Repository logo
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Log In
New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. CRIS
  3. Publication
  4. From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles
 

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

URI
https://arbor.bfh.ch/handle/arbor/43900
Version
Published
Date Issued
2021-11-04
Author(s)
von Arx, Michael
Liechti, Melanie
Connolly, Lukas
Bangerter, Christian  
Meier, Michael L.
Schmid, Stefan  
Type
Article
Language
English
Abstract
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.
Subjects
R Medicine (General)
DOI
10.24451/arbor.16373
https://doi.org/10.24451/arbor.16373
Publisher DOI
10.3389/fbioe.2021.769117
Journal
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
ISSN
2296-4185
Publisher URL
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2021.769117/full
Organization
Gesundheit  
Physiotherapie  
Biomechanik der Wirbelsäule  
Volume
9
Publisher
Frontiers Media
Submitter
Schmid, Stefan
Citation apa
von Arx, M., Liechti, M., Connolly, L., Bangerter, C., Meier, M. L., & Schmid, S. (2021). From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles. In Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology (Vol. 9). Frontiers Media. https://doi.org/10.24451/arbor.16373
File(s)
Loading...
Thumbnail Image

open access

Name

von Arx et al_2021_From Stoop to Squat.pdf

License
Attribution 4.0 International
Version
published
Size

3.25 MB

Format

Adobe PDF

Checksum (MD5)

381b32264c6b33323c47069cb47efdf5

About ARBOR

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - System hosted and mantained by 4Science

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback
  • Our institution