A comparison of low back kinetic estimates obtained through posture matching, rigid link modeling and an EMG-assisted model.
This study examined errors introduced by a posture matching approach (3DMatch) relative to dynamic three-dimensional rigid link and EMG-assisted models. Eighty-eight lifting trials of various combinations of heights (floor, 0.67, 1.2 m), asymmetry (left, right and center) and mass (7.6 and 9.7 kg) were videotaped while spine postures, ground reaction forces, segment orientations and muscle activations were documented and used to estimate joint moments and forces (L5/S1). Posture matching over predicted peak and cumulative extension moment (p < 0.0001 for all variables). There was no difference between peak compression estimates obtained with posture matching or EMG-assisted approaches (p = 0.7987). Posture matching over predicted cumulative (p < 0.0001) compressive loading due to a bias in standing, however, individualized bias correction eliminated the differences. Therefore, posture matching provides a method to analyze industrial lifting exposures that will predict kinetic values similar to those of more sophisticated models, provided necessary corrections are applied.
Giffin Koerth Forensics, 400 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
R J
RJ
Parkinson
M
M
Bezaire
J P
JP
Callaghan
D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena / Q000502:physiology; D004576:Electromyography / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D008953:Models, Anatomic; D011187:Posture / Q000502:physiology*; D013131:Spine / Q000502:physiology*; D013223:Statistics as Topic; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis; D014743:Videotape Recording; D016474:Weight-Bearing / Q000502:physiology*