These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed


  • Title: Effect of changes in the lumbar posture in lifting on trunk muscle and spinal loads: A combined in vivo, musculoskeletal, and finite element model study.
    Author: Khoddam-Khorasani P, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A.
    Journal: J Biomech; 2020 May 07; 104():109728. PubMed ID: 32147242.
    Abstract:
    Irrespective of the lifting technique (squat or stoop), the lumbar spine posture (more kyphotic versus more lordotic) adopted during lifting activities is an important parameter affecting the active-passive spinal load distribution. The advantages in either posture while lifting remains, however, a matter of debate. To comprehensively investigate the role on the trunk biomechanics of changes in the lumbar posture (lordotic, free or kyphotic) during forward trunk flexion, validated musculoskeletal and finite element models, driven by in vivo kinematics data, were used to estimate detailed internal tissue stresses-forces in and load-sharing among various joint active-passive tissues. Findings indicated that the lordotic posture, as compared to the kyphotic one, resulted in marked increases in back global muscle activities (~14-19%), overall segmental compression (~7.5-46.1%) and shear (~5.4-47.5%) forces, and L5-S1 facet joint forces (by up to 80 N). At the L5-S1 level, the lordotic lumbar posture caused considerable decreases in the moment resisted by passive structures (spine and musculature, ~14-27%), negligible reductions in the maximum disc fiber strains (by ~0.4-4.7%) and small increases in intradiscal pressure (~1.8-3.4%). Collectively and with due consideration of the risk of fatigue and viscoelastic creep especially under repetitive lifts, current results support a free posture (in between the extreme kyphotic and lordotic postures) with moderate contributions from both active and passive structures during lifting activities involving trunk forward flexion.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]