Biomedical subjects

W S Marras

Publications and source records attributed to W S Marras.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMed2000

An assessment of alternate keyboards using finger motion, wrist motion and tendon travel.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the biomechanical impact of commercially available alternate keyboard designs.DESIGN. A repeated measures study was conducted in a laboratory setting, with planned comparisons of Pitch, Roll and Yaw angles of the keyboards. Ten keyboard conditions were tested. Dependent measures included tendon travel, wrist deviations, and wrist and finger kinematics.BACKGROUND. Various alternate keyboard designs have recently been introduced, which vary Pitch, Roll and Yaw angles, separation distance between keyboard halves, and include other novel features such as cup-shaped depressions for the keys. Yet little objective research has been conducted regarding the biomechanical implications of these various design features. This study attempts to quantify the keyboard designs in terms of several recognized risk factors associated with cumulative trauma disorders that arise with repetitive typing. METHODS: Wrist and finger goniometers were used to measure joint motions during a standardized typing task. 15 experienced typists (8 women, 7 men) served as subjects. Regression equations were used to generate estimates of tendon travel.RESULTS. Tendon travel was affected primarily by Pitch but not Roll or Yaw angles while wrist deviations responded to changes in all three angles. Males had significantly greater amount of tendon travel than female subjects; this difference was only partially accounted for by anthropometry. Differences in joint motion may have a greater impact on the amount of tendon travel.CONCLUSIONS. Alternate keyboard designs can affect tendon travel by as much as 11%. RelevanceAs various alternate keyboard designs are marketed, quantifiable biomechanical data such as that provided by this study, will help to assess their impact on the risk factors for cumulative trauma disorders.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

The effects of motion on trunk biomechanics.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature that evaluates the influence of trunk motion on trunk strength and structural loading. BACKGROUND: In recent years, trunk dynamics have been identified as potential risk factors for developing low-back disorders. Consequently, a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms involved in trunk motion is needed. METHODS: This review summarizes the results of 53 studies that have evaluated trunk motion and its impact on several biomechanical outcome measures. The biomechanical measures consisted of trunk strength, intra-abdominal pressure, muscle activity, imposed trunk moments, and spinal loads. Each of these biomechanical measures was discussed in relation to the existing knowledge within each plane of motion (extension, flexion, lateral flexion, twisting, and asymmetric extension). RESULTS: Trunk strength was drastically reduced as dynamic motion increased, and males were impacted more than females. Intra-abdominal pressure seemed to only be affected by trunk dynamics at high levels of force. Trunk moments were found to increase monotonically with increased trunk motion. Both agonistic and antagonistic muscle activities were greater as dynamic characteristics increased. As a result, the three-dimensional spinal loads increase significantly for dynamic exertions as compared to isometric conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Trunk motion has a dramatic affect on the muscle coactivity, which seems to be the underlying source for the decrease strength capability as well as the increased muscle force, IAP, and spinal loads. This review suggests that the ability of the individual to perform a task "safely" might be significantly compromised by the muscle coactivity that accompanies dynamic exertions. It is also important to consider various workplace and individual factors when attempting to reduce the impact of trunk motions during dynamic exertions. Relevance This review provides insight as to why trunk motions are important risk factors to consider when attempting to control low-back disorders in the workplace. It is apparent that trunk motion increases the risk of low-back disorders. To better control low-back disorders in industry, more comprehensive knowledge about the impact of trunk motion is needed. A better understanding of muscle coactivity may ultimately lead to reducing the risk associated with dynamic exertions.

Abdomen↗

PubMed2000

The effect of lumbar back support tension on trunk muscle activity.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the effect of different controlled lumbar back support tightness levels on trunk muscle activity. DESIGN: Two-way repeated measure design assessing lumbar back support tension and submaximal trunk extension moments on trunk muscle electromyographic activity. BACKGROUND: Biomechanical studies on lumbar back supports often use electromyography (EMG) to assess the affect on trunk muscle activity. However, the lumbar back support may alter the electromyographic signal by changing the electrode-muscle distance. METHODS: Subjects performed trunk extensions at three static submaximal extension moment levels (25%, 50% and 75% MVC) while stabilized at the hips and shoulders, with the back support tensioned to three different tightness levels (44.5, 66.7 and 89.0 N) as well as a no-back support condition. RESULTS: Statistical analysis failed to find a significant effect (P</=0.05) of lumbar back support tension on the average normalized EMG across the 10 trunk muscles sampled. CONCLUSIONS: For static experimental tasks, as long as electrodes are protected from direct contact with the back support, studies assessing the effect of lumbar back supports on the trunk muscles via EMG during static tasks are not subject to confounding due to differences in tensions across subjects. RelevanceThe results of this study suggest that variable tensions from previous studies for static exertions with lumbar back supports do not significantly alter the pick-up volume of protected electrodes.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Effect of foot movement and an elastic lumbar back support on spinal loading during free-dynamic symmetric and asymmetric lifting exertions.

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of an elastic lumbar back support on spinal loading and trunk, hip and knee kinematics while allowing subjects to move their feet during lifting exertions. Predicted spinal forces and moments about the L5/S1 intervertebral disc from a three-dimensional EMG-assisted biomechanical model, trunk position, velocities and accelerations, and hip and knee angles were evaluated as a function of wearing an elastic lumbar back support, while lifting two different box weights (13.6 and 22.7 kg) from two different heights (knee and 10 cm above knee height), and from two different asymmetries at the start of the lift (sagittally symmetric and 60 degrees asymmetry). Subjects were allowed to lift using any lifting style they preferred, and were allowed to move their feet during the lifting exertion. Wearing a lumbar back support resulted in no significant differences for any measure of spinal loading as compared with the no-back support condition. However, wearing a lumbar back support resulted in a modest but significant decrease in the maximum sagittal flexion angle (36.5 to 32.7 degrees), as well as reduction in the sagittal trunk extension velocity (47.2 to 40.2 degrees s(-1)). Thus, the use of the elastic lumbar back support provided no protective effect regarding spinal loading when individuals were allowed to move their feet during a lifting exertion.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

An investigation of perceived exertion via whole body exertion and direct muscle force indicators during the determination of the maximum acceptable weight of lift.

The objective of this study was to identify the perceived exertion mechanisms (direct muscle force and whole body exertion) associated with the decision to change the weight of lift during the determination of the maximum acceptable weight of lift (MAWL). Fifteen males lifted a box of unknown weight at a rate of 4.3 lifts/min, and adjusted the weight until their MAWL was reached. Variables such as the predicted muscle forces and heart rate were measured during the lifting exertion, as well as the predicted spinal loading in three dimensions using an EMG-assisted biomechanical model. Multiple logistic regression techniques were used to identify variables that were associated with the decision to change the weights up and down prior to a subsequent lift. Results indicated that the force in the left erector spinae, right internal oblique, and left latissimus dorsi muscles as well as heart rate were associated with decreases in the weight prior to the next lift. It appears that a combination of local factors (muscle force) and whole body exertion factors (heart rate) provide the feedback for the perceived exertion when decreasing the weight. The up-change model indicated that the forces of the right erector spinae, left internal oblique, and the right latissimus dorsi muscles were associated with the decision to increase the weight prior to the next lift. Thus, local factors provide feedback during the decision to increase the weight when starting from light weights. Collectively, these findings indicate that psychophysically determined weight limits may be more sensitive to muscular strain rather than spinal loading.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Measuring trunk motions in industry: variability due to task factors, individual differences, and the amount of data collected.

The focus of this study was to determine the amount of data needed to ensure sufficient accuracy in estimating mean trunk motions of employees performing industrial manual materials handling tasks. Over 450 tasks were selected, in which the load weight and the vertical start and destination heights of the activity remained constant throughout the task. Data were collected as employees did their work at the job site, using the Lumbar Motion Monitor. Variance components were estimated in a hierarchical design and used to compute standard errors of mean trunk kinematic measures. These analyses found task-to-task variation to be much larger than the variability due to either multiple employees performing the same task or to repetitive movements within a task. Also, it was found that no significant reduction in the standard errors occurred when data were gathered for more than three employees and three repetitions of each task by an employee. This study indicates that the vast majority of variability in mean trunk motions is accounted for by the design of work tasks, and variations due to repeated cycles of a task or to employees are rather minor. It is also important as a basis for future work on modelling low-back disorder risk based on a job's trunk kinematic measures.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Occupational low back disorder causation and control.

Low back disorders (LBDs) continue to be the most common musculoskeletal problem in the workplace. It affects many workers, is associated with high costs to industry and the individual, and can negatively influence the quality of life for the workers. Currently there is significant controversy about the work-relatedness of LBD and the ability of ergonomics interventions to control the problem. This paper systematically examines the body of knowledge associated with LBDs and considers how information from different disciplines of study collectively might be used to assess the causality and control of LBD due to physical factors associated with work.

Causality↗

PubMed2000

Prospective validation of a low-back disorder risk model and assessment of ergonomic interventions associated with manual materials handling tasks.

The evaluation of low-back disorder risk associated with materials handling tasks can be performed using a variety of assessment tools. Most of these tools vary greatly in their underlying logic, yet few have been assessed for their predictive ability. It is important to document how well an assessment tool realistically reflects the job's injury risk, since only valid and accurate tools can reliably determine whether a given ergonomic intervention will result in a future reduction in back injuries. The goal of this study was to evaluate how well a previously reported low-back disorder (LBD) risk assessment model (Marras et al. 1993) could predict changes in LBD injury rates as the physical conditions to which employees are exposed were changed. Thirty-six repetitive materials handling jobs from 16 different companies were included in this prospective cohort study. Of these 36 jobs, 32 underwent an ergonomic intervention during the observation period, and four jobs in which no intervention occurred served as a comparison group. The trunk motions and workplace features of 142 employees performing these jobs were observed both before and after workplace interventions were incorporated. In addition, the jobs' LBD rates were documented for these pre- and post-intervention periods. The results indicated that a statistically significant correlation existed between changes in the jobs' estimated LBD risk values and changes in their actual low-back incidence rates over the observation period. Linear and Poisson regression models also were developed to predict a change in a job's incidence rate and the number of LBD on ajob respectively, as a function of the job's risk change using this assessment model. Finally, this prospective study showed which ergonomic interventions consistently reduced the jobs' mean low-back incidence rates. These results support use of the LBD risk model to assess accurately a job's potential to lead to low-back injuries among its employees.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Assessment of the relationship between box weight and trunk kinematics: does a reduction in box weight necessarily correspond to a decrease in spinal loading?

Typically, the simplest and most cost-efficient ergonomic solution to offset the rising costs of low back injuries is to reduce the box weight that is lifted. However, there is limited research on how a worker interacts with the box. In the present study, we quantify the utility of reducing the weight that is lifted - specifically, how changes in the box weight affect trunk kinematics, trunk moments, and ultimately, spinal loads. In the experiment, 15 participants lifted a variety of box weights (from 9.1 to 41.7 kg) from knee height, carried it a distance of 5 feet (1.5 m), and placed it on a shelf at elbow height. For the lower weights, small increases in box weight (3-9 kg) were offset by the trunk dynamics (sagittal velocity), resulting in no difference in spinal loads. At the same time, spinal loads were found to be significantly higher for weights above 25 kg. Thus, when making ergonomic changes (reduction of box weight), it is important to consider how workers will interact with the box. These results indicate that purely weight-based ergonomic controls might not sufficiently reduce the risk of low back disorders. Furthermore, this study provides additional evidence of the utility of using more complex spinal load models (dynamic, multiple muscle models) when evaluating highly dynamic and complex tasks.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

The quantification of low back disorder using motion measures. Methodology and validation.

STUDY DESIGN: Trunk angular motion features were used as a means to quantify the extent of a low back disorder in healthy people and patients with chronic low back disorders. OBJECTIVE: To refine and validate a previously reported means of quantifying the extent of a low back disorder. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: Many assessment tools of low back disorder are subjective. A quantitative assessment tool would facilitate the tracking of the recovery and help document the appropriateness of treatments. METHODS: The trunk motion characteristics of 374 healthy people and 335 patients with chronic low back disorders of varying severity were documented as they flexed and extended their trunks in five different planes of motion. The trunk motion features were normalized as a function of age and gender. Four classification techniques were used to assess the ability of the quantitative motion measure to identify those with and without low back disorders. In addition, 31 patients were observed longitudinally to determine whether the motion measures agreed with observed changes in back pain symptoms. RESULTS: The quantitative trunk motion measure distinguished between people with low back disorders and healthy people between 88% and 94% of the time, depending on which classification system was used. Sensitivity and specificity varied between 83% and 97%. The quantitative measure also showed promise as a means to distinguish between muscle-based and structure-based low back disorders. Prospective findings indicated that the quantification system agreed well with clinical observations of progress. CONCLUSIONS: The quantification of trunk motion can serve as a measure of the extent of a low back disorder. When considered along with other clinical information, the ability to assess and treat low back disorders is enhanced.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Variability in spine loading model performance.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the sources of variability associated with an EMG-assisted model of spine loading. DESIGN: In vivo measurements of trunk dynamics, lifting moments and muscle activities were used as inputs into an EMG-assisted spine loading model. BACKGROUND: Several types of variability are inherent in biomechanical assessments of risk associated with trunk bending motions during lifting. Variability may occur as a function of variations in spine loading due to either subject variations in motion profiles (kinematics) or biomechanical model performance. METHODS: Twelve experienced and inexperienced materials handlers performed 10 repeated lifts where load weight, asymmetry, and velocity were varied. The experiment was replicated on a second day to assess day to day variability. RESULTS: These model performance variables indicated that variability was mainly a function of subject characteristics and experience. Minor variations in variability were associated with the task asymmetry and weight lifted. Advanced analyses suggested that experienced workers had a greater range of back motion compared to inexperienced workers which would affect the length-strength component of the model calibration. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that for the results of an EMG-assisted model to be accurate, it is important to ensure that the model reflects a realistic relationship between the trunk muscle length and the muscle force production capacity. Underestimation if this relationship can degrade model fidelity and robustness. RELEVANCE: These results imply that by properly calibrating the model it is then reasonable to assume that the vast majority of variations observed in repeated exertions of a particular trial are due to kinematic and kinetic differences inherent in the muscle control system and not a function of model randomness.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Variation in spinal load and trunk dynamics during repeated lifting exertions.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the variability in lifting motions, trunk moments, and spinal loads associated with repeated lifting exertions and to identify workplace factors that influence the biomechanical variability. DESIGN: Measurement of trunk dynamics, moments and muscle activities were used as inputs into EMG assisted model of spinal loading. BACKGROUND: Traditional biomechanical models assume repeated performance of a lifting task produces little variability in spinal load because the assessments overlook variability in lifting dynamics and muscle coactivity. METHODS: Five experienced and seven inexperienced manual materials handlers performed 10 repeated lifts at each combination of load weight, task asymmetry and lifting velocity. RESULTS: Box weight, task asymmetry and job experience influenced the magnitude and variability of spinal load during repeated lifting exertions. Surprisingly, experienced subjects demonstrated significantly greater spinal loads and within-subject variability in spinal load than inexperienced subjects. Trial-to-trial variability accounted for 14% of the total variation in compression overall and 32% in lateral shear load. Although the mean spinal load was safely below the NIOSH recommended limit; due to variability about the mean, more than 20% of the lifts exceeded the recommended limit. CONCLUSION: Spinal load changed markedly from one exertion to the next despite identical task requirements. Trial-to-trial variability in kinematics, kinetics, and spinal load were influenced by workplace factors, and may play a role in the risk of low-back pain. RELEVANCE: Ergonomic assessments considering only the mean value of spinal load overlook the fact that a large fraction of the lifts may exceed recommended levels.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Spine loading and trunk kinematics during team lifting.

Two-person or team lifting is a popular method for handling materials under awkward or heavy lifting conditions. While many guidelines and standards address safe lifting limits for individual lifting, there are no such limits for team lifting, and these lifts are poorly understood. The literature associated with team lifting offers some interesting paradoxes. Many studies have indicated that people lift less per individual under team conditions compared with one-person lifting. Yet, at least one study has reported an increase in team-lifting capacity when subjects were height-matched. The current study explored the spine loading characteristics of one- and two-person lifting teams when subjects lifted under several sagittally symmetric and asymmetric conditions. Spine compression was lower for two person lifts for a given weight, while lifting in sagittally symmetric conditions whereas lateral shear became much greater for two-person lifts under asymmetric lifting conditions. This study has linked these changes to differences in trunk kinematic patterns adopted during one- versus two-person lifting.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Relation between spinal load factors and the high-risk probability of occupational low-back disorder.

Spinal compression is traditionally assumed the principal biomechanical mechanism associated with occupationally related low-back disorders (LBD). However, there is little conclusive evidence demonstrating that compression is related to occupational LBD. The objective of this research was to examine whether axial compression in the lumbar spine can predict the probability that a lifting task should be classified as high risk for LBD. Furthermore, the improvement in predictive ability was examined when analyses include 3-D, dynamic biomechanical factors. Ten experienced warehouse workers transferred 12 pallet loads of boxes in a simulation of warehouse working conditions. Biomechanical estimates of 2-D static and 3-D dynamic spinal compression, shear loads and tissue strains were achieved from the subjects during each lifting exertion. Each lift was also assessed for probability of high LBD risk classification. Regression analyses were performed to examine the relationship between biomechanical and epidemiological factors. Results indicate 2-D static estimates of spinal compression describe approximately 13% of the probability of high LBD risk variability. Dynamic estimates of spinal compression describe > 44% of the variability. A multifactor regression model including 3-D spinal loads and tissue strains further improved the predictive ability, but the improvement was not statistically significant. This research demonstrates the biomechanical source of low-back pain is dynamic, multifaceted and multidimensional. Significant improvements in ergonomics assessments can be achieved by examining interactions of dynamic biomechanical factors. Unfortunately, this improved predictive ability is generated at the high cost of computational complexity. However, less realistic biomechanical representations may ignore the injury mechanisms associated with the greater number of workplace injuries. Thus, improved understanding of the dynamic biomechanical interactions influencing the tolerance and injury mechanisms of the spine may permit more accurate assessments of workplace injury factors associated with LBD and reduced incidence of occupationally related low-back pain.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Significance of biomechanical and physiological variables during the determination of maximum acceptable weight of lift.

The aim was to identify which biomechanical and physiological variables were associated with the decision to change the weight of lift during the determination of the maximum acceptable weight of lift (MAWL) in a psychophysical study. Fifteen male college students lifted a box of unknown weight at 4.3 lifts/min, and adjusted the weight until their MAWL was reached. Variables such as heart rate, trunk positions, velocities and accelerations were measured during the lifting, as well as estimated spinal loading in terms of moments and spinal forces in three dimensions using an EMG-assisted biomechanical model. Multiple logistic regression techniques identified variables associated with the decision to change the weights up and down prior to a subsequent lift. Results indicated that heart rate, predicted sagittal lift moment and low back disorder (LBD) risk index were associated with decreases in the weight prior to the next lift. Thus, historical measures of LBD risk (e.g. compression, shear force) were not associated with decreases in weight prior to the next lift. Additionally, the magnitudes of the predicted spinal forces and LBD risk were all very high at the MAWL when compared with literature sources of tolerance as well as observational studies on LBD risk. Our findings indicate that the psychophysical methodology may be useful for the decision to lower the weight of loads that may present extreme levels of risk of LBD; however, the psychophysical methodology does not seem to help in the decision to stop changing the weight at a safe load weight.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

A comprehensive analysis of low-back disorder risk and spinal loading during the transferring and repositioning of patients using different techniques.

Although patient handlers suffer from low-back injuries at an alarming rate worldwide, there has been limited research quantifying the risk for the specific tasks performed by the patient handlers. The current study used both a comprehensive evaluation system (low-back disorder risk model) and theoretical model (biomechanical spinal loading model) to evaluate risk of LBD of 17 participants (12 experienced and five inexperienced) performing several patient handling tasks. Eight of the participants were female and nine were male. Several patient transfers were evaluated as well as repositioning of the patient in bed; these were performed with one and two people. The patient transfers were between bed and wheelchair (fixed and removable arms) and between commode chair and hospital chair. A 'standard' patient (a 50 kg co-operative female; non-weight bearing but had use of upper body) was used in all patient handling tasks. Overall, patient handling was found to be an extremely hazardous job that had substantial risk of causing a low-back injury whether with one or two patient handlers. The greatest risk was associated with the one-person transferring techniques with the actual task being performed having a limited effect. The repositioning techniques were found to have significant risk of LBD associated with them with the single hook method having the highest LBD risk and spinal loads that exceeded the tolerance limits (worst patient handling job). The two-person draw sheet repositioning technique had the lowest LBD risk and spinal loads but still had relatively high spinal loads and LBD risk. Thus, even the safest of tasks (of the tasks evaluated in this study) had significant risk. Additionally, the current study represented a 'best' case scenario since the patient was relatively light and co-operative. Thus, patient handling in real situations such as in a nursing home, would be expected to be worse. Therefore, to have an impact on LBD, it is necessary to provide mechanical lift assist devices.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Effects of box features on spine loading during warehouse order selecting.

Low back disorders in distribution centres or warehouses have been identified as an area of elevated risk in many industries. The task of an order selector requires workers manually to lift boxes from storage bins to a mobile pallet. This study explored the effect of box features and box location when lifting from a pallet in a storage bin upon spine loading. Ten experienced warehouse workers were asked to lift boxes from a pallet while the size, weight, handle features and location of the box on a pallet were changed. An EMG-assisted model was employed to assess spine compression, lateral shear and anterior-posterior shear during the lifts. The position from which the worker lifted a box on a pallet had the most profound effect on spine loading while the lower level of the pallet represented the greatest loadings on the spine. Box weight did not appear to be a feasible means of controlling spine loading unless its position on the pallet could also be controlled. The inclusion of handles had an effect similar to reducing the box weight by 4.5 kg, whereas box size did not effectively affect spine loading. The mechanisms by which these factors affect spine loading are discussed.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

The effectiveness of commonly used lifting assessment methods to identify industrial jobs associated with elevated risk of low-back disorders.

Low-back disorders (LBD) continue to be the most costly and common musculoskeletal problem facing society today. Investigators have developed tools or measures that are intended to identify jobs that will probably be associated with an elevated risk of low-back disorders. However, an important and not widely discussed issue associated with these tools and procedures has been that of the validity or effectiveness of the tools. Therefore the objective of this study was to evaluate the validity and effectiveness of two commonly used types of LBD assessment methods in terms of their ability to correctly associate jobs with LBD risk. The 1981 NIOSH Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting and the 1991 NIOSH revised lifting equation, along with psychophysical measures were assessed for their ability to correctly identify high-, medium-, and low-risk (of LBD) jobs. Risk was defined according to a database of 353 industrial jobs representing over 21 million person-hours of exposure. The results indicated that both NIOSH measures were predictive and resulted in odds ratios between 3.1 and 4.6. Higher odds ratios were found when the maximum horizontal distance was used to assess a job compared to the average horizontal distance. Further analyses indicated that the two NIOSH assessment methods classified risk in very different ways. The 1981 NIOSH Guide demonstrated good specificity (91%) in that it identified low-risk jobs well but it also displayed low sensitivity by only correctly identifying 10% of the high-risk jobs. The 1993 NIOSH revised lifting equation, on the other hand, had better sensitivity. It correctly identified 73% of the high-risk jobs but did not identify low- and medium-risk jobs well. Using psychophysical criteria it was observed that 60% of the high-risk jobs would be judged to be acceptable, whereas, 64% and 91% of the medium- and low-risk jobs, respectively, would be judged to be acceptable. This study indicates that the different measures have various strengths and weaknesses. When controlling for occupational LBD it should be recognized that a variety of measures exist and that the measure that most appropriately assesses risk depends upon the characteristics of the job.

Databases, Factual↗