Role of intra-abdominal pressure in the unloading and stabilization of the human spine during static lifting tasks

Arjmand, Navid; Shirazi‐Adl, A.

doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0012-9

Cited by 75 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indirect effect of the transverse abdominal and latissimus dorsi muscles in unloading the spine through lumbodorsal fascia have been reported not being sizable during lifting tasks [11,15,61,65,70,95]. Moreover, the likely mechanical effects of the intra-abdominal pressure (IAP), neglected in this study, have been found to depend on the posture and the co-activity level of abdominal muscles [7]. While local muscles were modeled as straight lines between their respective insertion points, realistic muscle paths were considered for global extensor muscles by wrapping them over all T12-S1 vertebrae whenever in the course of lifts their distance to associated vertebral bodies reduced more than 10% of their initial distances.…”

Section: Methodological Issuesmentioning

confidence: 70%

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: Methodological Issuesmentioning

confidence: 70%

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

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As remarked before, both the ribcage 43,51 and intra-abdominal pressure [52][53][54][55][56] have a large effect on the stability and stiffness of the spine. However, the effect of neither of these have ever been analysed in adolescents.…”

Section: Aim and Outline Of This Thesismentioning

confidence: 67%

“…As no specific mechanism is proven right or wrong yet, all these effects should be considered when modelling the IAP. However, currently, the IAP is often modelled as a single force on the middle of the diaphragm [52][53][54] . This is most likely an oversimplification of the biomechanical function, since two effects are neglected in this way of modelling: both the increased stiffness of the abdominal muscles and the physiological function of the IAP in maintaining the shape of these muscles and the direct effects of the IAP on limiting the movement of the spinal column are neglected.…”

Section: Intra-abdominal Pressurementioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a non-fusion scoliosis correction device

Meijer¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Five lumbar intervertebral joints (L1-L2 through L5-S1) were modeled as custom joints, each with three rotational and three translational DOFs. A constant force representing intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) was applied between the pelvis and the torso (4 cm anterior to the T12 level) [20]. The force in each static posture (Table 1) was based on in vivo measurements of IAP [21], assuming a 200 cm 2 abdominal cross-sectional area [20] and linear variation with flexion angle [22].…”

Section: Musculoskeletal Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating Six Degree-of-Freedom Intervertebral Joint Stiffness in a Lumbar Spine Musculoskeletal Model—Method and Performance in Flexed Postures

Meng

Bruno

Cheng

et al. 2015

Journal of Biomechanical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intervertebral translations and rotations are likely dependent on intervertebral stiffness properties. The objective of this study was to incorporate realistic intervertebral stiffnesses in a musculoskeletal model of the lumbar spine using a novel force-dependent kinematics approach, and examine the effects on vertebral compressive loading and intervertebral motions. Predicted vertebral loading and intervertebral motions were compared to previously reported in vivo measurements. Intervertebral joint reaction forces and motions were strongly affected by flexion stiffness, as well as force-motion coupling of the intervertebral stiffness. Better understanding of intervertebral stiffness and force-motion coupling could improve musculoskeletal modeling, implant design, and surgical planning.

show abstract

Role of intra-abdominal pressure in the unloading and stabilization of the human spine during static lifting tasks

Abstract: The unloading and stabilizing actions of IAP, hence, appear to be posture and task specific.

Cited by 75 publications

References 71 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

Development of a non-fusion scoliosis correction device

Incorporating Six Degree-of-Freedom Intervertebral Joint Stiffness in a Lumbar Spine Musculoskeletal Model—Method and Performance in Flexed Postures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About