirazi-Adl; Navid Arjmand
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-11-14       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Two linear regression models predicting cumulative dynamic L5/S1 joint moment during a range of lifting tasks based on static postures.

Authors:  Xu Xu; Chien-Chi Chang; Ming-Lun Lu
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 2.778

5.  Chronic Fatigue, Physical Impairments and Quality of Life in Women with Endometriosis: A Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Francisco Álvarez-Salvago; Ana Lara-Ramos; Irene Cantarero-Villanueva; Maryna Mazheika; Antonio Mundo-López; Noelia Galiano-Castillo; Carolina Fernández-Lao; Manuel Arroyo-Morales; Olga Ocón-Hernández; Francisco Artacho-Cordón
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Trunk Posture during Manual Materials Handling of Beer Kegs.

Authors:  Colleen Brents; Molly Hischke; Raoul Reiser; John Rosecrance
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-07-10       Impact factor: 3.390

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.