A Comparison of Intraabdominal Pressure Increases, Hip Torque, and Lumbar Vertebral Compression in Different Lifting Techniques

Troup, J. D. G.; Leskinen, Timo; Stålhammar, H. R.; Kuorinka, Ilkka

doi:10.1177/001872088302500506

Cited by 65 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Variations in the location of external loads and rotations of pelvis and lumbar spine from a lift to another, as expected in different studies, are important and could substantially influence the results and subsequent comparison of lifting techniques towards identification of the optimal one. The biomechanical advantages for the squat lifts in our study would become even more apparent had a smaller lever arm for the external load been considered in these lifts [9,98]. In an earlier combined in vivo model study on the effect of changes in the lumbar curvature on trunk response in isometric lifts with identical thorax rotations [6], the maximum segmental shear/compression forces and activity in extensor muscles occurred in the lordotic posture while the maximum segmental flexion moment occurred in the kyphotic posture.…”

Section: Effect Of Lifting Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…It should be emphasized that the relative merits of these lifting techniques depend not only on the relative rotations at the thorax, pelvis and lumbar spine but also on other factors such as position of external loads, voluntary alterations in the lumbar curvature and speed of movement. These could partly be the reason why the literature remains yet inconclusive as some report smaller net moment and trunk load in squat lifting [13,43,58,83] while others indicate otherwise [23,28,57,59,98]. The reduction in net moment in squat lifts, under all cases with and without external load, is due primarily to smaller pelvic and lumbar (and hence thorax) rotations in this technique resulting in much reduced net moments from the mass of the upper body and the external load about the L5-S1 (Fig.…”

Section: Effect Of Lifting Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the well-recognized role of lifting in back injuries, the relative biomechanical merits of squat versus stoop lifting remain controversial. In vivo kinematics measurements and model studies are combined to estimate trunk muscle forces and internal spinal loads under dynamic squat and stoop lifts with and without load in hands. Measurements were performed on healthy subjects to collect segmental rotations during lifts needed as input data in subsequent model studies. The model accounted for nonlinear properties of the ligamentous spine, wrapping of thoracic extensor muscles to take curved paths in flexion and trunk dynamic characteristics (inertia and damping) while subject to measured kinematics and gravity/ external loads. A dynamic kinematics-driven approach was employed accounting for the spinal synergy by simultaneous consideration of passive structures and muscle forces under given posture and loads. Results satisfied kinematics and dynamic equilibrium conditions at all levels and directions. Net moments, muscle forces at different levels, passive (muscle or ligamentous) forces and internal compression/shear forces were larger in stoop lifts than in squat ones. These were due to significantly larger thorax, lumbar and pelvis rotations in stoop lifts. For the relatively slow lifting tasks performed in this study with the lowering and lifting phases each lasting~2 s, the effect of inertia and damping was not, in general, important. Moreover, posterior shift in the position of the external load in stoop lift reaching the same lever arm with respect to the S1 as that in squat lift did not influence the conclusion of this study on the merits of squat lifts over stoop ones. Results, for the tasks considered, advocate squat lifting over stoop lifting as the technique of choice in reducing net moments, muscle forces and internal spinal loads (i.e., moment, compression and shear force).

show abstract

Section: Effect Of Lifting Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Effect Of Lifting Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much research has been dedicated towards finding lifting techniques that reduce back loads (Anderson and Chaffin, 1986;Bazrgari et al, 2007;de Looze et al, 1998;Gagnon et al, 1993;Kingma et al, 2006;Kingma et al, 2010;Lariviere et al, 2002;Lavender et al, 2007;Troup et al, 1983;van Dieën et al, 1999), but evidence concerning the optimal technique remains inconclusive (Burgess-Limerick, 2003;Straker, 2003;van Dieën et al, 1999). This might be due to the fact that effects of lifting technique are highly dependent on object dimensions and initial hand height (Dolan et al, 1994;Faber et al, 2009;Kingma et al, 2006;Kingma et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting the upper body with the hand on the thigh reduces back loading during lifting

Kingma

Faber

Dieën

2016

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tWhen picking objects from the floor, low back pain patients often tend to support the upper body by leaning with one hand on a thigh. While this strategy may reduce back load, this has not yet been assessed, probably due to the difficulty of measuring the forces between hand and thigh.Ten healthy male subjects lifted a pencil and a crate from the floor, with four lifting techniques (free, squat, stoop and a Weight Lifters Technique (WLT)), each of which was performed with and without supporting with one hand on the thigh. A six Degrees of Freedom force transducer, with a comfortable surface to support the hand on, was mounted just above the subject's left knee. Hand forces, ground reaction forces, full body kinematics, and trunk EMG were measured. Using inverse dynamics and taking the forces between hand and thigh into account, we calculated 3D L5S1 joint moments, and subsequently estimated spine forces using an EMG-assisted trunk model.For lifting a pencil, hand support reduced average peak total moments by 17-25%, dependent on lifting technique. For crate lifting, hand support reduced total moments by 13-19% compared with onehanded lifting and by 14 À 26% compared to two-handed lifting. Hand support slightly increased asymmetric motions and caused a substantial increase in asymmetric moments in crate lifting. For compression forces, reductions (up to 28%) were seen in all techniques except in stoop lifts. It is concluded that leaning with a hand on the thigh can lead to substantial reductions of low back loading during lifting.

show abstract

“…The early hypotheses that the IAP relieves part of the compressive loads borne by the lumbar spine [1,27,49] have been accepted by some [12,22,34,35,65,66] and refuted by others [2, 29-31, 42, 50, 52]. The current consensus seems to be that the compressive forces, arising from the contraction of abdominal wall musculature to generate the IAP, offset the beneficial action of the hydrostatic forces thought to alleviate spinal compression via IAP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar spine stability can be augmented with an abdominal belt and/or increased intra-abdominal pressure

Cholewicki

Juluru

Radebold

et al. 1999

European Spine Journal

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increased intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) commonly observed when the spine is loaded during physical activities is hypothesized to increase lumbar spine stability. The mechanical stability of the lumbar spine is an important consideration in low back injury prevention and rehabilitation strategies. This study examined the effects of raised IAP and an abdominal belt on lumbar spine stability. Two hypotheses were tested: (1) An increase in IAP leads to increased lumbar spine stability, (2) Wearing an abdominal belt increases spine stability. Ten volunteers were placed in a semi-seated position in a jig that restricted hip motion leaving the upper torso free to move in any direction. The determination of lumbar spine stability was accomplished by measuring the instantaneous trunk stiffness in response to a sudden load release. The quick release method was applied in isometric trunk flexion, extension, and lateral bending. Activity of 12 major trunk muscles was monitored with electromyography and the IAP was measured with an intra-gastric pressure transducer. A two-factor repeated measures design was used (P < 0.05), in which the spine stability was evaluated under combinations of the following two factors: belt or no belt and three levels of IAP (0, 40, and 80% of maximum). The belt and raised IAP increased trunk stiffness in all directions, but the results in extension lacked statistical significance. In flexion, trunk stiffness increased by 21% and 42% due to 40% and 80% IAP levels respectively; in lateral bending, trunk stiffness increased by 16% and 30%. The belt added between 9% and 57% to the trunk stiffness depending on the IAP level and the direction of exertion. In all three directions, the EMG activity of all 12 trunk muscles increased significantly due to the elevated IAP. The belt had no effect on the activity of any of the muscles with the exception of the thoracic erector spinae in extension and the lumbar erector spinae in flexion, whose activities decreased. The results indicate that both wearing an abdominal belt and raised IAP can each independently, or in combination, increase lumbar spine stability. However, the benefits of the belt must be interpreted with caution in the context of the decreased activation of a few trunk extensor muscles.

show abstract

A Comparison of Intraabdominal Pressure Increases, Hip Torque, and Lumbar Vertebral Compression in Different Lifting Techniques

Cited by 65 publications

References 10 publications

Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads

Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads

Supporting the upper body with the hand on the thigh reduces back loading during lifting

Lumbar spine stability can be augmented with an abdominal belt and/or increased intra-abdominal pressure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About