Back pain and back injuries

2020 ◽  
pp. 39-58
Author(s):  
Carol Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika Zemková ◽  
Zuzana Kováčiková ◽  
Ludmila Zapletalová
Keyword(s):  

1985 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 799-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger C. Jensen

Nurses experience more cases of disabling back injuries in relation to their population than most occupational groups. Patient handling is generally assumed to be the hazard which causes most of the problems. The sparse epidemiologic evidence to support this assumption is reviewed. New information about the proportion of work-related disabling back injuries reportedly triggered by patient handling is reported. Based on the present state of knowledge, derived from reports by nurses who have experienced back pain, it appears that among nurses about 38 to 46 percent of all back pain episodes and roughly 73 to 81 percent of their compensable back injuries are attributed to patient handling.


2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 370-373
Author(s):  
Kazys Algirdas Kaminskas

The purpose of these studies is to reduce the amout of low back pain as well as work injuries. Low back pain is more likely to occur if the load exceeds the worker's physical capabilities. In this paper, biomechanical criterion was based on calculating the compressive forces in the L5/S1 disc (Eqs (1), (2)). Three types of activity were taken into consideration. First, manual lifting granite plates (500× 500× 100 mm) with and without special devices (Figs 1, 2). Second manual lifting porous silicate blocks (300 × 600 × 200 mm). Third, manual lifting silicate brick in stooped postures. The investigation results presented in Fig 6 show clear benefits of ergonomic solutions for manual lifting heavy construction elements. The risk for back injuries becomes quite insignificant when ergonomic lifting devices are used (Fig 6 point f and g). These devices do not reduce the weight of lifted elements, but in case of a pneumatic device the total lifting weight is considerably increased, but the positive effect is achieved due to reducing moments because workers perform the task with a straight back. The reloaders of bricks usully feel back pain due to extreme repetitive bending of the back.


Spine ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
T VIDEMAN ◽  
H RAUHALA ◽  
S ASP ◽  
K LINDSTRÖM ◽  
G CEDERCREUTZ ◽  
...  

2022 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Brandon Martin ◽  
Alexander Boehler ◽  
Kevin W. Hollander ◽  
Darren Kinney ◽  
Joseph K. Hitt ◽  
...  

Abstract Back pain is one of the largest drivers of workplace injury and lost productivity in industries around the world. Back injuries were one of the leading reasons in resulting in days away from work at 38.5% across all occupations, increasing for manual laborers to 43%. While the cause of the back pain can vary across occupations, for materiel movers it is often caused from repetitive poor lifting. To reduce the issues, the Aerial Porter Exoskeleton (APEx) was created. The APEx uses a hip-mounted, powered exoskeleton attached to an adjustable vest. An onboard computer calculates the configuration of the user to determine when to activate. Lift form is assisted by using a novel lumbar brace mounted on the sides of the hips. Properly worn, the APEx holds the user upright while providing additional hip torque through a lift. This was tested by having participants complete a lifting test with the exoskeleton worn in the “on” configuration compared with the exoskeleton not worn. The APEx has been shown to deliver 30 Nm of torque in lab testing. The activity recognition algorithm has also been shown to be accurate in 95% of tested conditions. When worn by subjects, testing has shown average peak reductions of 14.9% BPM, 8% in VO2 consumption, and an 8% change in perceived effort favoring the APEx.


Author(s):  
Lara W. Massie ◽  
Thomas J. Buell ◽  
Eyal Behrbalk ◽  
Christopher I. Shaffrey

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 14-15
Author(s):  
Jay Blaisdell ◽  
James B. Talmage

Abstract Ratings for “non-specific chronic, or chronic reoccurring, back pain” are based on the diagnosis-based impairment method whereby an impairment class, usually representing a range of impairment values within a cell of a grid, is selected by diagnosis and “specific criteria” (key factors). Within the impairment class, the default impairment value then can be modified using non-key factors or “grade modifiers” such as functional history, physical examination, and clinical studies using the net adjustment formula. The diagnosis of “nonspecific chronic, or chronic reoccurring, back pain” can be rated in class 0 and 1; the former has a default value of 0%, and the latter has a default value of 2% before any modifications. The key concept here is that the physician believes that the patient is experiencing pain, yet there are no related objective findings, most notably radiculopathy as distinguished from “nonverifiable radicular complaints.” If the individual is found not to have radiculopathy and the medical record shows that the patient has never had clinically verifiable radiculopathy, then the diagnosis of “intervertebral disk herniation and/or AOMSI [alteration of motion segment integrity] cannot be used.” If the patient is asymptomatic at maximum medical improvement, then impairment Class 0 should be chosen, not Class 1; a final whole person impairment rating of 1% indicates incorrect use of the methodology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document