Literature DB >> 8484154

The role of dynamic three-dimensional trunk motion in occupationally-related low back disorders. The effects of workplace factors, trunk position, and trunk motion characteristics on risk of injury.

W S Marras1, S A Lavender, S E Leurgans, S L Rajulu, W G Allread, F A Fathallah, S A Ferguson.   

Abstract

Current ergonomic techniques for controlling the risk of occupationally-related low back disorder consist of static assessments of spinal loading during lifting activities. This may be problematic because several biomechanical models and epidemiologic studies suggest that the dynamic characteristics of a lift increase spine loading and the risk of occupational low back disorder. It has been difficult to include this motion information in workplace assessments because the speed at which trunk motion becomes dangerous has not been determined. An in vivo study was performed to assess the contribution of three-dimensional dynamic trunk motions to the risk of low back disorder during occupational lifting in industry. More than 400 repetitive industrial lifting jobs were studied in 48 varied industries. Existing medical and injury records in these industries were examined so that specific jobs historically categorized as either high-risk or low-risk for reported occupationally-related low back disorder could be identified. A triaxial electrogoniometer was worn by workers and documented the three-dimensional angular position, velocity, and acceleration characteristics of the lumbar spine while workers lifted in these high-risk or low-risk jobs. Workplace and individual characteristics were also documented for each of the repetitive lifting tasks. A multiple logistic regression model was developed, based on biomechanical plausibility, and indicated that a combination of five trunk motion and workplace factors distinguished between high and low risk of occupationally-related low back disorder risk well (odds ratio: 10.7). These factors included 1) lifting frequency, 2) load moment, 3) trunk lateral velocity, 4) trunk twisting velocity, and 5) the trunk sagittal angle. This analysis implies that by suitably varying these five factors observed during the lift collectively, the odds of high-risk group membership may decrease by almost 11 times. The predictive power of this model was found to be more than three times greater than that of current lifting guidelines. This study, though not proving causality, indicates an association between the biomechanical factors and low back disorder risk. This model could be used as a quantitative, objective measure to design the workplace so that the risk of occupationally-related low back disorder is minimized.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8484154     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199304000-00015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  49 in total

1.  Workers' assessments of manual lifting tasks: cognitive strategies and validation with respect to objective indices and musculoskeletal symptoms.

Authors:  Simon S Yeung; Ash Genaidy; James Deddens; P C Leung
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2003-05-29       Impact factor: 3.015

2.  A history of spine biomechanics. Focus on 20th century progress.

Authors:  T R Oxland
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.000

3.  Effects of static flexion-relaxation on paraspinal reflex behavior.

Authors:  Kevin P Granata; Ellen Rogers; Kevin Moorhouse
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.063

4.  Low-back biomechanics and static stability during isometric pushing.

Authors:  Kevin R Granata; Bradford C Bennett
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.888

5.  Disturbed paraspinal reflex following prolonged flexion-relaxation and recovery.

Authors:  Ellen L Rogers; Kevin P Granata
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Immune responses to low back pain risk factors.

Authors:  Riley E Splittstoesser; William S Marras; Thomas M Best
Journal:  Work       Date:  2012

7.  Industrial back belts and low back pain: Mechanisms and outcomes.

Authors:  B A Barron; M Feuerstein
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  1994-09

8.  Predictive regression modeling of body segment parameters using individual-based anthropometric measurements.

Authors:  Zachary Merrill; Subashan Perera; Rakié Cham
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2019-10-08       Impact factor: 2.712

9.  Association between rotation-related impairments and activity type in people with and without low back pain.

Authors:  Stephanie A Weyrauch; Sara C Bohall; Christopher J Sorensen; Linda R Van Dillen
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 3.966

10.  Ergonomic risk factors for low back pain in North Carolina crab pot and gill net commercial fishermen.

Authors:  Kristen L Kucera; Dana Loomis; Hester J Lipscomb; Stephen W Marshall; Gary A Mirka; Julie L Daniels
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.214

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.