In vivo loads on a vertebral body replacement during different lifting techniques

被引:43
作者
Dreischarf, Marcel [1 ]
Rohlmann, Antonius [1 ]
Graichen, Friedmar [1 ]
Bergmann, Georg [1 ]
Schmidt, Hendrik [1 ]
机构
[1] Charite, Julius Wolff Inst, Augustenburger Pl 1, D-13353 Berlin, Germany
关键词
Lumbar spine; In vivo load measurement; Lifting; Spinal loading; Stoop and squat lifting; LOW-BACK-PAIN; RISK-FACTORS; DYNAMIC FACTORS; LUMBAR SPINE; PRESSURE; MOMENT; SQUAT; STOOP;
D O I
10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.09.034
中图分类号
Q6 [生物物理学];
学科分类号
071011 ;
摘要
The repeated lifting of heavy weights has been identified as a risk factor for low back pain (LBP). Whether squat lifting leads to lower spinal loads than stoop lifting and whether lifting a weight laterally results in smaller forces than lifting the same weight in front of the body remain matters of debate. Instrumented vertebral body replacements (VBRs) were used to measure the in vivo load in the lumbar spine in three patients at level L1 and in one patient at level L3. Stoop lifting and squat lifting were compared in 17 measuring sessions, in which both techniques were performed a total of 104 times. The trunk inclination and amount of knee bending were simultaneously estimated from recorded images. Compared with the aforementioned lifting tasks, the patients additionally lifted a weight laterally with one hand 26 times. Only a small difference (4%) in the measured resultant force was observed between stoop lifting and squat lifting, although the knee-bending angle (stoop 10 degrees, squat 45 degrees) and trunk inclination (stoop 52 degrees, squat 39 degrees) differed considerably at the time points of maximal resultant forces. Lifting a weight laterally caused 14% less implant force on average than lifting the same weight in front of the body. The current in vivo biomechanical study does not provide evidence that spinal loads differ substantially between stoop and squat lifting. The anterior-posterior position of the lifted weight relative to the spine appears to be crucial for spinal loading. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:890 / 895
页数:6
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]  
Andersson G.B.J., 1976, SPINE, V1, P137
[2]   Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads [J].
Bazrgari, Babak ;
Shirazi-Adl, Aboulfazl ;
Arjmand, Navid .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2007, 16 (05) :687-699
[3]  
BRINCKMANN P, 1988, CLIN BIOMECH, V3, P232
[4]   FATIGUE FRACTURE OF HUMAN LUMBAR VERTEBRAE [J].
BRINCKMANN, P ;
JOHANNLEWELING, N ;
HILWEG, D ;
BIGGEMANN, M .
CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS, 1987, 2 (02) :94-96
[5]   INFLUENCE OF DYNAMIC FACTORS AND EXTERNAL LOADS ON THE MOMENT AT THE LUMBAR SPINE IN LIFTING [J].
BUSECK, M ;
SCHIPPLEIN, OD ;
ANDERSSON, GBJ ;
ANDRIACCHI, TP .
SPINE, 1988, 13 (08) :918-921
[6]   INFLUENCE OF DYNAMIC FACTORS ON THE LUMBAR SPINE MOMENT IN LIFTING [J].
BUSHJOSEPH, C ;
SCHIPPLEIN, O ;
ANDERSSON, GBJ ;
ANDRIACCHI, TP .
ERGONOMICS, 1988, 31 (02) :211-216
[7]   Load spatial pathway and spine loading: how does lift origin and destination influence low back response? [J].
Davis, K ;
Marras, W .
ERGONOMICS, 2005, 48 (08) :1031-1046
[8]   The impact of mental processing and pacing on spine loading - 2002 Volvo Award in Biomechanics [J].
Davis, KG ;
Marras, WS ;
Heaney, CA ;
Waters, TR ;
Gupta, P .
SPINE, 2002, 27 (23) :2645-2653
[9]   Low-back loading in lifting two loads beside the body compared to lifting one load in front of the body [J].
Faber, Gert S. ;
Kingma, Idsart ;
Bakker, Anja J. M. ;
van Dieen, Jaap H. .
JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 2009, 42 (01) :35-41
[10]   RISK-FACTORS IN LOW-BACK-PAIN - AN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL SURVEY [J].
FRYMOYER, JW ;
POPE, MH ;
CLEMENTS, JH ;
WILDER, DG ;
MACPHERSON, B ;
ASHIKAGA, T .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 1983, 65 (02) :213-218