This study quantified trunk, hip and knee kinematics during realistic lifting to determine the influence of origin height on lifting style. Ten male participants lifted boxes from several origins ranging from the floor to waist height. The three-dimensional motions of the trunk, hip and knee were recorded. Maximum trunk flexion, knee flexion, and hip flexion increased as lift origin decreased (closer to the floor). Back, knee and hip sagittal angles showed significantly increased correlations as the origins became closer to the floor. Subjects appeared to coordinate their hips, back and knees during the lift for origins below knee height. For lifts above knee height, the lifting style resembled more of a stoop lift while lifts originating below knee height were more of a squat lift. As none of the conditions resulted in pure squat or stoop lifting, discretion is needed in applying the results of pure squat or pure stoop lifting studies to the workplace.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllreadWGMarrasWSParnianpourM., (1996), Trunk kinematics of one-handed lifting, and the effects of asymmetry and load weight. Ergonomics, 39 (2), 322–334.
2.
BrownJ.R., (1973), Lifting as an Industrial Hazard. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 292–297.
3.
Burgess-LimerickR.AbernethyB.NealRJ.KippersV., (1995), Self-selected manual lifting technique: Functional consequences of the interjoint coordination. Human Factors, 37, 395–411.
4.
Burgess-LimerickR.AbernethyB., (1997), Qualitatively different modes of manual lifting. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 19, 413–417.
5.
DavisKG.MarrasWS.WatersTR., (1998), Reduction of spinal loading through the use of handles. Ergonomics, 41 (8), 1155–68.
6.
DavisKGMarrasWS, (2000), Assessment of the relationship between box weight and spinal loads: does a reduction in box weight necessarily correspond to lower risk of low back disorders, Human Factors, (In Press).
7.
De LoozeMP.ToussaintHM.Van DieenJH.KemperHC., (1992), Joint moments and muscle activity in the lower extremities and lower back in lifting and lowering tasks. Journal of Biomechanics, 26 (9), 1067–76.
8.
DolanP.EarleyM.AdamsMA., (1994), Bending and compressive stresses acting on the lumbar spine during lifting activities. Journal of Biomechanics, 27 (10), 1237–48.
9.
DuplessisDH.GreenwayEH.KeeneKL.LeeIE.ClaytonRL.MetzlerT.UnderwoodFB., (1998) Effect of semi-rigid lumbosacral orthosis use on oxygen consumption during repetitive stoop and squat lifting. Ergonomics, 41 (6), 790–7.
10.
GargA.BellerD., (1994), A comparison of isokinetic lifting strength with static strength and maximum acceptable weight with special reference to speed of lifting. Ergonomics, 37 (8), 1363–74.
11.
GargA.SaxenaU., (1979), Effects of lifting frequency and technique on physical fatigue with special reference to psychophysical methodology and metabolic rate. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 40 (10), 894–903.
12.
GargA.SaxenaU., (1985), Physiological stresses in warehouse operations with special reference to lifting technique and gender: a case study. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 46 (2), 53–9.
13.
HagenKBHarms-RingdahlK., (1994), Ratings of perceived thigh and back exertion in forest workers during repetitive lifting using squat and stoop techniques. Spine, 19 (22), 2511–7.
14.
KumarS.GarandD., (1992), Static and Dynamic Strength at Different Reach Distances in Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Planes. Ergonomics, 35 (7/8), 861–880.
15.
LeskinenT.P., (1985), Comparison of static and dynamic biomechanical models. Ergonomics, 28 (1), 285–291.
16.
LeskinenT.P.J.StalhammarH.R.KuorinkaI.A.A., (1983), A Dynamic Analysis of Spinal Compression with Different Lifting Techniques. Ergonomics, 26 (6), 595–604.
17.
LindbeckL.ArboreliusU.P., (1991), Inertial effects from single body segments in dynamic analysis of lifting. Ergonomics, 34 (4)*. 421–433.
18.
LuepongsakN.KrebsDE*.OlssonE.RileyPO.MannRW., (1997), Hip stress during lifting with bent and straight knees. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 29 (1), 57–64.
19.
PotvinJR.McGillSM.NormanRW., (1991), Trunk muscle and lumbar ligament contributions to dynamic lifts with varying degrees of trunk flexion. Spine16, 1099–1107.
20.
MarrasWSDavisKG, (1998), Spine loading during asymmetric lifting using one vs. two hands. Ergonomics, 41 (6), 817–834.
21.
MarrasWSFathallahF. A.MillerRJDavisSWMirkaGA, (1992), Accuracy of a three-dimensional lumbar motion monitor for recording dynamic trunk motion characteristics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 9 (1), 75–87.
22.
MarrasWS.GranataKP., (1997), Changes in trunk dynamics and spine loading during repeated trunk exertions. Spine, 22 (21), 2564–70.
23.
MarrasWSGranataKPDavisKGAllreadWGJorgensenMJ, (1997), Spine loading and probability of low back disorder risk as a function of box location on a pallet, Human Factors in Manufacturing. 7(4), 323–336.
24.
McClurePW.EsolaM.SchreierR.SieglerS., (1997), Kinematic analysis of lumbar and hip motion while rising from a forward, flexed position in patients with and without a history of low back pain. Spine, 22, 552–558.
25.
NelsonJ.M.WalmsleyR.P.StevensonJ.M., (1995), Relative Lumbar and Pelvic Motion During Loaded Spinal Flexion/Extension. Spine, 20 (2), 199–204.
26.
NemethG.EkholmJ.ArboreliusUP., (1986), Moment arm lengths of trunk muscles to the lumbosacral joint obtained in vivo with computed tomography. Spine, 11, 158–160.
27.
PaquetN.MalouinF.RichardsCL., (1994), Hip-spine movement interaction and muscle activation patterns during sagittal trunk movements in low back pain patients. Spine, 19, 596–603.
28.
PorterJL.WilkinsonA., (1997), Lumbar hip-flexion motion: A comparative study between asymptomatic and chronic low back pain in 18- to 36-year-old men. Spine, 22, 1580–1514.
29.
SchippleinO.D.ReinselT.E.AnderssonG.B.J.LavenderS.A., (1995), The Influence of Initial Horizontal Weight Placement on the Loads at the Lumbar Spine While Lifting. Spine, 20 (17), 1895–1898.
30.
SpartoPJ.ParnianpourM.ReinselTE.SimonS., (1997), The effect of*.
