A direct comparison of spine rotational stiffness and dynamic spine stability during repetitive lifting tasks

Abstract Stability of the spinal column is critical to bear loads, allow movement, and at the same time avoid injury and pain. However, there has been a debate in recent years as to how best to define and quantify spine stability, with the outcome being that different methods are used without a clea...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of biomechanics 2012-06, Vol.45 (9), p.1593-1600
Hauptverfasser: Graham, Ryan B, Brown, Stephen H.M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1600
container_issue 9
container_start_page 1593
container_title Journal of biomechanics
container_volume 45
creator Graham, Ryan B
Brown, Stephen H.M
description Abstract Stability of the spinal column is critical to bear loads, allow movement, and at the same time avoid injury and pain. However, there has been a debate in recent years as to how best to define and quantify spine stability, with the outcome being that different methods are used without a clear understanding of how they relate to one another. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to directly compare lumbar spine rotational stiffness, calculated with an EMG-driven biomechanical model, to local dynamic spine stability calculated using Lyapunov analyses of kinematic data, during a series of continuous dynamic lifting challenges. Twelve healthy male subjects performed 30 repetitive lifts under three varying load and three varying rate conditions. With an increase in the load lifted (constant rate) there was a significant increase in mean, maximum, and minimum spine rotational stiffness ( p
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.04.007
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1038249351</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0021929012002254</els_id><sourcerecordid>1015248435</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c514t-5cf75f6c4947b5dff04eafb2e4a8426c2bbc764212fcf43249e11b0a66bec883</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk2LFDEQhhtR3HH1LywBEbz0mKST_riIy-IXLHhw7yGdrmjNdidjKrMw_96MM-vCXvSUEJ73TVW9VVUXgq8FF-27zXozYlzA_VxLLuSaqzXn3ZNqJfquqWXT86fVinMp6kEO_Kx6QbThhVDd8Lw6k1IrKUW_qpZLNmECl5mLy9YmpBhY9Iy2GIClmG3GGOzMKKP3AYiYDROb9sEu6E4YZTvijHnPpl3C8IMl2ELGjHfAZvT58JQt3dLL6pm3M8Gr03le3Xz6eHP1pb7-9vnr1eV17bRQudbOd9q3Tg2qG_XkPVdg_ShB2V7J1slxdF2rpJDeedVINYAQI7dtO4Lr--a8enu03ab4aweUzYLkYJ5tgLgjI3jTF1GjxX-gQkvVq0YX9PUjdBN3qczmj6Ea2kFLWaj2SLkUiRJ4s0242LQv0MGtNRtzH505RGe4MiWYIrw42e_GBaa_svusCvDmBFhydvbJBof0wOnSkNaqcB-OHJQJ3yEkQw4hODgGbaaI_67l_SMLN2PA8ust7IEe-jZUNOb7YdEOeyZkuZV6m9--WdA6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1034969522</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A direct comparison of spine rotational stiffness and dynamic spine stability during repetitive lifting tasks</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Graham, Ryan B ; Brown, Stephen H.M</creator><creatorcontrib>Graham, Ryan B ; Brown, Stephen H.M</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Stability of the spinal column is critical to bear loads, allow movement, and at the same time avoid injury and pain. However, there has been a debate in recent years as to how best to define and quantify spine stability, with the outcome being that different methods are used without a clear understanding of how they relate to one another. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to directly compare lumbar spine rotational stiffness, calculated with an EMG-driven biomechanical model, to local dynamic spine stability calculated using Lyapunov analyses of kinematic data, during a series of continuous dynamic lifting challenges. Twelve healthy male subjects performed 30 repetitive lifts under three varying load and three varying rate conditions. With an increase in the load lifted (constant rate) there was a significant increase in mean, maximum, and minimum spine rotational stiffness ( p &lt;0.001) and a significant increase in local dynamic stability ( p &lt;0.05); both stability measures were moderately to strongly related to one another ( r =−0.55 to −0.71). With an increase in lifting rate (constant load), there was also a significant increase in mean and maximum spine rotational stiffness ( p &lt;0.01); however, there was a non-significant decrease in the minimum rotational stiffness and a non-significant decrease in local dynamic stability ( p &gt;0.05). Weak linear relationships were found for the varying rate conditions ( r =−0.02 to −0.27). The results suggest that spine rotational stiffness and local dynamic stability are closely related to one another, as they provided similar information when movement rate was controlled. However, based on the results from the changing lifting rate conditions, it is evident that both models provide unique information and that future research is required to completely understand the relationship between the two models. Using both techniques concurrently may provide the best information regarding the true effects of (in) stability under different loading and movement scenarios, and in comparing healthy and clinical populations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-9290</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2380</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.04.007</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22542218</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomechanics ; Dynamics ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Hoisting ; Humans ; Lifting ; Load ; Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology ; Lyapunov exponents ; Male ; Movement ; Movement - physiology ; Neuromuscular control ; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ; Range of Motion, Articular - physiology ; Rotational ; Rotational stiffness ; Spine ; Spine stability ; Stability ; Stiffness ; Studies ; Systems stability ; Vertebrates: body movement. Posture. Locomotion. Flight. Swimming. Physical exercise. Rest. Sports ; Weight-Bearing - physiology ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of biomechanics, 2012-06, Vol.45 (9), p.1593-1600</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2012 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c514t-5cf75f6c4947b5dff04eafb2e4a8426c2bbc764212fcf43249e11b0a66bec883</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c514t-5cf75f6c4947b5dff04eafb2e4a8426c2bbc764212fcf43249e11b0a66bec883</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929012002254$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=25935554$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22542218$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Graham, Ryan B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Stephen H.M</creatorcontrib><title>A direct comparison of spine rotational stiffness and dynamic spine stability during repetitive lifting tasks</title><title>Journal of biomechanics</title><addtitle>J Biomech</addtitle><description>Abstract Stability of the spinal column is critical to bear loads, allow movement, and at the same time avoid injury and pain. However, there has been a debate in recent years as to how best to define and quantify spine stability, with the outcome being that different methods are used without a clear understanding of how they relate to one another. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to directly compare lumbar spine rotational stiffness, calculated with an EMG-driven biomechanical model, to local dynamic spine stability calculated using Lyapunov analyses of kinematic data, during a series of continuous dynamic lifting challenges. Twelve healthy male subjects performed 30 repetitive lifts under three varying load and three varying rate conditions. With an increase in the load lifted (constant rate) there was a significant increase in mean, maximum, and minimum spine rotational stiffness ( p &lt;0.001) and a significant increase in local dynamic stability ( p &lt;0.05); both stability measures were moderately to strongly related to one another ( r =−0.55 to −0.71). With an increase in lifting rate (constant load), there was also a significant increase in mean and maximum spine rotational stiffness ( p &lt;0.01); however, there was a non-significant decrease in the minimum rotational stiffness and a non-significant decrease in local dynamic stability ( p &gt;0.05). Weak linear relationships were found for the varying rate conditions ( r =−0.02 to −0.27). The results suggest that spine rotational stiffness and local dynamic stability are closely related to one another, as they provided similar information when movement rate was controlled. However, based on the results from the changing lifting rate conditions, it is evident that both models provide unique information and that future research is required to completely understand the relationship between the two models. Using both techniques concurrently may provide the best information regarding the true effects of (in) stability under different loading and movement scenarios, and in comparing healthy and clinical populations.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomechanics</subject><subject>Dynamics</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Hoisting</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lifting</subject><subject>Load</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology</subject><subject>Lyapunov exponents</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Movement</subject><subject>Movement - physiology</subject><subject>Neuromuscular control</subject><subject>Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</subject><subject>Rotational</subject><subject>Rotational stiffness</subject><subject>Spine</subject><subject>Spine stability</subject><subject>Stability</subject><subject>Stiffness</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Systems stability</subject><subject>Vertebrates: body movement. Posture. Locomotion. Flight. Swimming. Physical exercise. Rest. Sports</subject><subject>Weight-Bearing - physiology</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0021-9290</issn><issn>1873-2380</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkk2LFDEQhhtR3HH1LywBEbz0mKST_riIy-IXLHhw7yGdrmjNdidjKrMw_96MM-vCXvSUEJ73TVW9VVUXgq8FF-27zXozYlzA_VxLLuSaqzXn3ZNqJfquqWXT86fVinMp6kEO_Kx6QbThhVDd8Lw6k1IrKUW_qpZLNmECl5mLy9YmpBhY9Iy2GIClmG3GGOzMKKP3AYiYDROb9sEu6E4YZTvijHnPpl3C8IMl2ELGjHfAZvT58JQt3dLL6pm3M8Gr03le3Xz6eHP1pb7-9vnr1eV17bRQudbOd9q3Tg2qG_XkPVdg_ShB2V7J1slxdF2rpJDeedVINYAQI7dtO4Lr--a8enu03ab4aweUzYLkYJ5tgLgjI3jTF1GjxX-gQkvVq0YX9PUjdBN3qczmj6Ea2kFLWaj2SLkUiRJ4s0242LQv0MGtNRtzH505RGe4MiWYIrw42e_GBaa_svusCvDmBFhydvbJBof0wOnSkNaqcB-OHJQJ3yEkQw4hODgGbaaI_67l_SMLN2PA8ust7IEe-jZUNOb7YdEOeyZkuZV6m9--WdA6</recordid><startdate>20120601</startdate><enddate>20120601</enddate><creator>Graham, Ryan B</creator><creator>Brown, Stephen H.M</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120601</creationdate><title>A direct comparison of spine rotational stiffness and dynamic spine stability during repetitive lifting tasks</title><author>Graham, Ryan B ; Brown, Stephen H.M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c514t-5cf75f6c4947b5dff04eafb2e4a8426c2bbc764212fcf43249e11b0a66bec883</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomechanics</topic><topic>Dynamics</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Hoisting</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lifting</topic><topic>Load</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology</topic><topic>Lyapunov exponents</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Movement</topic><topic>Movement - physiology</topic><topic>Neuromuscular control</topic><topic>Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</topic><topic>Rotational</topic><topic>Rotational stiffness</topic><topic>Spine</topic><topic>Spine stability</topic><topic>Stability</topic><topic>Stiffness</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Systems stability</topic><topic>Vertebrates: body movement. Posture. Locomotion. Flight. Swimming. Physical exercise. Rest. Sports</topic><topic>Weight-Bearing - physiology</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Graham, Ryan B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Stephen H.M</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of biomechanics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Graham, Ryan B</au><au>Brown, Stephen H.M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A direct comparison of spine rotational stiffness and dynamic spine stability during repetitive lifting tasks</atitle><jtitle>Journal of biomechanics</jtitle><addtitle>J Biomech</addtitle><date>2012-06-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1593</spage><epage>1600</epage><pages>1593-1600</pages><issn>0021-9290</issn><eissn>1873-2380</eissn><abstract>Abstract Stability of the spinal column is critical to bear loads, allow movement, and at the same time avoid injury and pain. However, there has been a debate in recent years as to how best to define and quantify spine stability, with the outcome being that different methods are used without a clear understanding of how they relate to one another. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to directly compare lumbar spine rotational stiffness, calculated with an EMG-driven biomechanical model, to local dynamic spine stability calculated using Lyapunov analyses of kinematic data, during a series of continuous dynamic lifting challenges. Twelve healthy male subjects performed 30 repetitive lifts under three varying load and three varying rate conditions. With an increase in the load lifted (constant rate) there was a significant increase in mean, maximum, and minimum spine rotational stiffness ( p &lt;0.001) and a significant increase in local dynamic stability ( p &lt;0.05); both stability measures were moderately to strongly related to one another ( r =−0.55 to −0.71). With an increase in lifting rate (constant load), there was also a significant increase in mean and maximum spine rotational stiffness ( p &lt;0.01); however, there was a non-significant decrease in the minimum rotational stiffness and a non-significant decrease in local dynamic stability ( p &gt;0.05). Weak linear relationships were found for the varying rate conditions ( r =−0.02 to −0.27). The results suggest that spine rotational stiffness and local dynamic stability are closely related to one another, as they provided similar information when movement rate was controlled. However, based on the results from the changing lifting rate conditions, it is evident that both models provide unique information and that future research is required to completely understand the relationship between the two models. Using both techniques concurrently may provide the best information regarding the true effects of (in) stability under different loading and movement scenarios, and in comparing healthy and clinical populations.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>22542218</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.04.007</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-9290
ispartof Journal of biomechanics, 2012-06, Vol.45 (9), p.1593-1600
issn 0021-9290
1873-2380
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1038249351
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Biomechanics
Dynamics
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Hoisting
Humans
Lifting
Load
Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology
Lyapunov exponents
Male
Movement
Movement - physiology
Neuromuscular control
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Range of Motion, Articular - physiology
Rotational
Rotational stiffness
Spine
Spine stability
Stability
Stiffness
Studies
Systems stability
Vertebrates: body movement. Posture. Locomotion. Flight. Swimming. Physical exercise. Rest. Sports
Weight-Bearing - physiology
Young Adult
title A direct comparison of spine rotational stiffness and dynamic spine stability during repetitive lifting tasks
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T19%3A57%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20direct%20comparison%20of%20spine%20rotational%20stiffness%20and%20dynamic%20spine%20stability%20during%20repetitive%20lifting%20tasks&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20biomechanics&rft.au=Graham,%20Ryan%20B&rft.date=2012-06-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1593&rft.epage=1600&rft.pages=1593-1600&rft.issn=0021-9290&rft.eissn=1873-2380&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.04.007&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1015248435%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1034969522&rft_id=info:pmid/22542218&rft_els_id=S0021929012002254&rfr_iscdi=true