The effects of mats on back and leg fatigue

Kim, J.Y.; Stuart-Buttle, Carol; Marras, William S.

doi:10.1016/0003-6870(94)90028-0

Cited by 59 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…15 From an occupal ow back pain (LBP) is a major contributor to increasing healthcare costs in North America, with estimates that 70% to 85% of all adults will experience an acute episode of LBP at some point in their lives. 8 Epidemiological studies have shown that standing occupations have a strong association with LBP.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of Active Hip Abduction as a Screening Test for Identifying Occupational Low Back Pain

Nelson-Wong¹,

Flynn²,

Callaghan³

2009

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

to develop LBP as the length of time on their feet increases. 15 From an occupal ow back pain (LBP) is a major contributor to increasing healthcare costs in North America, with estimates that 70% to 85% of all adults will experience an acute episode of LBP at some point in their lives. 8 Epidemiological studies have shown that standing occupations have a strong association with LBP.1,25 Checkout clerks and other individuals with occupations requiring long periods of standing are known t STudy deSign: Analytic observational prospective study performed in a controlled laboratory setting.t obJecTiveS: To assess the ability of a new screening tool, the active hip abduction test, to predict low back pain development during prolonged standing in previously asymptomatic individuals.t background: Most screening tools used for a patient with low back pain do not assess the patient's ability to maintain postural control in the frontal plane, when placed in an unstable position. Postural-control differences in pain developers, as compared to non-pain developers, during standing have been found previously. An attempt was made to predict pain development with a simple screening test.t meThodS: Forty-three previously asymptomatic volunteers underwent a clinical assessment prior to a 2-hour standing protocol designed to induce low back pain. Participants rated low back pain with a visual analog scale and were classified into pain developers or non-pain developers.t reSulTS: Forty percent of participants developed low back pain. The active hip abduction test was the only test that discriminated between pain-developer groups. When the examiner scored the test, the odds ratio was 3.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-19.07), and when the test was self-rated, the odds ratio was 6.55 (95% CI: 1.14-37.75) for pain development during standing.t concluSion: The active hip abduction test appears to show promise for predicting individuals who are at risk for low back pain development during prolonged standing. More work is required to validate the test in clinical populations, and to assess interrater and intrarater reliability. t level oF evidence: Diagnosis, level 2b. Ther 2009;39(9):649-657. doi:10.2519/jospt.2009 t key wordS: clinical assessment, diagnostic tests, lumbar spine, stabilization tional safety and health perspective, it would be ideal to have a simple screening tool that could identify "at-risk" workers and guide an appropriate preventative exercise program. J Orthop Sports PhysWhile multiple researchers have identified differences in motor control patterns between patients with LBP and healthy controls, 4,5,7 there have been few prospective studies published to evaluate whether these differences are adaptive to the LBP disorder or are risk factors that might increase the likelihood of pain development. We have previously used a "functionally induced low back pain" model as a prospective design to study factors linked to LBP development during standing. 9,10,23 The main idea behind this protocol is that a percentage ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of Active Hip Abduction as a Screening Test for Identifying Occupational Low Back Pain

Nelson-Wong¹,

Flynn²,

Callaghan³

2009

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These interventions aim to make appropriate workplace for workers and staff. Some of them are: changing a mat under the feet of workers, using shock-absorbing shoe insole, using arch-support orthotics, wearing shockabsorbing shoes and applying foot rail [3][4][5][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Among these interventions, the anti-fatigue floor mat is a common ergonomic solution in decreasing complications arising from prolonged standing [3,14].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Anti-fatigue mats, low back pain, and electromyography: An interventional study

Javad¹,

Ghaderi²,

Azghani³

et al. 2015

Int J Occup Med Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Increasing bilateral gluteus medius co-activation has been identified as one of the most important factors in developing low back pain due to prolonged standing in healthy people. This study aims to investigate the impact of an anti-fatigue mat on the bilateral gluteus medius co-activation pattern and to report the low back pain subjectively in 2 different standing positions on the normal rigid surface and on the anti-fatigue mat. Material and Methods: While carrying out an easy simulated profession, 16 participants who had no low back pain background were requested to stand for 2 h in each position, with and without using the anti-fatigue floor mat, respectively. At the beginning of standing process and at every 15 min until the time of 120 min lapses, electric activities for the bilateral gluteus medius co-activation and subjective pain level in low back area were collected by the surface electromyogeraphy (EMG) and the visual analogue scale (VAS), respectively in each position. Results: The obtained findings revealed that the anti-fatigue mat significantly decreased subjective pain level in low back area among 15 participants (p < 0.05). However, there was objectively no significant difference in the bilateral gluteus medius co-activation pattern among the participants between the position 1 and the position 2 (p > 0.05). The findings obtained under this study related to the impact of the anti-fatigue mat upon the low back pain based on the increase of > 10 mm on the VAS threshold, which showed that this in tervention had no significant impact upon decreasing the number of patients suffering from the low back pain and also minimizing the bilateral gluteus medius co-activation in both pain developer groups (p > 0.05). However, 73% of the participants preferred to apply it. Conclusions: It seems that the anti-fatigue mat may be useful in reducing the low back pain although it objectively didn't significantly change the gluteus medius co-activation pattern related to the low back pain.

show abstract

“…déplacer dans leur lieu de travail (Guberan et Rougemont 1974 ;Boitel et al 1982). Ensuite les effets négatifs de la posture debout peuvent être diminués en intervenant sur des conditions spécifiques ambiantes du travail comme la qualité des chaussures et la surface des sols (Villeneuve 1996 ;CCHST 1988 ;Redfern 1995 ;Kim, Stuart-Buttle et Marras 1994). Une troisième mesure est d'amener les travailleurs à s'asseoir de temps en temps (Stellman 1984 : 178 ;Lajoie 1995 ;Vézina et Lajoie 1996 ;Villeneuve 1996 ;CCHST 1988), soit par le biais des pauses, soit par l'alternance durant le temps de travail entre les positions debout et assise.…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

Assis ou debout ?

Brossard¹

1998

Relations industrielles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of mats on back and leg fatigue

Cited by 59 publications

References 6 publications

Development of Active Hip Abduction as a Screening Test for Identifying Occupational Low Back Pain

Development of Active Hip Abduction as a Screening Test for Identifying Occupational Low Back Pain

Anti-fatigue mats, low back pain, and electromyography: An interventional study

Assis ou debout ?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About