The effect of complex dynamic lifting and lowering characteristics on trunk muscles recruitment

Fadi A. Fathallah; William S. Marras; Mohamad Parnianpour

doi:10.1007/BF02767359

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

September 1997, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 121–138

The effect of complex dynamic lifting and lowering characteristics on trunk muscles recruitment

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Fadi A. Fathallah
William S. Marras
Mohamad Parnianpour

Article

DOI: 10.1007/BF02767359

Cite this article as:: Fathallah, F.A., Marras, W.S. & Parnianpour, M. J Occup Rehab (1997) 7: 121. doi:10.1007/BF02767359

7 Citations
72 Downloads

Abstract

A better understanding of how the neuromuscular spinal system behaves during lifting and lowering could provide more insight about potential causes of occupational low back disorders (LBDs), and could help in the prevention and rehabilitation process of these disorders. The purpose of this study was to quantify trunk muscle activities under various whole-body free-dynamic symmetric and asymmetric complex lifting and lowering tasks. Eleven male subjects with no prior history of LBDs participated in the study. Electromyographic activities of ten trunk muscles were monitored while subjects either symmetrically or asymmetrically lifted and lowered a box under three different speeds and three weights. The results showed that all ten muscles were responsive to various experimental conditions with the erector spinae and internal oblique muscles showing the greatest response. Substantial electromyographic activities were observed in muscles that were on the contralateral side of the load. Lowering conditions yielded consistently lower muscular activities than their corresponding lifting conditions. These results show that it is essential to consider multiple trunk muscles in modeling efforts of quantifying spinal loading, as well as for back rehabilitation research purposes.

Key words

electromyography lifting lowering muscle activity asymmetry

References

1.
Andersson GB. The epidemiology of spinal disorders. In: Frymoyer JW, ed.The adult spine. New York: Raven Press, 1997, pp. 93–148.Google Scholar
2.
Webster BS, Snook SH. The cost of 1989 workers’ compensation low bak pain claims.Spine 1994; 19: 1111–1116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.
Snook SH: Low back pain in industry. In: White AA, Gordon, SL, eds.American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Symposium on Idiopathic Low Back Pain. St. Louis: CV Mosby, 1982, pp. 23–37.Google Scholar
4.
Spengler DM, Bigos SJ, Martin BA, Zeh J, Lloyd F, Nachemson A. Back injuries in industry: A retrospective study. I. Overview and cost analysis.Spine 1986; 11: 241–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.
Chaffin DB, Andersson GB.Occupational biomechanics (2nd Ed.). New York: John Wiley, 1991.Google Scholar
6.
Granata KP, Marras WS. An EMG-assisted biodynamic lifting model simulating spinal loads during asymmetric trunk extensions.J Biomech 1993; 26: 1429–1438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.
Marras WS, Sommerich CM. A three-dimensional motion model of loads on the lumbar spine: I. Model structure.Hum Fact 1991; 32: 123–137.Google Scholar
8.
NIOSH. Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Publication No. 81–122, 1981.
9.
Schultz AB, Andersson G.B. Analysis of loads on the lumbar spine.Spine 1981; 6: 76–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.
Shirazi-Adl, A. Strain in fibers of a lumbar disc: Analysis of the role of lifting in producing disc prolapse.Spine 1989; 14: 96–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.
Chaffin DB, Baker W. A biomechanical model for analysis of symmetric sagittal plane lifting.AIIE Trans 1970, 11: 16–27.Google Scholar
12.
Frievalds A, Chaffin DB, Garg A, Lee KS. A dynamic evaluation of lifting maximum acceptable loads.J Biomech 1984; 17: 252–262.Google Scholar
13.
Goel VK, Hans JS, Ahn JY,et al. Loads on the human spine during dynamic lifting with knees straight.Adv Bioeng 1991; 20: 33–36.Google Scholar
14.
Gracovetsky, S.The spinal engine. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
15.
Jager M, Luttman A. Biomechanical analysis and assessment of lumbar tress during load lifting using a dynamic 19-segment human model.Ergonomics 1989; 32: 93–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.
Granata KP, Marras WS. The influence of trunk muscle coactivity on dynamic spinal loads.Spine 1995; 20: 913–918.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.
Marras WS, Mirka GA. A comprehensive evaluation of trunk response to asymmetric trunk motion.Spine 1992; 17: 318–326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.
Zetterberg C. Andersson GB, Schultz AB. The activity of individual trunk muscles during heavy physical loading.Spine 1987; 12: 1035–1040.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.
Shirazi-Adl A, Ahmed AM, Shrivastava SC. Mechanical response of a lumbar segment in axial torque alone and combined with compression.Spine 1986; 11: 914–927.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.
Shirazi-Adl A. Biomechanics of the lumbar spine in sagittal/lateral moments.Spine 1994; 19: 914–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.
McGill SM, Norman RW, Cholewicki J. A simple polynomial that predicts low-back compression during complex 3-D tasks.Ergonomics 1996; 39: 1107–1118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.
Lavender SA, Tsuang YH, Andersson GB. Trunk muscle activation and cocontraction while resisting applied moments in a twisted posture.Ergonomics 1993; 36: 1145–1158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.
Lavender SA, Andersson GB, Tsuang YH, Hafezi A. Trunk muscle coactivation: The effects of load asymmetry and load magnitude. In:Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 1991, pp. 738–742.Google Scholar
24.
Marras WS, King AI, Joynt RL. Measurements of loads on the lumbar spine under isometric and isokinetic conditions.Spine 1984; 9: 176–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.
Marras WS, Wongsam PE, Rangarajulu SL. Trunk motion during lifting: The relative cost.Int J Ind Ergon 1986; 1: 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.
Marras WS, Mirka GA. Muscle activities during asymmetric trunk angular accelerations.J Orthop Res 1990; 8: 824–832.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.
Kim JY, Marras WS. Quantitative trunk muscle electromyography during lifting at different speeds.Int J Ind Ergon 1987; 2: 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.
McGill S, Norman R. Partitioning of the L4-L5 dynamic moment into disc, ligamentous, and muscular components during lifting.Spine 1986; 11: 666–678.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.
Fathallah FA, Marras WS, Parnianpour M. the role of complex simultaneous trunk motions in the risk of occupationally-related low back disorders.Spine (in press).
30.
Marras WS, Lavender SA, Leurgans SE, Fathallah FA, Allread WG, Ferguson SA, Rajulu SL. Biomechanical risk factors for occupationally related low back disorders.Ergonomics 1995; 38: 377–410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.
SAS Institute Inc.SAS/STAT User’s Guide Release 6.03. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1988.Google Scholar
32.
StatSoft Inc.STATISTICA for Windows (Computer program manual). Tulsa, OK: StatSoft, 1994.Google Scholar
33.
Ross EC, Parnianpour M, Martin D. The effects of resistance level on muscle coordination patterns and movement profile during trunk extension.Spine 1993; 18: 1829–1838.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.
Ladin Z, Murthy KR, De Luca CJ. Mechanical recuitment of low-back muscles: Theoretical predictions and experimental validation.Spine 1989; 9: 927–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.
Seroussi SE, Pope MH. The relationship between trunk muscle electromyography and lifting moments in the sagittal and frontal plane.J. Biomech 1987; 20: 135–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.
Komi PV. Measurement of force-velocity relationship in human muscle under concentric and eccentric contractions.Med Sports Biomech III 1973; 8: 224–229.Google Scholar
37.
Komi PV. Relationship between muscle tension, EMG and velocity of contraction under concentric and eccentric work.New Devel Elect Clin Neurophysiol 1973; 1: 596–606.Google Scholar
38.
Moritani T, Muramatsu S, Muro M. Activity of motor units during concentric and eccentric contractions.Am J Phys Med 1988; 66: 338–350.Google Scholar
39.
Mirka GA. Quantification of EMG normalization error.Ergonomics 1991; 34: 343–352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Fadi A. Fathallah
- 1
William S. Marras
- 1
Mohamad Parnianpour
- 1

1.Biodynamics LaboratoryThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus
2.The Liberty Mutual Research Center for Safety and HealthHopkinton
3.Liberty Mutual Research Center for Safety and HealthHopkinton

Personalised recommendations

Actions

Unlimited access to the full article
Instant download
Include local sales tax if applicable

Subscribe to Journal

Get Access to

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

for the whole of 2017

The effect of complex dynamic lifting and lowering characteristics on trunk muscles recruitment

Abstract

Key words

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cookies