From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles

Lifting up objects from the floor has been identified as a risk factor for low back pain, whereby a flexed spine during lifting is often associated with producing higher loads in the lumbar spine. Even though recent biomechanical studies challenge these assumptions, conclusive evidence is still lack...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Michael von Arx, Melanie Liechti, Lukas Connolly, Christian Bangerter, Michael L. Meier, Stefan Schmid
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:	spine biomechanics freestyle lifting musculoskeletal modeling motion capture spinal loading Biotechnology TP248.13-248.65
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/7712aa7a4afe4723ab0ec6e49adeb9f2
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:7712aa7a4afe4723ab0ec6e49adeb9f2
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:7712aa7a4afe4723ab0ec6e49adeb9f22021-11-04T05:05:52ZFrom Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles2296-418510.3389/fbioe.2021.769117https://doaj.org/article/7712aa7a4afe4723ab0ec6e49adeb9f22021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2021.769117/fullhttps://doaj.org/toc/2296-4185Lifting up objects from the floor has been identified as a risk factor for low back pain, whereby a flexed spine during lifting is often associated with producing higher loads in the lumbar spine. Even though recent biomechanical studies challenge these assumptions, conclusive evidence is still lacking. This study therefore aimed at comparing lumbar loads among different lifting styles using a comprehensive state-of-the-art motion capture-driven musculoskeletal modeling approach. Thirty healthy pain-free individuals were enrolled in this study and asked to repetitively lift a 15 kg-box by applying 1) a freestyle, 2) a squat and 3) a stoop lifting technique. Whole-body kinematics were recorded using a 16-camera optical motion capture system and used to drive a full-body musculoskeletal model including a detailed thoracolumbar spine. Continuous as well as peak compressive, anterior-posterior shear and total loads (resultant load vector of the compressive and shear load vectors) were calculated based on a static optimization approach and expressed as factor body weight (BW). In addition, lumbar lordosis angles and total lifting time were calculated. All parameters were compared among the lifting styles using a repeated measures design. For each lifting style, loads increased towards the caudal end of the lumbar spine. For all lumbar segments, stoop lifting showed significantly lower compressive and total loads (−0.3 to −1.0BW) when compared to freestyle and squat lifting. Stoop lifting produced higher shear loads (+0.1 to +0.8BW) in the segments T12/L1 to L4/L5, but lower loads in L5/S1 (−0.2 to −0.4BW). Peak compressive and total loads during squat lifting occurred approximately 30% earlier in the lifting cycle compared to stoop lifting. Stoop lifting showed larger lumbar lordosis range of motion (35.9 ± 10.1°) than freestyle (24.2 ± 7.3°) and squat (25.1 ± 8.2°) lifting. Lifting time differed significantly with freestyle being executed the fastest (4.6 ± 0.7 s), followed by squat (4.9 ± 0.7 s) and stoop (5.9 ± 1.1 s). Stoop lifting produced lower total and compressive lumbar loads than squat lifting. Shear loads were generally higher during stoop lifting, except for the L5/S1 segment, where anterior shear loads were higher during squat lifting. Lifting time was identified as another important factor, considering that slower speeds seem to result in lower loads.Michael von ArxMelanie LiechtiLukas ConnollyLukas ConnollyLukas ConnollyChristian BangerterMichael L. MeierMichael L. MeierStefan SchmidStefan SchmidFrontiers Media S.A.articlespinebiomechanicsfreestyle liftingmusculoskeletal modelingmotion capturespinal loadingBiotechnologyTP248.13-248.65ENFrontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, Vol 9 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	spine biomechanics freestyle lifting musculoskeletal modeling motion capture spinal loading Biotechnology TP248.13-248.65
spellingShingle	spine biomechanics freestyle lifting musculoskeletal modeling motion capture spinal loading Biotechnology TP248.13-248.65 Michael von Arx Melanie Liechti Lukas Connolly Lukas Connolly Lukas Connolly Christian Bangerter Michael L. Meier Michael L. Meier Stefan Schmid Stefan Schmid From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles
description	Lifting up objects from the floor has been identified as a risk factor for low back pain, whereby a flexed spine during lifting is often associated with producing higher loads in the lumbar spine. Even though recent biomechanical studies challenge these assumptions, conclusive evidence is still lacking. This study therefore aimed at comparing lumbar loads among different lifting styles using a comprehensive state-of-the-art motion capture-driven musculoskeletal modeling approach. Thirty healthy pain-free individuals were enrolled in this study and asked to repetitively lift a 15 kg-box by applying 1) a freestyle, 2) a squat and 3) a stoop lifting technique. Whole-body kinematics were recorded using a 16-camera optical motion capture system and used to drive a full-body musculoskeletal model including a detailed thoracolumbar spine. Continuous as well as peak compressive, anterior-posterior shear and total loads (resultant load vector of the compressive and shear load vectors) were calculated based on a static optimization approach and expressed as factor body weight (BW). In addition, lumbar lordosis angles and total lifting time were calculated. All parameters were compared among the lifting styles using a repeated measures design. For each lifting style, loads increased towards the caudal end of the lumbar spine. For all lumbar segments, stoop lifting showed significantly lower compressive and total loads (−0.3 to −1.0BW) when compared to freestyle and squat lifting. Stoop lifting produced higher shear loads (+0.1 to +0.8BW) in the segments T12/L1 to L4/L5, but lower loads in L5/S1 (−0.2 to −0.4BW). Peak compressive and total loads during squat lifting occurred approximately 30% earlier in the lifting cycle compared to stoop lifting. Stoop lifting showed larger lumbar lordosis range of motion (35.9 ± 10.1°) than freestyle (24.2 ± 7.3°) and squat (25.1 ± 8.2°) lifting. Lifting time differed significantly with freestyle being executed the fastest (4.6 ± 0.7 s), followed by squat (4.9 ± 0.7 s) and stoop (5.9 ± 1.1 s). Stoop lifting produced lower total and compressive lumbar loads than squat lifting. Shear loads were generally higher during stoop lifting, except for the L5/S1 segment, where anterior shear loads were higher during squat lifting. Lifting time was identified as another important factor, considering that slower speeds seem to result in lower loads.
format	article
author	Michael von Arx Melanie Liechti Lukas Connolly Lukas Connolly Lukas Connolly Christian Bangerter Michael L. Meier Michael L. Meier Stefan Schmid Stefan Schmid
author_facet	Michael von Arx Melanie Liechti Lukas Connolly Lukas Connolly Lukas Connolly Christian Bangerter Michael L. Meier Michael L. Meier Stefan Schmid Stefan Schmid
author_sort	Michael von Arx
title	From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles
title_short	From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles
title_full	From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles
title_fullStr	From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles
title_full_unstemmed	From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles
title_sort	from stoop to squat: a comprehensive analysis of lumbar loading among different lifting styles
publisher	Frontiers Media S.A.
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/7712aa7a4afe4723ab0ec6e49adeb9f2
work_keys_str_mv	AT michaelvonarx fromstooptosquatacomprehensiveanalysisoflumbarloadingamongdifferentliftingstyles AT melanieliechti fromstooptosquatacomprehensiveanalysisoflumbarloadingamongdifferentliftingstyles AT lukasconnolly fromstooptosquatacomprehensiveanalysisoflumbarloadingamongdifferentliftingstyles AT lukasconnolly fromstooptosquatacomprehensiveanalysisoflumbarloadingamongdifferentliftingstyles AT lukasconnolly fromstooptosquatacomprehensiveanalysisoflumbarloadingamongdifferentliftingstyles AT christianbangerter fromstooptosquatacomprehensiveanalysisoflumbarloadingamongdifferentliftingstyles AT michaellmeier fromstooptosquatacomprehensiveanalysisoflumbarloadingamongdifferentliftingstyles AT michaellmeier fromstooptosquatacomprehensiveanalysisoflumbarloadingamongdifferentliftingstyles AT stefanschmid fromstooptosquatacomprehensiveanalysisoflumbarloadingamongdifferentliftingstyles AT stefanschmid fromstooptosquatacomprehensiveanalysisoflumbarloadingamongdifferentliftingstyles
_version_	1718445219476668416

From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles

Ejemplares similares