Documents Kirking, Bryan C. 2 results

The aim was to identify which biomechanical and physiological variables were associated with the decision to change the weight of lift during the determination of the maximum acceptable weight of lift (MAWL) in a psychophysical study. Fifteen male college students lifted a box of unknown weight at 4.3 lifts/min, and adjusted the weight until their MAWL was reached. Variables such as heart rate, trunk positions, velocities and accelerations were measured during the lifting, as well as estimated spinal loading in terms of moments and spinal forces in three dimensions using an EMG-assisted biomechanical model. Multiple logistic regression techniques identified variables associated with the decision to change the weights up and down prior to a subsequent lift. Results indicated that heart rate, predicted sagittal lift moment and low back disorder (LBD) risk index were associated with decreases in the weight prior to the next lift. Thus, historical measures of LBD risk (e.g. compression, shear force) were not associated with decreases in weight prior to the next lift. Additionally, the magnitudes of the predicted spinal forces and LBD risk were all very high at the MAWL when compared with literature sources of tolerance as well as observational studies on LBD risk. Our findings indicate that the psychophysical methodology may be useful for the decision to lower the weight of loads that may present extreme levels of risk of LBD; however, the psychophysical methodology does not seem to help in the decision to stop changing the weight at a safe load weight.

"Although patient handlers suffer from low-back injuries at an alarming rate worldwide, there has been limited research quantifying the risk for the specific tasks performed by the patient handlers. The current study used both a comprehensive evaluation system (low-back disorder risk model) and theoretical model (biomechanical spinal loading model) to evaluate risk of LBD of 17 participants (12 experienced and five inexperienced) performing several patient handling tasks. Eight of the participants were female and nine were male. Several patient transfers were evaluated as well as repositioning of the patient in bed; these were performed with one and two people. The patient transfers were between bed and wheelchair (fixed and removable arms) and between commode chair and hospital chair. A 'standard' patient (a 50 kg co-operative female; nonweight bearing but had use of upper body) was used in all patient handling tasks. Overall, patient handling was found to be an extremely hazardous job that had substantial risk of causing a low-back injury whether with one or two patient handlers. The greatest risk was associated with the one-person transferring techniques with the actual task being performed having a limited effect. The repositioning techniques were found to have significant risk of LBD associated with them with the single hook method having the highest LBD risk and spinal loads that exceeded the tolerance limits (worst patient handling job). The twoperson draw sheet repositioning technique had the lowest LBD risk and spinal loads but still had relatively high spinal loads and LBD risk. Thus, even the safest of tasks (of the tasks evaluated in this study) had significant risk. Additionally, the current study represented a 'best' case scenario since the patient was relatively light and co-operative. Thus, patient handling in real situations such as in a nursing home, would be expected to be worse. Therefore, to have an impact on LBD, it is necessary to provide mechanical lift assist devices. "