Loading...

Comparative evaluation of six quantitative lifting tools to estimate spine loads during static activities

Rajaee, M. A ; Sharif University of Technology | 2015

1915 Viewed
  1. Type of Document: Article
  2. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.11.002
  3. Publisher: Elsevier Ltd , 2015
  4. Abstract:
  5. Different lifting analysis tools are commonly used to assess spinal loads and risk of injury. Distinct musculoskeletal models with various degrees of accuracy are employed in these tools affecting thus their relative accuracy in practical applications. The present study aims to compare predictions of six tools (HCBCF, LSBM, 3DSSPP, AnyBody, simple polynomial, and regression models) for the L4-L5 and L5-S1 compression and shear loads in twenty-six static activities with and without hand load. Significantly different spinal loads but relatively similar patterns for the compression (R2>0.87) were computed. Regression models and AnyBody predicted intradiscal pressures in closer agreement with available invivo measurements (RMSE≈0.12MPa). Due to the differences in predicted spinal loads, the estimated risk of injury alters depending on the tool used. Each tool is evaluated to identify its shortcomings and preferred application domains
  6. Keywords:
  7. Biomechanical models ; Lifting tools ; Spine loads ; Regression analysis ; Risk assessment ; Bio-mechanical models ; Comparative evaluations ; Compression and shear ; In-vivo measurement ; Intradiscal pressures ; Musculoskeletal model ; Regression model ; Relative accuracy ; Risk perception ; 3D static strength prediction program ; Anybody modelling system ; Biomechanics ; Body posture ; Comparative study ; Computer program ; Controlled study ; Hand calculation back compressive force equation ; Human ; Human experiment ; In vivo study ; Kinematics ; Lifting effort ; Lifting tool ; Linked segment biomechanical model ; Musculoskeletal system examination ; Musculoskeletal system parameters ; Normal human ; Shear stress ; Simple polynomial model ; Spine load ; Statistical analysis ; Task performance ; Biological model ; Devices ; Evaluation study ; Lumbar vertebra ; Physiology ; Standards ; Biomechanical phenomena ; Equipment and supplies ; Humans ; Lifting ; Lumbar vertebrae ; Male ; Models, biological ; Spine ; Weight bearing
  8. Source: Applied Ergonomics ; Volume 48 , 2015 , Pages 22-32 ; 00036870 (ISSN)
  9. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000368701400218X