No Access

MUSCULOSKELETAL SIMULATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FOOT POSITION AND STRESS OF THE L4–L5 JOINT IN SUPPORTING STANDING-UP MOTION TO PREVENT LOW BACK PAIN AMONG CAREGIVERS

KODAI KITAGAWA

Graduate School of Life Science and Systems Engineering, Kyushu Institute of Technology, Kitakyushu, Japan

E-mail Address: kitagawakitagawa156@gmail.com

Corresponding author.

Search for more papers by this author

YOSHIKI NISHISAKO

Graduate School of Life Science and Systems Engineering, Kyushu Institute of Technology, Kitakyushu, Japan

Search for more papers by this author

TAKAYUKI NAGASAKI

Department of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medical Science and Welfare, Tohoku Bunka Gakuen University, Sendai, Japan

Search for more papers by this author

SOTA NAKANO

Department of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Nursing and Welfare, Kyushu University of Nursing and Social Welfare, Tamana, Japan

Search for more papers by this author

, and

CHIKAMUNE WADA

Graduate School of Life Science and Systems Engineering, Kyushu Institute of Technology, Kitakyushu, Japan

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219519419400165Cited by:9 (Source: Crossref)

This article is part of the issue:

Special Issue — 21st International Conference on Mechanics in Medicine and Biology 2018 Best Paper Awards; Guest Editors: Fong-Chin Su and Chun-Li Lin

Abstract

Most caregivers have low back pain which results from frequent care activities such as assistance motion that supports transfer and standing-up. Various parameters are associated with the caregiver’s lumbar load. In this study, we focus on the foot position of the caregiver as one of the subjective adjustable parameters. This study aimed to analyze the relationship between foot position and stresses of the L4–L5 joint as lumbar load during supporting standing-up via musculoskeletal simulation. The musculoskeletal model was tasked with simulating supported standing-up motions based on a specific pelvic position and angular variation of each joint. The anterior foot (left foot) was fixed, and the posterior foot (right foot) was moved to three backward positions and three rightward positions, thus obtaining nine posterior foot positions. Compressive, anteroposterior shear, and lateral shear stresses of the L4–L5 joint were compared for nine foot positions. The results showed that as the anteroposterior distance and lateral widths between both feet increased, the average value of compressive/shear stress of the L4–L5 joint during motions decreased. From our findings, we hypothesized that the foot position may reduce the lumbar load and prevent low back pain.

Keywords:

References

1. Holtermann A, Clausen T, Jørgensen MB, Burdorf A, Andersen LL , Patient handling and risk for developing persistent low-back pain among female healthcare workers, Scandinavian J Work, Environ Health 39 :164–169, 2013. Web of Science, Google Scholar
2. Iwakiri K, Takahashi M, Sotoyama M, Liu X, Koda S , Low back pain among workers in care facilities for the elderly after introducing welfare equipment, Sangyo eiseigaku zasshi = J Occupat Health 58 :130–142, 2016. (in Japanese) Google Scholar
3. Koppelaar E, Knibbe JJ, Miedema HS, Burdorf A , The influence of individual and organisational factors on nurses’ behaviour to use lifting devices in healthcare, Appl Ergono 44 :532–537, 2013. Web of Science, Google Scholar
4. Schibye B, Hansen AF, Hye-Knudsen CT, Essendrop M, Böcher M, Skotte J , Biomechanical analysis of the effect of changing patient-handling technique, Appl Ergono 34 :115–123, 2003. Web of Science, Google Scholar
5. Clemes SA, Haslam CO, Haslam RA , What constitute effective manual handling training? A systematic review, Occup Med 60 :101–107, 2010. Google Scholar
6. Hornbæk M, Hellevik J, Schaarup C, Dencker M, Hejlesen O , Usability of eye tracking for studying the benefits of e-learning tutorials on safe moving and handling techniques, Proc 16th Scandinavian Conf Health Inform 2018, Vol. 151, Linköping University Electronic Press, pp. 56–61, 2018. Google Scholar
7. Nakano S, Wada C, Katoh H , Relationships between the foot placement of the care assistant and the force required to help a person who needs transfer assistance to stand, Rigakuryoho Kagaku 30 :725–728, 2015. (in Japanese) Google Scholar
8. Merryweather AS, Loertscher MC, Bloswick DS , A revised back compressive force estimation model for ergonomic evaluation of lifting tasks, Work 34 :263–272, 2009. Google Scholar
9. Rajaee MA, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A, Plamondon A, Schmidt H , Comparative evaluation of six quantitative lifting tools to estimate spine loads during static activities, Appl Ergono 48 :22–32, 2015. Web of Science, Google Scholar
10. De Zee M, Hansen L, Wong C, Rasmussen J, Simonsen EB , A generic detailed rigid-body lumbar spine model, J Biomech 40 :1219–1227, 2007. Web of Science, Google Scholar
11. Damsgaard M, Rasmussen J, Christensen ST, Surma E, De Zee M , Analysis of musculoskeletal systems in the AnyBody Modeling System, Simul Modell Pract Theory 14 :1100–1111, 2006. Web of Science, Google Scholar
12. McGill SM, Norman RW , Dynamically and statically determined low back moments during lifting, J Biomech 18 :877–885, 1985. Web of Science, Google Scholar
13. Chaffin DB , Primary prevention of low back pain through the application of biomechanics in manual materials handling tasks, G Ital Med Lav Erg 27 :40–50, 2005. Google Scholar
14. Bazrgari B, Shirazi-Adl A, Arjmand N , Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads, Euro Spine J 16 :687–699, 2007. Web of Science, Google Scholar
15. O’Sullivan PB, Mitchell T, Bulich P, Waller R, Holte J , The relationship between posture and back muscle endurance in industrial workers with flexion-related low back pain, Manual Therapy 11 :264–271, 2006. Google Scholar