Spinal loading during manual materials handling in a kneeling posture

Abstract Stooped, restricted, kneeling, and other awkward postures adopted during manual materials handling have frequently been associated with LBP onset. However, lift assessment tools have focused on materials handling performed in an upright, or nearly upright standing posture. Unfortunately, ma...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of electromyography and kinesiology 2007-02, Vol.17 (1), p.25-34
Main Authors: Splittstoesser, Riley E, Yang, Gang, Knapik, Greg G, Trippany, David R, Hoyle, Jeff A, Lahoti, Parul, Korkmaz, Sahika Vatan, Sommerich, Carolyn M, Lavender, Steven A, Marras, William S
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Biomechanical modeling
Electromyography
Humans
Kneeling
Lifting
Male
Models, Biological
Muscle Contraction - physiology
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Postural Balance - physiology
Posture - physiology
Restricted posture
Spine - physiology
Spine loading
Stress, Mechanical
Task Performance and Analysis
Weight-Bearing - physiology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Stooped, restricted, kneeling, and other awkward postures adopted during manual materials handling have frequently been associated with LBP onset. However, lift assessment tools have focused on materials handling performed in an upright, or nearly upright standing posture. Unfortunately, many of the tools designed to analyze standing postures are not easily adapted to jobs requiring restricted postures. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate spinal loading during manual materials handing in kneeling postures and determine if those loads can be predicted using simple regression. An EMG-driven biomechanical model, previously validated for upright lifting, was adapted for use in kneeling tasks. Subjects knelt under a 1.07 m ceiling and lifted luggage of six weights (6.8, 10.9, 15.0, 19.1, 23.1 and, 27.2 kgf) to one of four destination heights (0, 25.4, 53.3, 78.7 cm). Spine loading was significantly affected by both destination height and load weight. Destination height increased compression, AP shear and lateral shear by an average of 14.5, 3.7 and 6.6 N respectively per cm height increase. Load weight increased compression, AP shear and lateral shear by an average of 83.8, 27.0 and 13.1 N respectively per kgf lifted. Regression equations were developed to predict peak spine loading using subject height, load weight and destination height with R2 values of 0.62, 0.51 and 0.57 for compression, AP and lateral shear respectively.
ISSN:1050-6411
DOI:10.1016/j.jelekin.2005.12.003