Documents spinal injuries 8 results

"The aim of this experiment was to compare lumbar spinal loads during individual and team lifting tasks. Ten healthy male subjects performed individual lifts with a box mass of 15, 20 and 25 kg and two-person team lifts with a box mass of 30, 40 and 50 kg from the floor to standing knuckle height. Boxes instrumented with force transducers were used to measure vertical and horizontal hand forces, whilst sagittal plane segmental kinematics were determined using a video based motion measurement system. Dynamic L4/L5 torques were calculated and used in a single equivalent extensor force model of the lumbar spine to estimate L4/L5 compression and shear forces. A significant reduction in L4/L5 torque and compression force of approximately 20% was found during team lifts compared to individual lifts. Two main reasons for the reduced spinal loads in team lifting compared to individual lifting were identified: (1) the horizontal hand force (i.e. pulling force) was greater in team lifting, and (2) the horizontal position of the hands was closer to the lumbar spine during team lifts. The horizontal hand force and position of the hands had approximately equal contributions in reducing the spinal load during team lifting compared to individual lifting."

"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. "

"The objective was to determine the prevalence of spinal troubles (i.e., neck, upper back and low back pain) in a population of sewage workers, and to establish the effect of sociodemographic, work-related, physical, and psychosocial factors on the reported work disability due to low back pain (LBP) during the previous 12 months. This study revealed a high incidence of spinal troubles among sewage workers. In a multidisciplinary approach, we demonstrated that not one factor alone but a combination of sociodemographic, work-related and psychosocial factors have shown associations with work disabilities due to LBP. Additional studies evaluating the relative importance of individual risk factors are warranted."

This study evaluated spinal loads associated with lifting and hanging heavy mining cable in a variety of postures. This electrical cable can weigh up to 10 kg per metre and is often lifted in restricted spaces in underground coal mines. Seven male subjects performed eight cable lifting and hanging tasks, while trunk kinematic data and trunk muscle electromyograms (EMGs) were obtained. The eight tasks were combinations of four postures (standing, stooping, kneeling on one knee, or kneeling on both knees) and two levels of cable load (0 N or 100 N load added to the existing cable weight). An EMG-assisted model was used to calculate forces and moments acting on the lumbar spine. A two-way split-plot ANOVA showed that increased load (p < 0.05) and changes in lifting posture (p < 0.05) independently affected trunk muscle recruitment and spinal loading. The increase in cable load resulted in higher EMG activity of all trunk muscles and increased axial and lateral bending moments on the spine (p < 0.05). Changes in posture caused more selective adjustments in muscle recruitment and affected the sagittal plane moment (p < 0.05). Despite the more selective nature of trunk EMG changes due to posture, the magnitude of changes in spinal loading was often quite dramatic. However, average compression values exceeded 3400 N for all cable lifting tasks.

"Spinal compression is traditionally assumed the principal biomechanical mechanism associated with occupationally related low-back disorders (LBD). However, there is little conclusive evidence demonstrating that compression is related to occupational LBD. The objective of this research was to examine whether axial compression in the lumbar spine can predict the probability that a lifting task should be classified as high risk for LBD. Furthermore, the improvement in predictive ability was examined when analyses include 3-D, dynamic biomechanical factors. Ten experienced warehouse workers transferred 12 pallet loads of boxes in a simulation of warehouse working conditions. Biomechanical estimates of 2-D static and 3-D dynamic spinal compression, shear loads and tissue strains were achieved from the subjects during each lifting exertion. Each lift was also assessed for probability of high LBD risk classification. Regression analyses were performed to examine the relationship between biomechanical and epidemiological factors. Results indicate 2-D static estimates of spinal compression describe ~ 13% of the probability of high LBD risk variability. Dynamic estimates of spinal compression describe >44% of the variability. A multifactor regression model including 3-D spinal loads and tissue strains further improved the predictive ability, but the improvement was not statistically significant. This research demonstrates the biomechanical source of low-back pain is dynamic, multifaceted and multidimensional. Significant improvements in ergonomics assessments can be achieved by examining interactions of dynamic biomechanical factors. Unfortunately, this improved predictive ability is generated at the high cost of computational complexity. However, less realistic biomechanical representations may ignore the injury mechanisms associated with the greater number of workplace injuries. Thus, improved understanding of the dynamic biomechanical interactions influencing the tolerance and injury mechanisms of the spine may permit more accurate assessments of workplace injury factors associated with LBD and reduced incidence of occupationally related low-back pain. "

"Modelling the response of the human body to occupational whole-body vibration provides the possibility of predicting the forces acting on the disc and/or endplates of lumbar vertebrae. Due to the complex structure of the human body, complex dynamic models based on human anatomy are required to adequately reflect the dynamic properties of the body. Based on experimental results the influence of posture and stature on the biodynamic behaviour of human subjects is described. To reflect the biodynamic response of different occupational groups of workers exposed to whole-body vibration, an existing model was adapted to five typical different postures and 10 representative statures registered of European drivers of heavy machines. The resulting 50 models were tested with white noise signals in three directions as input to the four interfaces buttock, back, feet, and hands. The results of the static and dynamic shares of the predicted spinal forces at six spinal levels show strong influences of the factors stature and posture. Calculated risk factors to estimate a probability of injuries reflect the influence of these factors. Based on these findings one frequency weighting curve for the assessment of vibration exposure is not sufficient to meet the variability of risks caused by different statures and postures."