When is a lifting movement too asymmetric to identify low-back loading by 2-D analysis?

In ergonomics research, two-dimensional (2-D) biomechanical models are often used to study the mechanical loading of the low back in lifting movements. When lifting movements are asymmetric, errors of unknown size may be introduced in a 2-D analysis. In the current study, an estimation of these errors was made by comparing the outcome of a 2-D analysis to the results of a recently developed and validated 3-D model. Four subjects made two repetitions of five lifting movements, differing in the amount of asymmetry. The results showed a significant underestimation of the peak torque by 20, 36 and 61% when the initial position of a box was rotated 30, 60 and 90 degrees with respect to the sagittal plane of the subject. The main cause of this underestimation was a pelvic twist, resulting in an erroneous projection of a pelvic marker on to the sagittal plane due to pelvic twist. It is suggested that from 30 degrees box rotation a 2-D analysis may easily lead to wrong conclusions when it is used to study asymmetric lifting.

[1]  J. Kelsey,et al.  An epidemiologic study of lifting and twisting on the job and risk for acute prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc , 1984, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[2]  A Plamondon,et al.  Pivoting with the load. An alternative for protecting the back in asymmetrical lifting. , 1993, Spine.

[3]  C. E. Clauser,et al.  Anthropometric Relationships of Body and Body Segment Moments of Inertia , 1980 .

[4]  W S Marras,et al.  Biomechanical risk factors for occupationally related low back disorders. , 1995, Ergonomics.

[5]  D B Chaffin,et al.  A computerized biomechanical model-development of and use in studying gross body actions. , 1969, Journal of biomechanics.

[6]  C Frigo,et al.  Three-dimensional model for studying the dynamic loads on the spine during lifting. , 1990, Clinical biomechanics.

[7]  F. Veldpaus,et al.  A least-squares algorithm for the equiform transformation from spatial marker co-ordinates. , 1988, Journal of biomechanics.

[8]  A Mital,et al.  Biomechanical analysis of manual lifting tasks. , 1987, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[9]  T P Andriacchi,et al.  Influence of dynamic factors on the lumbar spine moment in lifting. , 1988, Ergonomics.

[10]  D B Chaffin,et al.  A dynamic biomechanical evaluation of lifting maximum acceptable loads. , 1984, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  M. de Looze,et al.  Validation of a dynamic linked segment model to calculate joint moments in lifting. , 1992, Clinical biomechanics.

[12]  A. Plamondon,et al.  Pivoting with the load: An alternative for protecting the back in asymmetrical lifting , 1993 .

[13]  H M Toussaint,et al.  Segment inertial parameter evaluation in two anthropometric models by application of a dynamic linked segment model. , 1996, Journal of biomechanics.

[14]  I. Kingma,et al.  Validation of a full body 3-D dynamic linked segment model , 1996 .