Workplace design guidelines for asymptornatic vs. low-back-injured workers

被引:28
|
作者
Ferguson, SA
Marras, WS
Burr, D
机构
[1] Ohio State Univ, Inst Ergonom, Biodynam Lab, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[2] Publ Hlth, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
关键词
spine loading; return to work guidelines; low-back pain;
D O I
10.1016/j.apergo.2004.07.002
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
While numerous efforts have attempted to provide quantitative guidelines for the prevention of initial low back disorders during material handling tasks, none have appeared in the literature that address the issue of recurrent low back disorders due to materials handling when returning to the workplace. A study comparing the spine loads of low back pain patients and asymptomatic controls was conducted. Subjects lifted weights varying from 4.5-11.4 kg at four vertical heights, two horizontal distances and five task asymmetries collectively representing common industrial lifting situations. Spine loading was calculated using a validated EMG-assisted biomechanical model. Spine loads observed during lifting tasks were compared to spine tolerance values believed to initiate low back injuries. In addition, the percentage of patients successfully performing the lift was noted and used as an indication of the willingness of the subject to perform the task. These evaluations are summarized in a series of three lifting guidelines. indicating safe, medium risk and high risk lifting tasks for low back patients as well as asymptomatic workers. It is believed that adherence to these guidelines can minimize the risk of recurrent low back disorders due to occupational lifting. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:85 / 95
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] ISOKINETIC TRUNK STRENGTH AND LIFTING STRENGTH MEASURES - DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN LOW-BACK-INJURED AND NONINJURED WORKERS
    MANDELL, PJ
    WEITZ, E
    BERNSTEIN, JI
    LIPTON, MH
    MORRIS, J
    BRADSHAW, D
    BODKIN, KP
    MATTMILLER, B
    SPINE, 1993, 18 (16) : 2491 - 2501
  • [2] ERGONOMIC GUIDELINES FOR THE PREVENTION OF LOW-BACK-PAIN AT THE WORKPLACE
    DUL, J
    HILDEBRANDT, VH
    ERGONOMICS, 1987, 30 (02) : 419 - 429
  • [3] Acupressure vs. physical therapy for low back pain
    Shaughnessy, Allen F.
    AMERICAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN, 2006, 74 (04) : 651 - 651
  • [4] The physical workplace factors and the development of low back pain among construction workers
    Margineanu, Micaela C.
    Margineanu, Cosmina M.
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, 2006, 35 : 51 - 52
  • [5] Rehabilitation vs. spinal fusion for chronic low back pain
    Shaughnessy, AF
    AMERICAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN, 2005, 72 (07) : 1327 - 1328
  • [6] Workplace factors and prevalence of low back pain among male commercial kitchen workers
    Shankar, S.
    Shanmugam, M.
    Srinivasan, J.
    JOURNAL OF BACK AND MUSCULOSKELETAL REHABILITATION, 2015, 28 (03) : 481 - 488
  • [7] Manualized Biofeedback vs. Hypnosis in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain
    Tan, Gabriel
    Jensen, Mark P.
    Fukui, Tenley
    Robinson, Andrew
    Smith, Donna L.
    Rintala, Diana
    APPLIED PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY AND BIOFEEDBACK, 2012, 37 (04) : 298 - 298
  • [8] Functional abilities confidence scale: A clinical measure for injured workers with acute low back pain
    Williams, RM
    Myers, AM
    PHYSICAL THERAPY, 1998, 78 (06): : 624 - 634
  • [9] Supervisor and Organizational Factors Associated with Supervisor Support of Job Accommodations for Low Back Injured Workers
    Vicki L. Kristman
    William S. Shaw
    Paula Reguly
    Kelly Williams-Whitt
    Sophie Soklaridis
    Patrick Loisel
    Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 2017, 27 : 115 - 127
  • [10] Supervisor and Organizational Factors Associated with Supervisor Support of Job Accommodations for Low Back Injured Workers
    Kristman, Vicki L.
    Shaw, William S.
    Reguly, Paula
    Williams-Whitt, Kelly
    Soklaridis, Sophie
    Loisel, Patrick
    JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL REHABILITATION, 2017, 27 (01) : 115 - 127