PubMed · 14366550
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J D BUFFAT. 1954. [Cervical nerve root compression].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14366550/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
INTRODUCTION: The vast majority of ergonomics research has addressed the demands of work in standing or sitting postures, and understandably so. However, many workers (e.g., underground miners, aircraft baggage handlers, plumbers, agricultural workers, mechanics, and others) are often required to adopt postures such as kneeling, stooping, squatting, or lying down for significant periods of the workday. METHOD: A literature search was performed using the ISI Web of Science database (for years 1980-2004). Articles retrieved from this search were evaluated in terms of relevance to assessing physical capabilities of workers in these postures and/or the musculoskeletal epidemiology associated with these postures. RESULTS: Work in unusual and restricted postures was associated with significantly higher rates of musculoskeletal complaints compared to workers not adopting these postures in epidemiology studies (Odds Ratios ranging from 1.13 to 13). Some studies suggested a dose-response relationship, with longer exposures leading to increased musculoskeletal complaints. Physical strength and psychophysical lifting capacity vary significantly as unusual or restricted postures are adopted, with lower lifting capacities evident in the kneeling, squatting, and lying positions. CONCLUSIONS: Workers who adopt unusual or restricted postures appear to be at higher risk of musculoskeletal complaints and often exhibit reduced strength and lifting capacity. Research needs in this area include improved exposure assessment tools, studies of intervention effectiveness, adaptations of the body in response of work in unusual postures, and elucidation of relevant injury pathways. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: Workers who adopt unusual or restricted postures in their work often experience higher musculoskeletal injury rates. If awkward postures cannot be eliminated in the workplace, jobs should be designed in accordance with the reduced strength and lifting capabilities observed in these postures.
The purpose of this study is to review the reported return-to-work rates following whiplash and back-injury. The return-to-work rates for the 71 relevant studies that were reviewed varied from 29% to 100% with a median of 67%. The results suggest considerable residual return-to-work potential for persons with whiplash and back injury. Return-to-work rates were substantially higher for motor vehicle (96%) compared to work-related (71%) studies and also considerably higher for whiplash (95%) compared to back injuries (65%). It is suggested that these indices may form potential benchmarks for personal injury claims outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the published rates of return to work following whiplash and back injury. This criterion of return to work is not without limitations or controversy and Pfingsten, Hildebrandt Leibing, Franz and Saur (1997) noted: "... a high variability exists in data on return-to-work. Results often range from either no return to a very high return rate, with an approximate average of 68% following multimodal treatment procedures...".
Explore the source record for details and available documents.