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.     

Low-back loading in lifting two loads beside the body compared to lifting one load in front of the body

Low-back load during manual lifting is considered an important risk factor for the occurrence of low-back pain. Splitting a load, so it can be lifted beside the body (one load in each hand), instead of in front of the body, can be expected to reduce low-back load. Twelve healthy young men lifted 10 and 20-kg wide and narrow loads in front of the body (the single-load lifts). These single-load lifts were compared to a lifting condition in which two 10-kg loads (a total of 20 kg) were lifted beside the body (the split-load lift). Lifts were performed from an initial hand height of 29 cm with four different lifting techniques (stoop, squat, straddle and kneeling techniques). Using measured kinematics, ground reaction forces, and electromyography, low-back loading (3D net moments and spinal forces at the L5/S1 joint) was estimated. Lifting a 20-kg split-load instead of a 20-kg single-load resulted in most cases in a reduction (8–32%) of peak L5/S1 compression forces. The magnitude of the reduction was roughly comparable to halving the load mass and depended on lifting technique and load width. The effects of load-splitting could largely be explained by changes in horizontal distance between the load and L5/S1.     

A dynamic 3D biomechanical evaluation of the load on the low back during different patient-handling tasks

The objective of this study was to investigate the low-back loading during common patient-handling tasks. Ten female health care workers without formal training in patient handling performed nine patient-handling tasks including turning, lifting and repositioning a male stroke patient. The low-back loading was quantified by net moment, compression, and shear forces at the L4/L5 joint, measured muscle activity (EMG) in erector spinae muscles and rate of perceived exertion (RPE; Borg scale). The experiments were videotaped with a 50Hz video system using five cameras, and the ground and bedside reaction forces of the health care worker were recorded by means of force platforms and force transducers on the bed. The biomechanical load was calculated using a dynamic 3D seven-segment model of the lower part of the body, and the forces at the L4/L5 joint were estimated by a 14 muscles cross-sectional model of the low back (optimisation procedure). Compression force and torque showed high task dependency whereas the EMG data and the RPE values were more dependent on the subject. The peak compression during two tasks involving lifting the patient (4132/4433N) was significantly higher than all other tasks. Four tasks involving repositioning the patient in the bed (3179/3091/2932/3094N) did not differ, but showed higher peak compression than two tasks turning the patient in the bed (1618/2197N). Thus, in this study the patient-handling tasks could be classified into three groups-characterised by lifting, repositioning or turning-with different levels of peak net torque and compression at the L4/L5 joint.     

Mathematical and empirical proof of principle for an on-body personal lift augmentation device (PLAD)

In our laboratory, we have developed a prototype of a personal lift augmentation device (PLAD) that can be worn by workers during manual handling tasks involving lifting or lowering or static holding in symmetric and asymmetric postures. Our concept was to develop a human-speed on-body assistive device that would reduce the required lumbar moment by 20-30% without negative consequences on other joints or lifting kinematics. This paper provides mathematical proof using simplified free body diagrams and two-dimensional moment balance equations. Empirical proof is also provided based on lifting trials with nine male subjects who executed sagittal plane lifts using three lifting styles (stoop, squat, free) and three different loads (5, 15, and 25kg) under two conditions (PLAD, No-PLAD). Nine Fastrak sensors and six in-line strap force sensors were used to estimate the reduction of compressive and shear forces on L4/L5 as well as estimate the forces transferred to the shoulders and knees. Depending on lifting technique, the PLAD applied an added 23-36Nm of torque to assist the back muscles during lifting tasks. The peak pelvic girdle contact forces were estimated and their magnitudes ranged from 221.3+/-11.2N for stoop lifting, 324.3+/-17.2N for freestyle lifts to 468.47+/-23.2N for squat lifting. The PLAD was able to reduce the compression and shear forces about 23-29% and 7.9-8.5%, respectively.     

Lumbar loading during lifting: a comparative study of three measurement techniques.

Low back loading during occupational lifting is thought to be an important causative factor in the development of low back pain. In order to regulate spinal loading in the workplace, it is necessary to measure it accurately. Various methods have been developed to do this, but each has its own limitations, and none can be considered a "gold standard". The purpose of the current study was to compare the results of three contrasting techniques in order to gain insight into possible sources of error to which each is susceptible. The three techniques were a linked segment model (LSM), an electromyographic (EMG)-based model, and a neural network (NN) that used both EMG and inertial sensing techniques. All three techniques were applied simultaneously to calculate spinal loading when eight volunteers performed a total of eight lifts in a laboratory setting. Averaged results showed that, in comparison with the LSM, the EMG technique calculated a 25.5+/-33.4% higher peak torque and the NN technique a 17.3+/-10.5% lower peak torque. Differences between the techniques varied with lifting speed and method of lifting, and could be attributed to differences in anthropometric assumptions, antagonistic muscle activity, damping of transient force peaks by body tissues, and, specific to the NN, underestimation of trunk flexion. The results of the current study urge to reconsider the validity of other models by independent comparisons.     

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.     

Underestimation of object mass in lifting does not increase the load on the low back.

Sudden, unexpected loading on the low back is associated with a high incidence of low back pain. Experiments in which sudden loading was applied during standing revealed increased compression forces on the spine and increased trunk angle, which may cause injury to the spine and hence explain this association. During a more dynamic daily activity, i.e. lifting, this could not be demonstrated, which may be due to experimental constraints. We therefore reinvestigated the loading of the low back when subjects were lifting an unexpectedly heavy object. Ten males lifted boxes, weighing 1.6 or 6.6 kg, at a self-selected lifting velocity. In some trials the mass of these boxes was unexpectedly increased by 10 kg. The ground reaction forces, body movements and trunk muscle activity were measured and from these, the L5/S1 torques and compression forces were estimated. Underestimation of the mass did not lead to an increase in low back loading. This finding was independent of the mass the subjects were expecting to lift. In conclusion, no evidence was found to support inference regarding causality of the association between sudden loading and low back pain during whole body lifting movements.     

Dynamically and statically determined low back moments during lifting

Assessment of the effects of lifting on the low back has most frequently been done with the aid of static models. Many lifting movements appear to have substantial inertial components. It was of interest, therefore, to determine the size of the difference between statically and dynamically calculated lumbar moments during a demanding but not unusual manual lift observed in a metal fabrication industry.

The results of several trials by four young men showed that the dynamic model resulted in peak L4 L5 moments 19% higher on average, with a maximum difference of 52%, than those determined from the static model. The technique adopted in the lift could minimize the difference. When the inertial forces of the load itself and the load weight were incorporated into an otherwise static model (quasi-dynamic) then the resulting L4/L5 moments exceeded those of the fully dynamic model by 25%.

In many industrial tasks static analyses may severely underestimate the demands of dynamic lifts. These results show that a reasonably inexpensive approach in lifting task analysis is to measure the dynamic forces of the load on the hands and to use these in an otherwise static model. This results in a conservative assessment of the injury risk of lifts at least of the type reported in this study.     

Biomechanical analysis of manual lifting tasks

This paper presents the findings of a study conducted to determine peak forces generated in the human spine while the individual is engaged in lifting maximum acceptable weight. Calculations of forces and moments, acting on each body segment, were based on film data collected on four individuals for twelve variations of the manual lifting task. The variations were defined by: box-size (three different boxes were used), presence or absence of handles, and symmetry and asymmetry of the lifting task (sagittal and nonsagittal lifting). In general, lower loads were accepted for lift when lifting asymmetrically or when lifting boxes without handles or when lifting bigger boxes. However, peak forces (compressive and shear forces in the spine and ground reaction forces) for these situations were not always lower than those generated when handling either compact boxes or boxes with handles or when lifting boxes symmetrically in the sagittal plane. On the basis of these results, it was concluded that lifting loads asymmetrically or in boxes without handles or in bulky boxes is relatively much more stressful than lifting the same load symmetrically or in boxes with handles or in compact boxes.     

The effect of a repetitive, fatiguing lifting task on horizontal ground reaction forces

There are many outdoor work environments that involve the combination of repetitive, fatiguing lifting tasks and less-than-optimal footing (muddy/slippery ground surfaces). The focus of the current research was to evaluate the effects of lifting-induced fatigue of the low back extensors on lifting kinematics and ground reaction forces. Ten participants performed a repetitive lifting task over a period of 8 minutes. As they performed this task, the ground reaction forces and whole body kinematics were captured using a force platform and magnetic motion tracking system, respectively. Fatigue was verified in this experiment by documenting a decrease in the median frequency of the bilateral erector spinae muscles (pretest-posttest). Results indicate significant (p < 0.05) increases in the magnitude of the peak anterior/posterior (increased by an average of 18.3%) and peak lateral shear forces (increased by an average of 24.3%) with increasing time into the lifting bout. These results have implications for work environments such as agriculture and construction, where poor footing conditions and requirements for considerable manual materials handling may interact to create an occupational scenario with an exceptionally high risk of a slip and fall.     

Lower limb dynamics change for children while walking with backpack loads to modulate shock transmission to the head

Backpack load carriage increases ground reaction forces and increases the stiffness in the upper extremity that can cause transmission of higher amount of forces from the lower extremity to the head. This study investigated the effect of load carriage and placement of load on the back on the shock transmission mechanisms amongst children. Fifteen primary school boys with mean age 10.01 (±1.31) years, mean height 136.40 (±10.08) cm and mean mass 31.83 (±7.13) kg completed the study. Subjects carried 10%, 15% and 20% bodyweight (BW) loads on two locations on the back, namely upper and lower. Results showed a significant reduction in pelvic and trunk rotation in the transverse plane and an increase in the upper body stiffness for loads exceeding 15% of BW. The lower limb results showed a reduction in the first peak force and cadence and a significant change in the walking velocity and time to the first peak force for 20% load. No significant differences were found for the load configuration but the upper configuration showed slightly higher shock transmission. The changes in the lower limb dynamics indicated that there are locomotion mechanisms in place amongst children to modulate shock transmission to the head.     

Effect of instruction,surface stability,and load intensity on trunk muscle activity

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of verbal instruction, surface stability, and load intensity on trunk muscle activity levels during the free weight squat exercise. Twelve trained males performed a free weight squat under four conditions: (1) standing on stable ground lifting 50% of their 1-repetition maximum (RM), (2) standing on a BOSU balance trainer lifting 50% of their 1-RM, (3) standing on stable ground lifting 75% of their 1-RM, and (4) receiving verbal instructions to activate the trunk muscles followed by lifting 50% of their 1-RM. Surface EMG activity from muscles rectus abdominis (RA), external oblique (EO), transversus abdominis/internal oblique (TA/IO), and erector spinae (ES) were recorded for each condition and normalized for comparisons. Muscles RA, EO, and TA/IO displayed greater peak activity (39–167%) during squats with instructions compared to the other squat conditions (P = 0.04–0.007). Peak EMG activity of muscle ES was greater for the 75% 1-RM condition than squats with instructions or lifting 50% of 1-RM (P = 0.04–0.02). The results indicate that if the goal is to enhance EMG activity of the abdominal muscles during a multi-joint squat exercise then verbal instructions may be more effective than increasing load intensity or lifting on an unstable surface. However, in light of other research, conscious co-activation of the trunk muscles during the squat exercise may lead to spinal instability and hazardous compression forces in the lumbar spine.     

Subject-specific,whole-body models of the stooped posture with a personal weight transfer device

A prior laboratory study found that when wearing a weight transfer device in the stooped posture, trunk flexions were reduced, and subjects who did not experience flexion–relaxation of the erector spinae had reduced back muscle activity. Whole-body musculoskeletal models, which included individual passive torso stiffness and anthropometry, were implemented to predict loads in the passive tissues of the back and the leg joints. Results predicted that when wearing the device in the stooped posture, compression and shear forces at the L5–S1 level were reduced by 13% and 12% respectively. Internal loads in the leg joints were reduced between 10% and 31%. Much of the reduction in joint loads may be a result of the device’s ability to limit torso flexion during stoop, rather than a transferring of load. While these results show possible benefit in the short-term, further study is needed on the long-term effects to determine if the device is an effective intervention for those who use the stooped posture routinely.     

Postural control during lifting

Any voluntary motion of the body causes an internal perturbation of balance. Load transfer during manual material handling may increase these perturbations. This study investigates effects of stance condition on postural control during lifting. Nineteen healthy subjects repeatedly lifted and lowered a load between a desk and a shelf. The base of support was varied between parallel and step stance. Ground reaction force and segmental kinematics were measured. Load transfer during lifting perturbed balance. In parallel stance postural response consisted of axial movements in the sagittal plane. Such strategy was accompanied by increased posterior shear forces after lift-off. Lifting in step stance provided extended support in anterior/posterior direction. The postural control mechanisms in the sagittal plane are less complex as compared to parallel stance. However, lifting in step stance was asymmetrical and thus accompanied by distinct lateral transfer of the body. Lateral shear forces were larger as compared to parallel stance. Both lifting techniques exhibit positive and negative aspects. We cannot recommend either one as being better in terms of postural control.     

The influence of dynamic factors on triaxial net muscular moments at the L5/S1 joint during asymmetrical lifting and lowering.

Asymmetrical lifting and lowering are predominant activities in the workplace. Mechanical causes are suggested for many back injuries and the dynamic conditions within which spine loading occurs are related to spine loading increase. More data on tridimensional biomechanical lumbar spine loading during asymmetrical lifting and lowering are needed. A tridimensional dynamic multisegment model was developed to compute spinal loading for asymmetrical box-handling situations. The tridimensional positions of the anatomical markers were generated by a direct linear transformation algorithm adapted for the processing of data from two real and two virtual views (mirrors). Two force platforms measured the external forces. Five male subjects performed three variations (slow, fast and accelerated) of asymmetric lifting and two variations (slow and fast) of asymmetric lowering. The torsional, extension/flexion and lateral bending net muscular moments at the L5/S1 joint were computed and peak values selected for statistical analysis. For the lifting task, the fast and accelerated conditions showed significant increases over the slow condition for torsion, extension/flexion and lateral-bending moments. The accelerated condition also showed significant increases over the fast condition for extension. A comparison between lifting and lowering tasks showed equivalent loadings for torsion and extension. The moments were compared to average maximal values measured on equivalent male subject populations by isokinetic dynamometry. This showed torsional and extension values of 30 and 83% of the maximal possible subject capacity, respectively. These results demonstrated that dynamic factors do influence the load on the spine and highlighted the influence of both lifting and lowering on the loading of the spine. This suggested that for a more complete analysis of asymmetrical handling, the maximal velocity and acceleration produced during lifting should be included.     

The effect of valgus braces on medial compartment load of the knee joint - in vivo load measurements in three subjects

Knee osteoarthritis occurs predominately at the medial compartment. To unload the affected compartment, valgus braces are used which induce an additional valgus moment in order to shift the load more laterally. Until now the biomechanical effect of braces was mainly evaluated by measuring changes in external knee adduction moments. The aim of this study was to investigate if and to which extent the medial compartment load is reduced in vivo when wearing valgus braces. Six components of joint contact load were measured in vivo in three subjects, using instrumented, telemeterized knee implants. From the forces and moments the medio-lateral force distribution was calculated. Two braces, MOS Genu (Bauerfeind AG) and Genu Arthro (Otto Bock) were investigated in neutral, 4° and 8° valgus adjustment during walking, stair ascending and descending. During walking with the MOS brace in 4°/8° valgus adjustment, medial forces were reduced by 24%/30% on average at terminal stance. During walking with the GA in the 8° valgus position, medial forces were reduced by only 7%. During stair ascending/descending significant reductions of 26%/24% were only observed with the MOS (8°). The load reducing ability of the two investigated valgus braces was confirmed in three subjects. However, the load reduction depends on the brace stiffness and its valgus adjustment and varies strongly inter-individually. Valgus adjustments of 8° might, especially with the MOS brace, not be tolerated by patients for a long time. Medial load reductions of more than 25% can therefore probably not be expected in clinical practise.     

Impact of transversal calf muscle loading on plantarflexion

Muscle compression commonly occurs in daily life (for instance wearing backpacks or compression garments, and during sitting). However, the effects of the compression on contraction dynamics in humans are not well examined. The aim of the study was to quantify the alterations of contraction dynamics and muscle architecture in human muscle with external transverse loads.The posterior tibialis nerve of 29 subjects was stimulated to obtain the maximal double-twitch force of the gastrocnemius muscle with and without transverse compression that was generated using an indentor. The muscle architecture was determined by a sonographic probe that was embedded within the indentor. Five stimulations each were conducted at 5 conditions: (1) pretest (unloaded), (2) indentor loading with 2 kg, (3) 4.5 kg, (4) 10 kg, and (5) posttest (unloaded).Compared to the pretest maximal force decreased by 9%, 13% and 16% for 2 kg, 4.5 kg and 10 kg, respectively. The half-relaxation time increased with increased transverse load whereas the rate of force development decreased from pretest to 2 kg and from 4.5 kg to 10 kg. The lifting height of the indentor increased with transverse load from 2 kg to 4.5 kg but decreased from 4.5 kg to 10 kg. Increases in pennation during the twitches were reduced at the highest transverse load.The results demonstrate changes of the contraction dynamics due to transversal muscle loading. Those alterations are associated with the applied pressure, changes in muscle architecture and partitioning of muscle force in transversal and longitudinal direction.     

Vertical forces on the horse's back in sitting and rising trot

In equestrian sports, it is generally assumed that rising and sitting trot load the horse's back differently. The objective of this study was to quantify the load on the horse's back in these riding techniques. Kinematic data of 13 riders were collected in rising and sitting trot. The time-history of the position of the rider's centre of mass (CoM) was calculated, and differentiated twice to obtain the acceleration of the CoM. The reaction force between the rider and the horse's back was calculated from the acceleration. Forces were divided by the body weight of the rider to obtain dimensionless forces. As expected, the computed average vertical force did not differ between riding techniques and was not significantly different from the body weight of the riders. At trot, two force peaks were present during one stride cycle. Both peaks in rising trot were significantly lower compared to sitting trot (peak 1: 2.54±0.30 versus 2.92±0.29; p<0.001; peak 2: 1.95±0.34 versus 3.03±0.32; p<0.001). This supports the general assumption that rising trot is less demanding for the horse than sitting trot.     

Incorporating loading variability into in vitro injury analyses and its effect on cumulative compression tolerance in porcine cervical spine units

During repetitive movement, low-back loading exposures are inherently variable in magnitude. The current study aimed to investigate how variation in successive compression exposures influences cumulative load tolerance in the spine. Forty-eight porcine cervical spine units were randomly assigned to one of six combinations of mean peak compression force (30%, 50%, 70% of the predicted tolerance) and loading variation (consistent peak amplitude, variable peak amplitude). Following preload and passive range-of-motion tests, specimens were positioned in a neutral posture and then cyclically loaded in compression until failure occurred or the maximum 12 h duration was reached. Specimens were dissected to classify macroscopic injury and measurements of cumulative load, cycles, and height loss sustained at failure were calculated. Statistical comparisons were made between loading protocols within each normalized compression group. A significant loading variation × compression interaction was demonstrated for cumulative load (p = 0.026) and cycles to failure (p = 0.021). Cumulative compression was reduced under all normalized compression loads (30% p = 0.016; 50% p = 0.030; 70% p = 0.020) when variable loading was incorporated. The largest reduction was by 33% and occurred in the 30% compression group. The number of sustained cycles was reduced by 31% (p = 0.017), 72% (p = 0.030), and 76% (p = 0.009) under normalized compression loads of 30%, 50%, and 70%, respectively. These findings suggest that variation in compression exposures interact to reduce cumulative compression tolerance of the spine and could elevate low-back injury risk during time-varying repetitive tasks.     

Effect of training and lifting equipment for preventing back pain in lifting and handling: systematic review

Objectives To determine whether advice and training on working techniques and lifting equipment prevent back pain in jobs that involve heavy lifting.Data sources Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane Back Group’s specialised register, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT were searched up to September-November 2005.Review methods The primary search focused on randomised controlled trials and the secondary search on cohort studies with a concurrent control group. Interventions aimed to modify techniques for lifting and handling heavy objects or patients and including measurements for back pain, consequent disability, or sick leave as the main outcome were considered for the review. Two authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies and methodological quality of those included. For data synthesis, we summarised the results of studies comparing similar interventions. We used odds ratios and effect sizes to combine the results in a meta-analysis. Finally, we compared the conclusions of the primary and secondary analyses.Results Six randomised trials and five cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Two randomised trials and all cohort studies were labelled as high quality. Eight studies looked at lifting and moving patients, and three studies were conducted among baggage handlers or postal workers. Those in control groups received no intervention or minimal training, physical exercise, or use of back belts. None of the comparisons in randomised trials (17 720 participants) yielded significant differences. In the secondary analysis, none of the cohort studies (772 participants) had significant results, which supports the results of the randomised trials.Conclusions There is no evidence to support use of advice or training in working techniques with or without lifting equipment for preventing back pain or consequent disability. The findings challenge current widespread practice of advising workers on correct lifting technique.