Effectiveness of a manual furniture handling device in reducing low back disorders risk factors

2007 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica K. Paskiewicz ◽  
Fadi A. Fathallah
2011 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 488-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanna Pietikäinen ◽  
Karri Silventoinen ◽  
Pia Svedberg ◽  
Kristina Alexanderson ◽  
Antti Huunan-Seppälä ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Steven A. Lavender ◽  
William S. Marras ◽  
Sue A. Ferguson ◽  
Riley E. Splittstoesser ◽  
Gang Yang ◽  
...  

Low back disorders continue to be the most common and significant work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the US. Identifying what constitutes a “safe” physical workload has been the biggest challenge facing injury prevention efforts. Prior low back injury risk models have focused on manufacturing activities where there is limited variability in the parameters used to describe the exposures to low back disorder risk factors. Lifting tasks in distribution centers can have considerably more variability in load and physical layout. The goal of this project was to identify and quantify measures that characterize the biomechanical risk factors, including measures of the load moment exposure, and measures that characterize the duty cycle that are predictive of low back disorders in distribution centers. Thus, our hypothesis was that we could define a relationship between moment exposure parameters and the low back disorder incidence rates. A cross-sectional study was designed to examine the mechanical risk factors responsible for reported low back injury in distributions centers. The physical exposure was measured on 195 workers on 50 jobs in 21 distribution centers using a sonic-based Moment Exposure Tracking System (METS). The METS measures load, force, load moment, torso kinematics, and temporal parameters of the job simultaneously. For each job, low back injury rates were collected retrospectively from the company's records over the prior 3-year period. The data were used to develop a risk model designed to predict back injury risk based upon direct measures of load and load moment exposure. The model incorporates biomechanical variables which include the load moment and horizontal sliding forces, as well as a temporal variable indicating the opportunity for micro-breaks during the work process. Overall, the presented model has very good sensitivity (87%) and specificity (73%).


2004 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 427-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A Hess ◽  
Steven Hecker ◽  
Marc Weinstein ◽  
Mindy Lunger

Work ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
Benedicta O. Asante ◽  
Catherine Trask ◽  
Olugbenga Adebayo ◽  
Brenna Bath

Spine ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (7) ◽  
pp. 789-798 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise M. Oleske ◽  
Steven A. Lavender ◽  
Gunnar B. J. Andersson ◽  
Mary J. Morrissey ◽  
Phyllis Zold-Kilbourn ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 143 (7) ◽  
pp. 04017026 ◽  
Author(s):  
Di Wang ◽  
Fei Dai ◽  
Xiaopeng Ning ◽  
Renguang G. Dong ◽  
John Z. Wu

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (01) ◽  
pp. 1750004 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Girish ◽  
Rauf Iqbal ◽  
Vivek Khanzode

Purpose: Weight of the load which is to be lifted and its characteristics are considered to be important risk factors for low back disorders (LBD) among manual material handlers. Determining the amount of load a person can lift is important in minimizing the incidence of LBD. The objective of this study was to determine the lifting capacity, adopting two lifting techniques at two levels among male construction workers using progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation (PILE). Methods: One hundred and forty-three male construction workers with minimum 1 year of work experience and without any acute illnesses participated in this study. Workers were advised to perform PILE using two lifting techniques (stoop and squat) and at two lifting levels (waist and shoulder). Results: The mean lifting capacity was found to be 24.50 [Formula: see text] 5.10, 21.20 [Formula: see text] 5.54, 19.76 [Formula: see text] 4.08 and 17.25 [Formula: see text] 5.18 kg, respectively, for floor to waist-stoop, floor to waist-squat, floor to shoulder-stoop and floor to shoulder-squat categories. The lifting capacity decreased by 19.40% and 18.54% when the vertical distance was increased from waist to shoulder adopting stoop and squat techniques, respectively. Conclusion: Lifting capacity for construction workers has been determined using PILE, and it was found to be more during stoop technique of lifting at floor to waist level.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document