Suchergebnisse

Pushing and pulling tasks are increasingly prevalent in industrial workplaces. Few studies have investigated low-back biomechanical risk factors associated with pushing, and we are aware of none that has quantified spinal stability during pushing exertions. Data recorded from 11 healthy participants performing isometric pushing exertions demonstrated that trunk posture, vector force direction of the applied load, and trunk moment were influenced (p < .01) by exertion level, elevation of the handle for the pushing task, and foot position. A biomechanical model was used to analyze the posture and hand force data gathered from the pushing exertions. Model results indicate that pushing exertions provide significantly (p < .01) less stability than lifting when antagonistic cocontraction is ignored. However, stability can be augmented by recruitment of muscle cocontraction. Results suggest that cocontraction may be recruited to compensate for the fact that equilibrium mechanics provide little intrinsic trunk stiffness and stability during pushing exertions. If one maintains stability by means of cocontraction, additional spinal load is thereby created, increasing the risk of overload injury. Thus it is important to consider muscle cocontraction when evaluating the biomechanics of pushing exertions. Potential applications of this research include improved assessment of biomechanical risk factors for the design of industrial pushing tasks.

Objective: Compare muscle activity and trunk stiffness during isometric trunk flexion and extension exertions. Background: Elastic stiffness of the torso musculature is considered the primary stabilizing mechanism of the spine. Therefore, stiffness of the trunk during voluntary exertions provides insight into the stabilizing control of pushing and pulling tasks. Methods: Twelve participants maintained an upright posture against external flexion and extension loads applied to the trunk. Trunk stiffness, damping, and mass were determined from the dynamic relation between pseudorandom force disturbances and subsequent small-amplitude trunk movements recorded during the voluntary exertions. Muscle activity was recorded from rectus abdominus, external oblique, lumbar paraspinal, and internal oblique muscle groups. Results: Normalized electromyographic activity indicated greater antagonistic muscle recruitment during flexion exertions than during extension. Trunk stiffness was significantly greater during flexion exertions than during extension exertions despite similar levels of applied force. Trunk stiffness increased with exertion effort. Conclusion: Theoretical and empirical analyses reveal that greater antagonistic cocontraction is required to maintain spinal stability during trunk flexion exertions than during extension exertions. Measured differences in active trunk stiffness were attributed to antagonistic activity during flexion exertions with possible contributions from spinal kinematics and muscle lines of action. Application: When compared with trunk extension exertions, trunk flexion exertions such as pushing tasks require unique neuromuscular control that is not simply explained by differences in exertion direction. Biomechanical analyses of flexion tasks must consider the stabilizing muscle recruitment patterns when evaluating spinal compression and shear loads.

Lifting-induced fatigue may influence neuromuscular control of spinal stability. Stability is primarily controlled by muscle recruitment, active muscle stiffness, and reflex response. Fatigue has been observed to affect each of these neuromuscular parameters and may therefore affect spinal stability. A biomechanical model of spinal stability was implemented to evaluate the effects of fatigue on spinal stability. The model included a 6-degree-of-freedom representation of the spine controlled by 12 deformable muscles from which muscle recruitment was determined to simultaneously achieve equilibrium and stability. Fatigue-induced reduction in active muscle stiffness necessitated increased antagonistic cocontraction to maintain stability resulting in increased spinal compression with fatigue. Fatigue induced reduction in force-generating capacity limited the feasible set of muscle recruitment patterns, thereby restricting the estimated stability of the spine. Electromyographic and trunk kinematics from 21 healthy participants were recorded during sudden-load trials in fatigued and unfatigued states. Empirical data supported the model predictions, demonstrating increased antagonistic cocontraction during fatigued exertions. Results suggest that biomechanical factors including spinal load and stability should be considered when performing ergonomic assessments of fatiguing lifting tasks. Potential applications of this research include a biomechanical tool for the design of administrative ergonomic controls in manual materials handling industries.