Biomechanical and Metabolic Effectiveness of an Industrial Exoskeleton for Overhead Work

Abstract

Overhead work activities can lead to shoulder pain and serious musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD), such as rotator cuff injury and degeneration. Recently developed exoskeletons show promising results in supporting workers in such activities. In this study, a novel exoskeleton was investigated for two different overhead tasks with twelve participants. To investigate the effects of the device, electromyographic (EMG) signals of different shoulder and adjacent muscles as well as kinematic and metabolic parameters were analyzed with and without the exoskeleton. The mean EMG amplitude of all evaluated muscles was significantly reduced when the exoskeleton was used for the overhead tasks. This was accompanied by a reduction in both heart rate and oxygen rate. The kinematic analysis revealed small changes in the joint positions during the tasks. This study demonstrated the biomechanical and metabolic benefits of an exoskeleton designed to support overhead work activities. The results suggest improved physiological conditions and an unloading effect on the shoulder joint and muscles which are promising indicators that the exoskeleton may be a good solution to reduce shoulder WMSD among workers who carry out overhead tasks on a regular basis.

Musculoskeletal Disorders Symptoms among Taiwanese Bakery Workers

“…WMSD is frequently caused by prolonged exposure to highly repetitive work, and its prevalence and the associated medical and indemnity costs have increased annually [4]. WMSDs in the upper limbs are common in people in various professions and industries worldwide, particularly frontline workers, due to awkward postures, overexertion, and repetitive work [5][6][7]. Among the WMSDs, carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common wrist injury among frontline workers and data processors [8][9][10][11].…”

The Effects of Upper-Body Exoskeletons on Human Metabolic Cost and Thermal Response during Work Tasks—A Systematic Review

“…Table 1 shows an overview of the main characteristics of the nine considered studies [ 26 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ], following the PICO model and highlighting the type of exoskeleton used. All the articles that met the eligibility criteria are very recent—eight were published between 2019 and 2020 and one, the oldest, in 2014.…”

“…All the studies were carried out in the laboratory. Most of them (six out of nine, [ 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 45 ]), chose a repetitive lifting task to be performed in the experimental trial, two out of nine [ 26 , 39 ] selected an overhead working task and one considered a static holding posture of the trunk [ 43 ]. All the studies were based on the comparison between the “with exoskeleton condition (WEC)” and “without exoskeleton condition (WOEC)”.…”

“…In total, eight different UBEs were investigated: seven BSEs [ 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ] and one ULSE [ 26 , 39 ]. Among them, seven were passive assistive devices and one [ 45 ] was an active device.…”

“…One article [ 43 ] provided results in terms of the metabolic cost and another one [ 45 ] in terms of the metabolic rate and energy consumption, but they did not provide the calculation performed. Three studies [ 26 , 39 , 41 ] collected and data: Schmaltz et al [ 39 ] and Maurice et al [ 26 ] reported both types of data as outcomes, while Whitfield et al [ 41 ] considered only the data.…”