4.5 Article

A dynamic 3D biomechanical evaluation of the load on the low back during different patient-handling tasks

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 35, 期 10, 页码 1357-1366

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9290(02)00181-1

关键词

patient handling; health care worker; low back; biomechanical load

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to investigate the low-back loading during common patient-handling tasks. Ten female health care workers without formal training in patient handling performed nine patient-handling tasks including turning, lifting and repositioning a male stroke patient. The low-back loading was quantified by net moment, compression, and shear forces at the L4/L5 joint, measured muscle activity (EMG) in erector spinae muscles and rate of perceived exertion (RPE; Borg scale). The experiments were videotaped with a 50 Hz video system using five cameras, and the ground and bedside reaction forces of the health care worker were recorded by means of force platforms and force transducers on the bed. The biomechanical load was calculated using a dynamic 3D seven-segment model of the lower part of the body, and the forces at the L4/L5 joint were estimated by a 14 muscles cross-sectional model of the low back (optimisation procedure). Compression force and torque showed high task dependency whereas the EMG data and the RPE values were more dependent on the subject. The peak compression during two tasks involving lifting the patient (4132/4433 N) was significantly higher than all other tasks. Four tasks involving repositioning the patient in the bed (3179/3091/2932/3094 N) did not differ, but showed higher peak compression than two tasks turning the patient in the bed (1618/2197 N). Thus, in this study the patient-handling tasks could be classified into three groups-characterised by lifting, repositioning or turning-with different levels of peak net torque and compression at the L4/L5 joint. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据