Sensitivity of single-equivalent trunk extensor muscle models to anatomical and functional assumptions

Determining whether biomechanical variables that describe common 'safe lifting' cues are associated with low back loads

Lift technique training programs have been implemented to help reduce injury risk, but the underlying content validity of cues used within these programs is not clear. The objective of this study was to determine whether biomechanical variables, that commonly used lifting cues aim to elicit, are associated with resultant low back extensor moment exposures. A sample of 72 participants were recruited to perform 10 repetitions of a floor-to-waist height barbell lift while whole-body kinematics and ground reaction forces were collected. Kinematic, kinetic, and energetic variables representative of characteristics commonly targeted by lifting cues were calculated as predictor variables, while peak and cumulative low back moments were calculated as dependent measures. Multiple regression revealed that 56.6-59.2% of variance in low back moments was explained by predictor variables. From these regression models, generating motion with the legs (both greater hip and knee work), minimizing the horizontal distance of the body to the load, maintaining a stable body position, and minimizing lift time were associated with lower magnitudes of low back moments. These data support that using cues targeting these identified variables may be more effective at reducing peak low back moment exposures via lift training.

Implementing an accelerometer-based pelvis segment for low back kinetic analyses during dynamic movement tasks

An accelerometer-based pelvis has been employed to study segment and joint kinematics during scenarios involving close human-object interface and/or line-of-sight obstructions. However, its accuracy for examining low back kinetic outcomes is unknown. This study compared reaction moments and contact forces of the L5S1 joint calculated with an accelerometer-based and optically tracked pelvis segment. An approach to correct the global pelvis position as a function of thigh angle was developed. One participant performed four dynamic tasks: forward bend, squat, sit-to-stand-to-sit, and forward lunge. A standard bottom-up inverse dynamics approach was used and the root mean square error (RMSE) and coefficient of determination (R2) were calculated to examine kinetic differences between the optical and accelerometer approaches. The RMSE observed for L5S1 reaction flexion-extension moments ranged from 1.32 Nm to 2.20 Nm (R2 ≥ 0.98). The RMSE for net shear and compression reaction forces ranged from 2.13 to 10.45 N and 0.63 - 4.96 N, respectively. Similarly, the RMSE for L5S1 joint contact shear and compression ranged from 13.45 N to 19.51 N (R2 ≥ 0.85) and 31.18 N - 55.97 N (R2 ≥ 0.97), respectively. In conclusion, the accelerometer-based pelvis together with the approach to correct the global pelvis position is a feasible approach for computing low back kinetics with a single equivalent muscle model. The observed error in joint contact forces represents less than 5 % of the NIOSH recommended action limits and is unlikely to alter the interpretation of low back injury risk.

The Influence of Contextual and Theoretical Expertise on Generic and Occupation-Specific Lifting Strategy

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether (i) low back loads and/or (ii) kinematic coordination patterns differed across theoretical expert, contextual expert and novice groups when completing both generic and occupation-specific lifts.

BACKGROUND

Experience has been proposed as a factor that could reduce biomechanical exposures in lifting, but the literature reports mixed effects. The inconsistent relationship between experience and exposures may be partially attributable to the broad classification of experience and experimental lifting protocols not replicating the environment where experience was gained.

METHODS

Purposive sampling was used to recruit 72 participants including theoretical experts (formal training on lifting mechanics), contextual experts (paramedics), and novices. Participants performed 10 barbell and crate (generic) lifts, as well as backboard and stretcher (occupation-specific) lifts while whole-body kinematics and ground reaction forces were collected. Peak low back compression and anteroposterior shear loads normalized to body mass, as well as kinematic coordination patterns, were calculated as dependent variables.

RESULTS

No significant differences in low back loads were observed across expertise groups. However, significant differences were seen in kinematic coordination patterns across expertise groups in occupation-specific lifts, but not in generic lifts.

CONCLUSION

Increasing expertise is unlikely to minimize low back loads in lifting. However, contextual expertise did influence lifting kinematics, but only when performing occupationally specific lifts.

APPLICATION

Contextual expertise may help lifters adopt lifting kinematics that enhance the tolerance of their musculoskeletal system to withstand applied loads, but does not seem to reduce the applied low back loads relative to noncontextual expert groups.

Quantifying how functional and structural personal factors influence biomechanical exposures in paramedic lifting tasks

It is unknown how structural (sex, stature, body mass) and functional (strength, flexibility) personal factors influence lifting strategy in paramedic work. We explored whether variance in peak low back forces and kinematic coordination patterns could be explained by structural and functional personal factors in paramedic lifting tasks. Seventy-two participants performed backboard and stretcher lifts. Peak low back forces normalised to body mass, as well as kinematic coordination patterns, were calculated as dependent variables. Being female, stronger, shorter, having higher body mass, and/or having greater lower body range of motion (ROM) were all independently associated with lower normalised low back forces across backboard and stretcher lifting. Females and stronger individuals seemed to define a movement objective to consistently minimise compressive forces, while individuals with greater hip ROM consistently minimised anteroposterior shear forces. The efficacy of improving strength and hip ROM to reduce low back forces in paramedic lifting should be investigated.Practitioner summary: Females, stronger individuals, and individuals with greater hip range of motion consistently exhibited lower normalised low back forces in paramedic lifting. Improving strength and hip range of motion via training is a potential proactive ergonomics approach to reduce peak low back forces in paramedic lifting tasks.

An Enhanced Planar Linked Segment Model for Predicting Lumbar Spine Loads during Symmetric Lifting Tasks

The present technical note aimed at enriching the planar linked segment model originally proposed by Chaffin with the prediction of the moment arm and of the orientation of the line of action of the back extensor muscles during symmetric lifting tasks. The prediction equations proposed by van Dieen and de Looze for their single equivalent muscle model were used for such a purpose. Their prediction was based on the thorax-to-pelvis flexion angle as computed from 3D video-based motion capture. In order to make these prediction equations compliant with a two-dimensional analysis, the planar angle formed by the segment joining L5/S1 to the shoulder with the longitudinal axis of the pelvis was introduced. This newly computed planar trunk flexion angle was used to feed van Dieen and de Looze’s equations, comparing the results with the original model. A full-body Plug-in-Gait model relative to 10 subjects performing manual lifting activities using a stoop and a squat technique was used for model validation. A strong association was found between the proposed planar trunk flexion angle and that used by van Dieen and de Looze (r = 0.970). A strong association and a high level of agreement were found between the back extensor muscle moment arm (r = 0.965; bias < 0.001 m; upper limit of agreement (LOA) = 0.002 m; lower LOA < 0.001 m) and the orientation of the line of action (r = 0.970; bias = 2.8°; upper LOA = 5.3°; lower LOA = 0.2°) as computed using the two methods. For both the considered variables, the prediction error fell within the model sensitivity.

The Effect of Set Up Position on EMG Amplitude, Lumbar Spine Kinetics, and Total Force Output During Maximal Isometric Conventional-Stance Deadlifts

The purpose of this study was to examine the biomechanical differences between two set up variations during the isometric initiation of conventional barbell deadlifts (DL): Close-bar DL (CBDL), where the bar is positioned above the navicular, and far-bar DL (FBDL), where the bar is placed above the 3rd metatarsophalangeal joint. A cross-sectional, randomized, within-participant pilot study was used. Experienced powerlifters and weightlifters (n = 10) performed three individual isometric pulls of the initiation of both conditions. The CBDL resulted in lower tibia and knee angles and greater pelvis and torso angles than the FBDL (p < 0.05), as well as greater electromyography (EMG) activity in the biceps femoris and upper lumbar erector spinae, but lower activity in the vastus lateralis, and a lower knee extensor moment (p < 0.05). There were no statistical differences for ground reaction force, joint reaction lumbar shear and compression forces between the two conditions. Despite the differences in pelvis and torso angles between lifting conditions, the internal joint net moment, internal shear forces, and internal compressive forces were not different between the two lifting styles. The CBDL set up also resulted in greater posterior chain (hamstrings and erector spine) EMG amplitude, whereas the FBDL set up resulted in more anterior chain (quadriceps) amplitude. Lifters and coaches may choose either deadlift style, according to preferences or training goals, without concern for differences in lumbar spinal loading.

Comparing the biomechanical and psychophysical demands imposed on paramedics when using manual and powered stretchers

The aim of this investigation was to compare the effect of three different stretchers (two powered and one manual) on the biomechanical and psychophysical demands experienced by paramedics when performing routine stretcher handling activities. Eight experienced paramedics performed stretcher raising, lowering, unloading and loading tasks. Video data of task performance and static force requirements were recorded and input into a posture matching program with a quasi-static linked segment model (3DMatch) to compute peak and cumulative L4/L5 compression and shear forces and shoulder moments during each activity. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded from paramedics upon the completion of each task. Use of powered stretchers with load assist functionality reduced the demands on paramedics. Peak L4/L5 forces were reduced by 13-62% and 58-93% for compression and shear respectively when using powered stretchers to perform routine stretcher handling activities. Shoulder flexor moments and RPE scores were reduced by 16-95% and 29-60% respectively when using the powered stretchers compared to the manual stretcher. However, cumulative forces showed mixed results. Although powered stretcher use decreased peak forces, loading and unloading a powered stretcher took 1.5 to 3.4 times longer then when using the manual stretcher, which may explain the mixed results regarding cumulative forces. Based on the RPE scores, paramedics preferred power stretchers relative to the manual stretcher. This study demonstrates that powered stretchers can reduce peak biomechanical and psychophysical exposures associated with the development of musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) during routine stretcher handling activities with minimal increases in cumulative exposures.

Using verbal instructions to influence lifting mechanics - Does the directive "lift with your legs, not your back" attenuate spinal flexion?

"Use your legs" is commonly perceived as sound advice to prevent lifting-related low-back pain and injuries, but there is limited evidence that this directive attenuates the concomitant biomechanical risk factors. Body segment kinematic data were collected from 12 men and 12 women who performed a laboratory lifting/lowering task after being provided with different verbal instructions. The main finding was that instructing participants to lift "without rounding your lower back" had a greater effect on the amount of spine flexion they exhibited when lifting/lowering than instructing them to lift "with your legs instead of your back" and "bend your knees and hips". It was concluded that if using verbal instructions to discourage spine flexion when lifting, the instructions should be spine- rather than leg-focused.

Ambulatory Low Back Load Exposure Estimation

An ambulatory monitor for physical low back load exposure should be non-interfering, unrestricted in application space or duration, practical in use and interpretation, sufficiently accurate and reliable, sensitive to load handling and load coping and offer both detailed load parameters statistics and global information on tasks and behavior. A method is introduced that tries to meet these demands applying 3 technological innovations: miniature inertial movement sensing, artificial neural network based automatic calibration of the dynamic surface EMG–moment relationship and miniature RF links for wireless video-synchronization (AMBER). The currently implemented ambulatory method assesses load exposure through absolute 3D trunk kinematics data, muscle activation patterns, net moment data at spinal level L5/S1, compressive forces in symmetric loading situations and synchronized video. Principles, validation and recent field applications of the method are presented.

Effect of Center of Mass and Handle Location of Two-Wheeled Refuse Containers on Mechanical Loading

The aim of the current study was to find out how the center of mass (COM) and handle location of a two-wheeled container affects handle forces and joint loading. Forces at the handles and joint loading were quantified in four subjects during steady, two-handed pushing and pulling of two-wheeled containers with nine different COM locations and eleven different handle locations. The COM location turned out to have a major influence on handle forces and joint loading, whereas the influence of the handle location was moderate. Subjects considerably adapted the tilt angle of the container in response to variations in handle location but hardly in response to variations in COM location. For two-handed pushing and pulling the current design of a two-wheeled container can be improved by moving the centre of mass of the loaded container in the direction of the axis of the wheels and by slightly increasing the height of the handles.

Influence of Hip Joint Position on Muscle Activity during Prone Hip Extension with Knee Flexion

[Purpose] This study investigated the selective activation of the gluteus maximus during a prone hip extension with knee flexion exercise, with the hip joint in different positions. [Subjects] The subjects were 21 healthy, male volunteers. [Methods] Activities of the right gluteus maximus, right hamstrings, bilateral lumbar erector spinae, and bilateral lumbar multifidus were measured using surface electromyography during a prone hip extension with knee flexion exercise. Measurements were made with the hip joint in each of 3 positions: (1) a neutral hip joint position, (2) an abduction hip joint position, and (3) an abduction with external rotation hip joint position. [Results] Gluteus maximus activity was significantly higher when the hip was in the abduction with external rotation hip joint position than when it was in the neutral hip joint and abduction hip joint positions. Gluteus maximus activity was also significantly higher in the abduction hip joint position than in the neutral hip joint position. Hamstring activity was significantly lower when the hip was in the abduction with external rotation hip joint position than when it was in the neutral hip joint and abduction hip joint positions. [Conclusion] Abduction and external rotation of the hip during prone hip extension with knee flexion exercise selectively activates the gluteus maximus.

Altered muscular activation during prone hip extension in women with and without low back pain

Background

Altered movement pattern has been associated with the development of low back pain (LBP). The purpose of this study was to investigate the activity pattern of the ipsilateral erector spinae (IES) and contralateral erectorspinae (CES), gluteus maximus (GM) and hamstring (HAM) muscles during prone hip extension (PHE) test in women with and without LBP. A cross-sectional non-experimental design was used.

Methods

Convenience sample of 20 female participated in the study. Subjects were categorized into two groups: with LBP (n = 10) and without LBP (n = 10). The electromyography (EMG) signal amplitude of the tested muscles during PHE (normalized to maximum voluntary electrical activity (MVE)) was measured in the dominant lower extremity in all subjects.

Results

Statistical analysis revealed greater normalized EMG signal amplitude in women with LBP compared to non-LBP women. There was significant difference in EMG activity of the IES (P = 0.03) and CES (P = 0.03) between two groups. However, no significant difference was found in EMG signals of the GM (P = 0.11) and HAM (P = 0.14) among two groups.

Conclusion

The findings of this study demonstrated altered activation pattern of the lumbo-pelvic muscles during PHE in the women with chronic LBP. This information is important for investigators using PHE as either an evaluation tool or a rehabilitation exercise.

Using sitting as a component of job rotation strategies: are lifting/lowering kinetics and kinematics altered following prolonged sitting

Workers are often required to perform manual materials handling tasks immediately following periods of prolonged sitting either as a secondary job component of as different tasks in a job rotation strategy. The goal of this investigation was to determine if changes to low-back kinetics and/or kinematics occurred during repetitive lifting/lowering exertions following extended seated exposures. Upper body kinematics, lumbar spine flexion angle, pelvic orientation and bilateral muscle activity from the external abdominal obliques and lumbar erector spinae were recorded for 8 males and 8 females while they alternated between sessions of repetitive lifting/lowering and prolonged sitting. Upper body kinematics were used as inputs to a linked segment model to compute low-back flexion/extension moments, compression, and shear. Peak lumbar flexion was reduced by 1.8 degrees during the lifting/lowering exertions following the first hour of sitting which consequently led to a reduction of approximately 50N in the reaction anteroposterior shear forces. Sitting postures were consistent with previously reported data. The reduced shear loads during repetitive lift/lower exertions following prolonged sitting may be a consequence of alterations in passive tissue properties which could alter the risk of low-back injury, although future research is required to examine the biomechanical significance of this finding. Changes to both kinematics and kinetics were minimal suggesting that using prolonged sitting as a component of a task series in job rotation does not alter the risk present when combined with repetitive lifting tasks.

Three-dimensional lumbar spine postures measured by magnetic resonance imaging reconstruction

STUDY DESIGN

Investigation of method.

OBJECTIVE

This study presents a novel method of accurately determining relative bone position in vivo using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Biomechanical modeling of the human body requires measurement of the relative positions of skeletal elements. Spinal orientation is particularly difficult to measure due to small joint movements, relative inaccessibility of the bones to direct measurement, and joint complexity.

METHODS

A process incorporating both positional and conventional MRI was used to measure the skeletal positions of the lumbar spine and pelvis. The method uses higher quality conventional MRI to determine bone geometries and then registers these with lower resolution, positional MRI images of various postures to determine the relative locations of the bones. Flexion/extension, lateral bend, and axial twist rotations were measured for each joint.

RESULTS

The results indicate good intrameasurer reliability, with a maximum rotational difference for all vertebral registrations of less than 1 degrees and a maximum translational difference of less than 3 mm. While there did not appear to be significant patterns between the 2 Subjects, there were trends within each Subject as well as identifiable postural characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Although processing times are currently lengthy, the data collected are 3-dimensional, and represent the anatomy and movement of a specific individual.

Trunk muscle activation and associated lumbar spine joint shear forces under different levels of external forward force applied to the trunk

High anterior intervertebral shear loads could cause low back injuries and therefore the neuromuscular system may actively counteract these forces. This study investigated whether, under constant moment loading relative to L3L4, an increased externally applied forward force on the trunk results in a shift in muscle activation towards the use of muscles with more backward directed lines of action, thereby reducing the increase in total joint shear force. Twelve participants isometrically resisted forward forces, applied at several locations on the trunk, while moments were held constant relative to L3L4. Surface EMG and lumbar curvature were measured, and an EMG-driven muscle model was used to calculate compression and shear forces at all lumbar intervertebral joints. Larger externally applied forward forces resulted in a flattening of the lumbar lordosis and a slightly more backward directed muscle force. Furthermore, the overall muscle activation increased. At the T12L1 to L3L4 joint, resulting joint shear forces remained small (less than 200N) because the average muscle force pulled backward relative to those joints. However, at the L5S1 joint the average muscle force pulled the trunk forward so that the increase in muscle force with increasing externally applied forward force caused a further rise in shear force (by 102.1N, SD=104.0N), resulting in a joint shear force of 1080.1N (SD=150.4N) at 50Nm moment loading. It is concluded that the response of the neuromuscular system to shear force challenges tends to increase rather than reduce the shear loading at the lumbar joint that is subjected to the highest shear forces.

Wrapping of trunk thoracic extensor muscles influences muscle forces and spinal loads in lifting tasks

BACKGROUND

An improved assessment of risk of spinal injury during lifting activities depends on an accurate estimation of trunk muscle forces, spinal loads and stability margin which in turn requires, amongst others, an accurate description of trunk muscle geometries. The lines of action of erector spinae muscles are often assumed to be linear despite the curved paths of these muscles in forward flexion postures.

METHODS

A novel approach was introduced that allowed for the proper simulation of curved paths for global extensor muscles in our Kinematics-driven finite element model. The lever arms of global muscles at different levels were restrained either to remain the same or decrease only by 10% relative to their respective values in upright posture. Based on our earlier measurements, static lifting tasks at two trunk flexions (40 degrees and 65 degrees ) and three lumbar postures (free style, lordotic and kyphotic) with 180 N in hands were analyzed.

FINDINGS

Muscle forces and spinal compression at all levels substantially decreased as the global extensor muscles took curved paths. In contrast, the shear force at lower levels increased. Allowing for a 10% reduction in these lever arms during flexion increased muscle forces and compression forces at all levels. Despite smaller muscle forces, wrapping of global muscles slightly improved the spinal stability.

INTERPRETATION

Consideration of global extensor muscles with curved paths and realistic lever arms is important in biomechanical analysis of lifting tasks. Reduction in the erector spinae lever arms during flexion tasks could vary depending on the lumbar posture. Results advocate small flattening of the lumbar curvature in isometric lifts yielding smaller compression and shear forces at the critical L5-S1 level.

Evidence for a role of antagonistic cocontraction in controlling trunk stiffness during lifting

Activity of the abdominal muscles during symmetric lifting has been a consistent finding in many studies. It has been hypothesized that this antagonistic coactivation increases trunk stiffness to provide stability to the spine. To test this, we investigated whether abdominal activity in lifting is increased in response to destabilizing conditions. Ten healthy male subjects lifted 35 l containers containing 15 l of water (unstable condition), or ice (stable condition). 3D-kinematics, ground reaction forces, and EMG of selected trunk muscles were recorded. Euler angles of the thorax relative to the pelvis were determined. Inverse dynamics was used to calculate moments about L5S1. Averaged normalized abdominal EMG activity was calculated to express coactivation and an EMG-driven trunk muscle model was used to estimate the flexor moment produced by these muscles and to estimate the L5S1 compression force. Abdominal coactivation was significantly higher when lifting the unstable load. This coincided with significant increases in estimated moments produced by the antagonist muscles and in estimated compression forces on the L5S1 disc, except at the instant of the peak moment about L5S1. The lifting style was not affected by load instability as evidenced by the absence of effects on moments about L5S1 and angles of the thorax relative to the pelvis. The data support the interpretation of abdominal cocontraction during lifting as subserving spinal stability. An alternative function of the increased trunk stiffness due to cocontraction might be to achieve more precise control over the trajectory of lifted weight in order to avoid sloshing of the water mass in the box and the consequent perturbations.

Lifting over an obstacle: effects of one-handed lifting and hand support on trunk kinematics and low back loading

Mechanical loading of the low back during lifting is a common cause of low back pain. In this study two-handed lifting is compared to one-handed lifting (with and without supporting the upper body with the free hand) while lifting over an obstacle. A 3-D linked segment model was combined with an EMG-assisted trunk muscle model to quantify kinematics and joint loads at the L5S1 joint. Peak total net moments (i.e., the net moment effect of all muscles and soft tissue spanning the joint) were found to be 10+/-3% lower in unsupported one-handed lifting compared to two-handed lifting, and 30+/-8% lower in supported compared to unsupported one-handed lifting. L5S1 joint forces also showed reductions, but not of the same magnitude (18+/-8% and 15+/-10%, respectively, for compression forces, and 15+/-17% and 11+/-14% respectively, for shear forces). Those reductions of low back load were mainly caused by a reduction of trunk and load moment arms relative to the L5S1 joint during peak loading, and, in the case of hand support, by a support force of about 250 N. Stretching one leg backward did not further reduce low back load estimates. Furthermore, one-handed lifting caused an 6+/-8 degrees increase in lateral flexion, a 9+/-5 degrees increase in twist and a 6+/-6 degrees decrease in flexion. Support with the free hand caused a small further increase in lumbar twisting. It is concluded that one-handed lifting, especially with hand support, reduces L5S1 loading but increases asymmetry in movements and moments about the lumbar spine.

Mechanical loading of the low back and shoulders during pushing and pulling activities

The objective of this study was to quantify the mechanical load on the low back and shoulders during pushing and pulling in combination with three task constraints: the use of one or two hands, three cart weights, and two handle heights. The second objective was to explore the relation between the initial and sustained exerted forces and the mechanical load on the low back and shoulders. Detailed biomechanical models of the low back and shoulder joint were used to estimate mechanical loading. Using generalized estimating equations (GEE) the effects were quantified for exerted push/pull forces, net moments at the low back and shoulders, compressive and shear forces at the low back, and compressive forces at the glenohumeral joint. The results of this study appeared to be useful to estimate ergonomics consequences of interventions in the working constraints during pushing and pulling. Cart weight as well as handle height had a considerable effect on the mechanical load and it is recommended to maintain low cart weights and to push or pull at shoulder height. Initial and sustained exerted forces were not highly correlated with the mechanical load at the low back and shoulders within the studied range of the exerted forces.

Effect of torso flexion on the lumbar torso extensor muscle sagittal plane moment arms

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Accurate anatomical inputs for biomechanical models are necessary for valid estimates of internal loading. The magnitude of the moment arm of the lumbar erector muscle group is known to vary as a function of such variables as gender. Anatomical evidence indicates that the moment arms decrease during torso flexion. However, moment arm estimates in biomechanical models that account for individual variability have been derived from imaging studies from supine postures.

PURPOSE

Quantify the sagittal plane moment arms of the lumbar erector muscle group as a function of torso flexion, and identify individual characteristics that are associated with the magnitude of the moment arms as a function of torso flexion.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Utilization of a 0.3 Tesla Open magnetic resonance image (MRI) to image and quantify the moment arm of the right erector muscle group as a function of gender and torso flexion.

METHODS

Axial MRI images through and parallel to each of the lumbar intervertebral discs at four torso flexion angles were obtained from 12 male and 12 female subjects in a lateral recumbent posture. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to investigate the differences in the moment arms at different torso flexion angles, whereas hierarchical linear regression was used to investigate associations with individual anthropometric characteristics and spinal posture.

RESULTS

The largest decrease in the lumbar erector muscle group moment arm from neutral to 45-degree flexion occurred at the L5-S1 level (9.7% and 8.9% for men and women, respectively). Measures of spinal curvature (L1-S1 lordosis), body mass and trunk characteristics (depth or circumference) were associated with the varying moment arm at most lumbar levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The sagittal plane moment arms of the lumbar erector muscle mass decrease as the torso flexes forward. The change in moment arms as a function of torso flexion may have an impact on prediction of spinal loading in biomechanical models.

Trunk muscle activation in low-back pain patients, an analysis of the literature

This paper provides an analysis of the literature on trunk muscle recruitment in low-back pain patients. Two models proposed in the literature, the pain-spasm-pain model and the pain adaptation model, yield conflicting predictions on how low- back pain would affect trunk muscle recruitment in various activities. The two models are outlined and evidence for the two from neurophsysiological studies is reviewed. Subsequently, specific predictions with respect to changes in activation of the lumbar extensor musculature are derived from both models. These predictions are compared to the results from 30 clinical studies and three induced pain studies retrieved in a comprehensive literature search. Neither of the two models is unequivocally supported by the literature. These data and further data on timing of muscle activity and load sharing between muscles suggest an alternative model to explain the alterations of trunk muscle recruitment due to low-back pain. It is proposed that motor control changes in patients are functional in that they enhance spinal stability.

Effects of unexpected lateral mass placement on trunk loading in lifting

STUDY DESIGN

A repeated measurements experiment of spinal loading in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVES

To test whether unexpected lateral mass placement increases low back loading and trunk movement when subjects are lifting a mass in upright posture.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Epidemiologic studies suggest that sudden, unexpected loading will lead to low back pain. Also, asymmetric loading is considered to be harmful to the spine. It can be anticipated that unexpected asymmetric loading will increase the risk of injury even more.

METHODS

Ten subjects lifted in an upright posture a crate, in which a mass of 10 kg was placed laterally at the left side either expectedly or unexpectedly. The crate reaction forces, body movements, and trunk muscle activity were measured. From these, the L5-S1 net moments and muscle forces were estimated.

RESULTS

Unexpected lateral placement of the mass caused no clear increase in peak low back loading. The stiffness of the trunk was lower in the unexpected condition, which, in combination with inadequate net moments produced, resulted in movement of the trunk to the side of the displaced mass.

CONCLUSIONS

Unexpected lateral mass placement does not increase the compression force. Perturbed trunk movement and lower muscle forces indicated a decreased stability of the spine, which may imply an injury risk.

Precision of estimates of mean and peak spinal loads in lifting

A bootstrap procedure was used to determine the statistical precision of estimates of mean and peak spinal loads during lifting as function of the numbers of subjects and measurements per subject included in a biomechanical study. Data were derived from an experiment in which 10 subjects performed 360 lifting trials each. The maximum values per lift of the lumbar flexion angle, L5S1 sagittal plane moment, and L5S1 compression force were determined. From the data set thus compiled, 3000 samples were randomly drawn for each combination of number of subjects and number of measurements considered. The coefficients of variation of mean and peak (defined as mean plus 2 standard deviations) spinal loads across these samples were calculated. The coefficients of variation of the means of the three parameters of spinal load decreased as a linear function of the number of subjects to a power of about -0.48 and number of measurements to a power of about -0.06, while the corresponding powers for peak loads were about -0.44 and -0.11.

Within-subject variability in low back load in a repetitively performed, mildly constrained lifting task

STUDY DESIGN

A repeated-measures in vivo experiment.

OBJECTIVE

To describe within-subject variability of spinal compression in repetitive lifting.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Epidemiology and failure mechanics suggest that peak loads may be more predictive of injury than average loads. Nevertheless, biomechanical studies usually focus on the latter.

METHODS

Ten healthy males performed 360 lifts in 1 hour of a 45-L crate, weighted with a stable 10-kg mass on 1 day and with an unstable mass (10 kg of water) on another day. The maximum compression force in each lift was estimated, using a simple inverse dynamics model and a single equivalent muscle model.

RESULTS

The individual distributions of maximum compression force were slightly skewed to the right (average skewness 0.67). Median and 95th percentile values were used to characterize the distribution. The median (50th percentile) compression ranged from 3375 to 6125 N, and from 3632 to 6298 N in the stable and unstable load conditions, respectively. The within-subjects peak (95th percentile) compression forces were from 405 to 1767 N and from 526 to 2216 N, respectively, higher than the median values. The peak values differed significantly between conditions, whereas the difference in medians did not reach significance. Only a limited trendwise (fatigue-related) variance could be demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

Peak spinal compression by far exceeds median compression in repetitive lifting and can be affected by task conditions independently from the median. Therefore, the variability of spinal loads needs to be taken into consideration when analyzing and redesigning tasks that can cause spinal injuries.

Stoop or squat: a review of biomechanical studies on lifting technique

OBJECTIVE

To assess the biomechanical evidence in support of advocating the squat lifting technique as an administrative control to prevent low back pain.

BACKGROUND

Instruction with respect to lifting technique is commonly employed to prevent low back pain. The squat technique is the most widely advised lifting technique. Intervention studies failed to show health effects of this approach and consequently the rationale behind the advised lifting techniques has been questioned.

METHODS

Biomechanical studies comparing the stoop and squat technique were systematically reviewed. The dependent variables used in these studies and the methods by which these were measured or estimated were ranked for validity as indicators of low back load.

RESULTS

Spinal compression as indicated by intra-discal pressure and spinal shrinkage appeared not significantly different between both lifting techniques. Net moments and compression forces based on model estimates were found to be equal or somewhat higher in squat than in stoop lifting. Only when the load could be lifted from a position in between the feet did squat lifting cause lower net moments, although the studies reporting this finding had a marginal validity. Shear force and bending moments acting on the spine appeared lower in squat lifting. Net moments and compression forces during lifting reach magnitudes, that can probably cause injury, whereas shear forces and bending moments remained below injury threshold in both techniques.

CONCLUSION

The biomechanical literature does not provide support for advocating the squat technique as a means of preventing low back pain.

RELEVANCE

Training in lifting technique is widely used in primary and secondary prevention of low back pain, though health effects have not been proven. The present review assesses the biomechanical evidence supporting the most widely advocated lifting technique.

Abdominal muscles contribute in a minor way to peak spinal compression in lifting

In lifting, the abdominal muscles are thought to be activated to stabilize the spine. As a detrimental effect, they contribute to spinal compression. The existing literature is not conclusive about the biological relevance of this effect. From biological, mechanical and anatomical considerations it was hypothesised that the relative abdominal contribution to compression would be minor in the beginning of the lift, that the relative and absolute abdominal contribution to compression would rise throughout the lift, and that the obliques would contribute to a larger extent than the rectus abdominis. To investigate these hypotheses, 10 subjects lifted 0.5, 10.5 and 22.5 kg. EMG levels obtained from the rectus abdominis and the obliques were converted into force using normalized EMG, muscle potential and area values, and modulating factors for muscle length and contraction velocity. An anatomical model was applied to compute the abdominal effects on spinal compression in three consecutive phases within a lift. If expressed relative to the total spinal compression, the abdominal contribution for the three weight conditions was 7.1% (SD, 1.7), 10.4% (4.7) and 12.5% (4.4) in the begin and 21.0% (5.8), 19.0% (5.3) and 22.2% (6.6) in the end phase. Thus, the relative abdominal contribution to compression was minor in the beginning and increased towards the end. The absolute abdominal contribution was constant throughout the lift. The contributions could be retraced to the obliques rather than the rectus, while during the lift a shift in activation from the obliquus externus to internus was observed.

Total trunk muscle force and spinal compression are lower in asymmetric moments as compared to pure extension moments

The aim of the present study was to test the assumption that asymmetric trunk loading requires a higher total muscle force and consequently entails a higher compression forces on the spine as compared to symmetric loading. When the trunk musculature is modelled in sufficient detail, optimisation shows that there is no mechanical necessity for an increase in total muscle force (or compression force) with task asymmetry. A physiologically based optimisation does also not predict an increase in total muscle force or spinal loading with asymmetry. EMG data on 14 trunk muscles collected in eight subjects showed antagonistic coactivity to be present in both conditions. However, estimates of total muscle force based on the EMG were lower when producing an asymmetric moment. In conclusion, producing an asymmetric moment appears to cause slightly lower forces on the lumbosacral joint as compared to a symmetric moment. Only lateral shear forces increase with asymmetry but these remain well below failure levels.