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.     

Validation of an OpenSim full-body model with detailed lumbar spine for estimating lower lumbar spine loads during symmetric and asymmetric lifting tasks

There is currently no validated full-body lifting model publicly available on the OpenSim modelling platform to estimate spinal loads during lifting. In this study, the existing full-body-lumbar-spine model was adapted and validated for lifting motions to produce the lifting full-body model. Back muscle activations predicted by the model closely matched the measured erector spinae activation patterns. Model estimates of intradiscal pressures and in vivo measurements were strongly correlated. The same spine loading trends were observed for model estimates and reported vertebral body implant measurements. These results demonstrate the suitability of this model to evaluate changes in lumbar loading during lifting.     

Predictive equations to estimate spinal loads in symmetric lifting tasks

Response surface methodology is used to establish robust and user-friendly predictive equations that relate responses of a complex detailed trunk finite element biomechanical model to its input variables during sagittal symmetric static lifting activities. Four input variables (thorax flexion angle, lumbar/pelvis ratio, load magnitude, and load position) and four model responses (L4–L5 and L5–S1 disc compression and anterior–posterior shear forces) are considered. Full factorial design of experiments accounting for all combinations of input levels is employed. Quadratic predictive equations for the spinal loads at the L4–S1 disc mid-heights are obtained by regression analysis with adequate goodness-of-fit (R²>98%, p<0.05, and low root-mean-squared-error values compared with the range of predicted spine loads). Results indicate that intradiscal pressure values at the L4–L5 disc estimated based on the predictive equations are in close agreement with available in vivo data measured under similar loadings and postures. Combinations of input (posture and loading) variable levels that yield spine loads beyond the tolerance compression limit of 3400 N are identified using contour plots. Ergonomists and bioengineers, faced with the dilemma of using either complex but more accurate models on one hand or less accurate but simple models on the other hand, have thereby easy-to-use predictive equations that quantifies spinal loads and risk of injury under different occupational tasks of interest.     

Determination of trunk muscle forces for flexion and extension by using a validated finite element model of the lumbar spine and measured in vivo data

Muscle forces stabilize the spine and have a great influence on spinal loads. But little is known about their magnitude. In a former in vitro experiment, a good agreement with intradiscal pressure and fixator loads measured in vivo could be achieved for standing and extension of the lumbar spine. However, for flexion the agreement between in vitro and in vivo measurements was insufficient. In order to improve the determination of trunk muscle forces, a three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model of the lumbar spine with an internal fixation device was created and the same loads were applied as in a previous in vitro experiment. An extensive adaptation process of the model was performed for flexion and extension angles up to 20 degrees and -15 degrees, respectively. With this validated computer model intra-abdominal pressure, preload in the fixators, and a combination of hip- and lumbar flexion angle were varied until a good agreement between analytical and in vivo results was reached for both, intradiscal pressure and bending moments in the fixators. Finally, the fixators were removed and the muscle forces for the intact lumbar spine calculated. A good agreement with the in vivo results could only be achieved at a combination of hip- and lumbar flexion. For the intact spine, forces of 170, 100 and 600 N are predicted in the m. erector spinae for standing, 5 degrees extension and 30 degrees flexion, respectively. The force in the m. rectus abdominus for these body positions is less than 25 N. For more than 10 degrees extension the m. erector spinae is unloaded. The finite element method together with in vivo data allows the estimation of trunk muscle forces for different upper body positions in the sagittal plane. In our patients, flexion of the upper body was most likely a combination of hip- and lumbar spine bending.     

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.     

Prediction of biomechanical parameters in the lumbar spine during static sagittal plane lifting.

A combined approach involving optimization and the finite element technique was used to predict biomechanical parameters in the lumbar spine during static lifting in the sagittal plane. Forces in muscle fascicles of the lumbar region were first predicted using an optimization-based force model including the entire lumbar spine. These muscle forces as well as the distributed upper body weight and the lifted load were then applied to a three-dimensional finite element model of the thoracolumbar spine and rib cage to predict deformation, the intradiskal pressure, strains, stresses, and load transfer paths in the spine. The predicted intradiskal pressures in the L3-4 disk at the most deviated from the in vivo measurements by 8.2 percent for the four lifting cases analyzed. The lumbosacral joint flexed, while the other lumbar joints extended for all of the four lifting cases studied (rotation of a joint is the relative rotation between its two vertebral bodies). High stresses were predicted in the posterolateral regions of the endplates and at the junctions of the pedicles and vertebral bodies. High interlaminar shear stresses were found in the posterolateral regions of the lumbar disks. While the facet joints of the upper two lumbar segments did not transmit any load, the facet joints of the lower two lumbar segments experienced significant loads. The ligaments of all lumbar motion segments except the lumbosacral junction provided only marginal moments. The limitations of the current model and possible improvements are discussed.     

Analysis of large compression loads on lumbar spine in flexion and in torsion using a novel wrapping element

Axial compression on the spine could reach large values especially in lifting tasks which also involve large rotations. Experimental and numerical investigations on the spinal multi motion segments in presence of physiological compression loads cannot adequately be carried out due to the structural instability and artefact loads. To circumvent these problems, a novel wrapping cable element is used in a nonlinear finite element model of the lumbosacral spine (L1-S1) to investigate the role of moderate to large compression loads on the lumbar stiffness in flexion and axial moments/rotations. The compression loads up to 2,700 N was applied with no instability or artefact loads. The lumbar stiffness substantially increased under compression force, flexion moment, and axial torque when applied alone. The presence of compression preloads significantly stiffened the load-displacement response under flexion and axial moments/rotations. This stiffening effect was much more pronounced under larger preloads and smaller moments/rotations. Compression preloads also increased intradiscal pressure, facet contact forces, and maximum disc fibre strain at different levels. Forces in posterior ligaments were, however, diminished with compression preload. The significant increase in spinal stiffness, hence, should be considered in biomechanical studies for accurate investigation of the load partitioning, system stability, and fixation systems/disc prostheses.     

Realistic loading conditions for upper body bending

Different modes of load applications are used to simulate flexion and extension of the upper body. It is not clear which loading modes deliver realistic results and allow the comparison of different studies.In a numerical study, a validated finite element model of the lumbar spine, ranging from the vertebra L1 to the disc L5–S1 was employed. Each of six different loading modes was studied for simulating flexion and extension, including pure moments, an eccentric axial force, using a wedged fixture, and applying upper body weight plus follower load plus muscle forces. Intersegmental rotations, intradiscal pressures and facet joint contact forces were calculated. Where possible, results were compared to data measured in vivo.The results of the loading modes studied show a large variance for some values. Outcome measures such as flexion angle and intradiscal pressure differed at a segment by up to 44% and 88%, respectively, related to their maximum values. Intradiscal pressure is mainly determined by the magnitude of the applied compressive force. For flexion maximum contact forces between 0 and 69 N are predicted in each facet joint for different loading modes. For both flexion and extension, applying upper body weight plus follower load plus muscle forces as well as a follower load together with a bending moment delivers results which agreed well with in vivo data from the literature.Choosing an adequate loading mode is important in spine biomechanics when realistic results are required for intersegmental rotations, intradiscal pressure and facet joint contact forces. Only then will results of different studies be comparable.     

A computerized biomechanical model-development of and use in studying gross body actions

Gross body actions involved in heavy industry, e.g. lifting and carrying materials, are often the cause of injury to the musculoskeletal system. A computer model is developed which treats the human body as a series of seven links from which reactive forces and torques are computed at each articulation during various simulated materials handling tasks. In addition, an analysis of shearing and compressing forces at the lower lumbar spine is included. The assumptions of the present model are presented, along with a discussion of future models.     

Development of a novel MATLAB-based framework for implementing mechanical joint stability constraints within OpenSim musculoskeletal models

The Static Optimization (SO) solver in OpenSim estimates muscle activations and forces that only equilibrate applied moments. In this study, SO was enhanced through an open-access MATLAB interface, where calculated muscle activations can additionally satisfy crucial mechanical stability requirements. This Stability-Constrained SO (SCSO) is applicable to many OpenSim models and can potentially produce more biofidelic results than SO alone, especially when antagonistic muscle co-contraction is required to stabilize body joints. This hypothesis was tested using existing models and experimental data in the literature. Muscle activations were calculated by SO and SCSO for a spine model during two series of static trials (i.e. simulation 1 and 2), and also for a lower limb model (supplementary material 2). In simulation 1, symmetric and asymmetric flexion postures were compared, while in simulation 2, various external load heights were compared, where increases in load height did not change the external lumbar flexion moment, but necessitated higher EMG activations. During the tasks in simulation 1, the predicted muscle activations by SCSO demonstrated less average deviation from the EMG data (6.8% −7.5%) compared to those from SO (10.2%). In simulation 2, SO predicts constant muscle activations and forces, while SCSO predicts increases in the average activations of back and abdominal muscles that better match experimental data. Although the SCSO results are sensitive to some parameters (e.g. musculotendon stiffness), when considering the strategy of the central nervous system in distributing muscle forces and in activating antagonistic muscles, the assigned activations by SCSO are more biofidelic than SO.     

Effects of lumbo-pelvic rhythm on trunk muscle forces and disc loads during forward flexion: A combined musculoskeletal and finite element simulation study

Previous in-vivo studies suggest that the ratio of total lumbar rotation over pelvic rotation (lumbo-pelvic rhythm) during trunk sagittal movement is essential to evaluate spinal loads and discriminate between low back pain and asymptomatic population. Similarly, there is also evidence that the lumbo-pelvic rhythm is key for evaluation of realistic muscle and joint reaction forces and moments predicted by various computational musculoskeletal models. This study investigated the effects of three lumbo-pelvic rhythms defined based on in-vivo measurements on the spinal response during moderate forward flexion (60°) using a combined approach of musculoskeletal modeling of the upper body and finite element model of the lumbosacral spine. The muscle forces and joint loads predicted by the musculoskeletal model, together with the gravitational forces, were applied to the finite element model to compute the disc force and moment, intradiscal pressure, annular fibers strain, and load-sharing. The results revealed that a rhythm with high pelvic rotation and low lumbar flexion involves more global muscles and increases the role of the disc in resisting spinal loads, while its counterpart, with low pelvic rotation, recruits more local muscles and engages the ligaments to lower the disc loads. On the other hand, a normal rhythm that has balanced pelvic and lumbar rotations yields almost equal disc and ligament load-sharing and results in more balanced synergy between global and local muscles. The lumbo-pelvic rhythm has less effect on the intradiscal pressure and annular fibers strain. This work demonstrated that the spinal response during forward flexion is highly dependent on the lumbo-pelvic rhythm. It is therefore, essential to adapt this parameter instead of using the default values in musculoskeletal models for accurate prediction of muscle forces and joint reaction forces and moments. The findings provided by this work are expected to improve knowledge of spinal response during forward flexion, and are clinically relevant towards low back pain treatment and disc injury prevention.     

Loading of the lumbar spine during backpack carriage

Backpack carriage is significantly associated with a higher prevalence of low back pain. Elevated compression and shear forces in the lumbar intervertebral discs are known risk factors. A novel method of calculating the loads in the lumbar spine during backpack carriage is presented by combining physical and numerical modelling. The results revealed that to predict realistic lumbar compression forces, subject-specific lumbar curvature data were not necessary for loads up to 40 kg. In contrast, regarding shear forces, using subject-specific lumbar curvature data from upright MRI measurements as input for the rigid body model significantly altered lumbar joint force estimates.     

A comparison of lumbar spine and muscle loading between male and female workers during box transfers

There is a clear relationship between lumbar spine loading and back musculoskeletal disorders in manual materials handling. The incidence of back disorders is greater in women than men, and for similar work demands females are functioning closer to their physiological limit. It is crucial to study loading on the spine musculoskeletal system with actual handlers, including females, to better understand the risk of back disorders. Extrapolation from biomechanical studies conducted on unexperienced subjects (mainly males) might not be applicable to actual female workers. For male workers, expertise changes the lumbar spine flexion, passive spine resistance, and active/passive muscle forces. However, experienced females select similar postures to those of novices when spine loading is critical. This study proposes that the techniques adopted by male experts, male novices, and females (with considerable experience but not categorized as experts) impact their lumbar spine musculoskeletal systems differently. Spinal loads, muscle forces, and passive resistance (muscle and ligamentous spine) were predicted by a multi-joint EMG-assisted optimization musculoskeletal model of the lumbar spine. Expert males flexed their lumbar spine less (avg. 21.9° vs 30.3–31.7°) and showed decreased passive internal moments (muscle avg. 8.9% vs 15.9–16.0%; spine avg. 4.7% vs 7.1–7.8%) and increased active internal moments (avg. 72.9% vs 62.0–63.9%), thus producing a different impact on their lumbar spine musculoskeletal systems. Experienced females sustained the highest relative spine loads (compression avg. 7.3 N/BW vs 6.2–6.4 N/BW; shear avg. 2.3 N/BW vs 1.7–1.8 N/BW) in addition to passive muscle and ligamentous spine resistance similar to novices. Combined with smaller body size, less strength, and the sequential lifting technique used by females, this could potentially mean greater risk of back injury. Workers should be trained early to limit excessive and repetitive stretching of their lumbar spine passive tissues.     

An improved multi-joint EMG-assisted optimization approach to estimate joint and muscle forces in a musculoskeletal model of the lumbar spine

Muscle force partitioning methods and musculoskeletal system simplifications are key modeling issues that can alter outcomes, and thus change conclusions and recommendations addressed to health and safety professionals. A critical modeling concern is the use of single-joint equilibrium to estimate muscle forces and joint loads in a multi-joint system, an unjustified simplification made by most lumbar spine biomechanical models. In the context of common occupational tasks, an EMG-assisted optimization method (EMGAO) is modified in this study to simultaneously account for the equilibrium at all lumbar joints (M-EMGAO). The results of this improved approach were compared to those of its conventional single-joint equivalent (S-EMGAO) counterpart, the latter method being applied to the same lumbar joints but one at a time. Despite identical geometrical configurations and passive contributions used in both models, computed outcomes clearly differed between single- and multi-joint methods, especially at larger trunk flexed postures and during asymmetric lifting. Moreover, muscle forces predicted by L5-S1 single-joint analyses do not maintain mechanical equilibrium at other spine joints crossed by the same muscles. Assuming that the central nervous system does not attempt to balance the external moments one joint at a time and that a given muscle cannot exert different forces at different joints, the proposed multi-joint method represents a substantial improvement over its single-joint counterpart. This improved approach, hence, resolves trunk muscle forces with biological integrity but without compromising mechanical equilibrium at the lumbar joints.     

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.     

A comparative study of two trunk biomechanical models under symmetric and asymmetric loadings

Despite recent advances in modeling of the human spine, simplifying assumptions are still required to tackle complexities. Such assumptions need to be scrutinized to assess their likely impacts on predictions. A comprehensive comparison of muscle forces and spinal loads estimated by a single-joint (L5–S1) optimisation-assisted EMG-driven (EMGAO) and a multi-joint Kinematics-driven (KD) model of the spine under symmetric (symmetric trunk flexion from neutral upright to maximum forward flexion) and asymmetric (holding a load at various heights in the right hand) activities is carried out. Regardless of the task simulated, the KD model predicted greater activities in extensor muscles as compared to the EMGAO model. Such differences in the symmetric tasks was due mainly to the distinct approaches to resolve the redundancy while in the asymmetric tasks they were due also to the different methods used to estimate joint moments. Shear and compression forces were generally higher in the KD model. Differences in predictions between these modeling approaches varied depending on the task simulated and the joint considered in the single-joint EMGAO model. The EMGAO model should incorporate a multi-joint strategy to satisfy equilibrium at different levels while the KD model should benefit from recorded EMG activities of the antagonistic muscles to supplement input measured kinematics.     

Abdominal muscles dominate contributions to vertebral joint stiffness during the push-up

The goal of this study was to quantify the relative contributions of each muscle group surrounding the spine to vertebral joint rotational stiffness (VJRS) during the push-up exercise. Upper-body kinematics, three-dimensional hand forces and lumbar spine postures, and 14 channels (bilaterally from rectus abdominis, external oblique, internal oblique, latissimus dorsi, thoracic erector spinae, lumbar erector spinae, and multifidus) of trunk electromyographic (EMG) activity were collected from 11 males and used as inputs to a biomechanical model that determined the individual contributions of 10 muscle groups surrounding the lumbar spine to VJRS at five lumbar vertebral joints (L1-L2 to L5-S1). On average, the abdominal muscles contributed 64.32 +/- 8.50%, 86.55 +/- 1.13%, and 83.84 +/- 1.95% to VJRS about the flexion/extension, lateral bend, and axial twist axes, respectively. Rectus abdominis contributed 43.16 +/- 3.44% to VJRS about the flexion/extension axis at each lumbar joint, and external oblique and internal oblique, respectively contributed 52.61 +/- 7.73% and 62.13 +/- 8.71% to VJRS about the lateral bend and axial twist axes, respectively, at all lumbar joints with the exception of L5-S1. Owing to changes in moment arm length, the external oblique and internal oblique, respectively contributed 55.89% and 50.01% to VJRS about the axial twist and lateral bend axes at L5-S1. Transversus abdominis, multifidus, and the spine extensors contributed minimally to VJRS during the push-up exercise. The push-up challenges the abdominal musculature to maintain VJRS. The orientation of the abdominal muscles suggests that each muscle primarily controls the rotational stiffness about a single axis.     

Quantifying the centre of rotation pattern in a multi-body model of the lumbar spine

Understanding the kinematics of the spine provides paramount knowledge for many aspects of the clinical analysis of back pain. More specifically, visualisation of the instantaneous centre of rotation (ICR) enables clinicians to quantify joint laxity in the segments, avoiding a dependence on more inconclusive measurements based on the range of motion and excessive translations, which vary in every individual. Alternatively, it provides motion preserving designers with an insight into where a physiological ICR of a motion preserving prosthesis can be situated in order to restore proper load distribution across the passive and active elements of the lumbar region. Prior to the use of an unconstrained dynamic musculoskeletal model system, based on multi-body models capable of transient analysis, to estimate segmental loads, the model must be kinematically evaluated for all possible sensitivity due to ligament properties and the initial locus of intervertebral disc (IVD). A previously calibrated osseoligamentous model of lumbar spine was used to evaluate the changes in ICR under variation of the ligament stiffness and initial locus of IVD, when subjected to pure moments from 0 to 15 Nm. The ICR was quantified based on the closed solution of unit quaternion that improves accuracy and prevents coordinate singularities, which is often observed in Euler-based methods and least squares principles. The calculation of the ICR during flexion/extension revealed complexity and intrinsic nonlinearity between flexion and extension. This study revealed that, to accommodate a good agreement between in vitro data and the multi-body model predictions, in flexion more laxity is required than in extension. The results showed that the ICR location is concentrated in the posterior region of the disc, in agreement with previous experimental studies. However, the current multi-body model demonstrates a sensitivity to the initial definition of the ICR, which should be recognised as a limitation of the method. Nevertheless, the current simulations suggest that, due to the constantly evolving path of the ICR across the IVD during flexion–extension, a movable ICR is a necessary condition in multi-body modelling of the spine, in the context of whole body simulation, to accurately capture segmental kinematics and kinetics.     

A multibody modelling approach to determine load sharing between passive elements of the lumbar spine

The human spinal segment is an inherently complex structure, a combination of flexible and semi-rigid articulating elements stabilised by seven principal ligaments. An understanding of how mechanical loading is shared among these passive elements of the segment is required to estimate tissue failure stresses. A 3D rigid body model of the complete lumbar spine has been developed to facilitate the prediction of load sharing across the passive elements. In contrast to previous multibody models, this model includes a non-linear, six degrees of freedom intervertebral disc, facet bony articulations and all spinal ligaments. Predictions of segmental kinematics and facet joint forces, in response to pure moment loading (flexion–extension), were compared to published in vitro data. On inclusion of detailed representation of the disc and facets, the multibody model fully captures the non-linear flexibility response of the spinal segment, i.e. coupled motions and a mobile instantaneous centre of rotation. Predicted facet joint forces corresponded well with reported values. For the loading case considered, the model predicted that the ligaments are the main stabilising elements within the physiological motion range; however, the disc resists a greater proportion of the applied load as the spine is fully flexed. In extension, the facets and capsular ligaments provide the principal resistance. Overall patterns of load distribution to the spinal ligaments are in agreement with previous predictions; however, the current model highlights the important role of the intraspinous ligament in flexion and the potentially high risk of failure. Several important refinements to the multibody modelling of the passive elements of the spine have been described, and such an enhanced passive model can be easily integrated into a full musculoskeletal model for the prediction of spinal loading for a variety of daily activities.