پژوهش در علوم توانبخشی

تأثیر تغییر کیفوز سینه‌ای بر طول بازوی گشتاور بار خارجی هنگام برداشتن بار با دو تکنیک اسکات و استوپ در مردان

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی اصیل

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه بیومکانیک ورزشی، دانشکده تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار، گروه بیومکانیک ورزشی، دانشکده تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

3 دانشیار، گروه ارگونومی، دانشگاه علوم بهزیستی و توان‌بخشی، تهران، ایران

4 استادیار، گروه تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

10.22122/jrrs.v13i4.2896

چکیده

مقدمه: طول بازوی گشتاور بار خارجی، یکی از عوامل تأثیرگذار بر میزان نیروی وارد شده بر ستون فقرات می‌باشد و یکی از تغییراتی است که صرف ‌نظر از نوع تکنیک برداشتن بار، می‌تواند در کاهش خطر ابتلا به کمردرد تأثیرگذار باشد. تغییر در میزان کیفوز سینه‌ای هنگام برداشتن بار، یکی از عوامل مؤثر بر طول بازوی گشتاور بار خارجی در نظر گرفته می‌شود.مواد و روش‌ها: در تحقیق حاضر از 12 آزمودنی مرد درخواست شد تا با استفاده از دو تکنیک اسکات و استوپ در حالی‌ که وضعیت کیفوز سینه‌ای خود را در شروع حرکت فاز اکستنشن افزایش، کاهش و یا بدون تغییر قرار می‌دهند، جعبه‌ای به جرم 10 و 20 درصد جرم بدن خود را از روی زمین بردارند. جهت محاسبه فاصله عرضی بین جعبه و مهره پنجم کمری، از سیستم آنالیز حرکتی استفاده گردید.یافته‌ها: یافته‌های به دست آمده حاکی از تأثیر معنی‌دار نوع تکنیک (001/0 > P)، ارایه دستورالعمل تغییر در کیفوز سینه‌ای (039/0 = P) و جرم جعبه (001/0 = P) بر طول بازوی گشتاور بار خارجی بود. روابط معنی‌داری بین تکنیک و دستورالعمل (012/0 = P)، تکنیک و جرم (026/0 = P)، دستورالعمل و جرم (029/0 = P) و هر سه عامل تکنیک، دستورالعمل و جرم (006/0 = P) وجود داشت.نتیجه‎گیری: طول بازوی گشتاور خارجی با نوع تکنیک، جرم بار خارجی، الگوی حرکتی و پوسچر ستون فقرات در ارتباط است. به‌ کارگیری تکنیک اسکات، افزایش طول بازوی گشتاور بار خارجی را به همراه دارد و افزایش جرم جعبه به‌ طور کلی و افزایش کیفوز سینه‌ای در تکنیک اسکات، باعث کاهش طول بازوی گشتاور می‌گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

  1. Miwa S, Yokogawa A, Kobayashi T, Nishimura T, Igarashi K, Inatani H, et al. Risk factors of recurrent lumbar disk herniation: A single center study and review of the literature. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28(5): E265-E269.
  2. Kingma I, Bosch T, Bruins L, van Dieen JH. Foot positioning instruction, initial vertical load position and lifting technique: effects on low back loading. Ergonomics 2004; 47(13): 1365-85.
  3. Natarajan RN, Lavender SA, An HA, Andersson GB. Biomechanical response of a lumbar intervertebral disc to manual lifting activities: A poroelastic finite element model study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008; 33(18): 1958-65.
  4. Kuijer PP, van Oostrom SH, Duijzer K, van Dieen JH. Maximum acceptable weight of lift reflects peak lumbosacral extension moments in a functional capacity evaluation test using free style, stoop and squat lifting. Ergonomics 2012; 55(3): 343-9.
  5. Straker L. Evidence to support using squat, semi-squat and stoop techniques to lift low-lying objectsInt J Ind Ergon 2003; 31(3): 149-60.
  6. Hagen K, Sorhagen O, Harms-Ringdahl K. Influence of weight and frequency on thigh and lower-trunk motion during repetitive lifting employing stoop and squat techniques. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 1995; 10(3): 122-7.
  7. Hwang S, Kim Y, Kim Y. Lower extremity joint kinetics and lumbar curvature during squat and stoop lifting. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2009; 10(1): 15.
  8. van Dieen JH, Hoozemans MJ, Toussaint HM. Stoop or squat: A review of biomechanical studies on lifting technique. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 1999; 14(10): 685-96.
  9. Dreischarf M, Rohlmann A, Graichen F, Bergmann G, Schmidt H. In vivo loads on a vertebral body replacement during different lifting techniques. J Biomech 2016; 49(6): 890-5.
  10. Andersson GBJ, Ortengren R, Nachemson A. Quantitative studies of back loads in lifting. Spine 1976; 1(3): 178-85.
  11. Pryce R, Kriellaars D. Body segment inertial parameters and low back load in individuals with central adiposity. J Biomech 2014; 47(12): 3080-6.
  12. Jorgensen MJ, Marras WS, Gupta P, Waters TR. Effect of torso flexion on the lumbar torso extensor muscle sagittal plane moment arms. Spine J 2003; 3(5): 363-9.
  13. Farrag AT, Elsayed WH, El-Sayyad MM, Marras WS. Weight knowledge and weight magnitude: Impact on lumbosacral loading. Ergonomics 2015; 58(2): 227-34.
  14. Iwasaki R, Yokoyama G, Kawabata S, Suzuki T. Lumbar extension during stoop lifting is delayed by the load and hamstring tightness. J Phys Ther Sci 2014; 26(1): 57-61.
  15. Kim HJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Park MS, Song KS, Piyaskulkaew C, et al. Patients with proximal junctional kyphosis requiring revision surgery have higher postoperative lumbar lordosis and larger sagittal balance corrections. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014; 39(9): E576-E580.
  16. Kingma I, Faber GS, van Dieen JH. Supporting the upper body with the hand on the thigh reduces back loading during lifting. J Biomech 2016; 49(6): 881-9.
  17. Coenen P, Kingma I, Boot CR, Twisk JW, Bongers PM, van Dieen JH. Cumulative low back load at work as a risk factor of low back pain: A prospective cohort study. J Occup Rehabil 2013; 23(1): 11-8.
  18. Xu X, Chang CC, Faber GS, Kingma I, Dennerlein JT. Estimation of 3-D peak L5/S1 joint moment during asymmetric lifting tasks with cubic spline interpolation of segment Euler angles. Appl Ergon 2012; 43(1): 115-20.
  19. van Dieen JH, Faber GS, Loos RC, Kuijer PP, Kingma I, van der Molen HF, et al. Validity of estimates of spinal compression forces obtained from worksite measurements. Ergonomics 2010; 53(6): 792-800.
  20. Kingma I, Faber GS, van Dieen JH. How to lift a box that is too large to fit between the knees. Ergonomics 2010; 53(10): 1228-38.
  21. Faber GS, Kingma I, Kuijer PP, van der Molen HF, Hoozemans MJ, Frings-Dresen MH, et al. Working height, block mass and one- vs. two-handed block handling: the contribution to low back and shoulder loading during masonry work. Ergonomics 2009; 52(9): 1104-18.
  22. Faber GS, Kingma I, Bakker AJ, van Dieen JH. Low-back loading in lifting two loads beside the body compared to lifting one load in front of the body. J Biomech 2009; 42(1): 35-41.
  23. Maduri A, Pearson BL, Wilson SE. Lumbar-pelvic range and coordination during lifting tasks. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2008; 18(5): 807-14.
  24. Faber GS, Chang CC, Kingma I, Dennerlein JT. Lifting style and participant's sex do not affect optimal inertial sensor location for ambulatory assessment of trunk inclination. J Biomech 2013; 46(5): 1027-30.
  25. Gill KP, Bennett SJ, Savelsbergh GJ, van Dieen JH. Regional changes in spine posture at lift onset with changes in lift distance and lift style. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32(15): 1599-604.
  26. Graham RB, Costigan PA, Sadler EM, Stevenson JM. Local dynamic stability of the lifting kinematic chain. Gait Posture 2011; 34(4): 561-3.
  27. Lee TH. The effects of load magnitude and lifting speed on the kinematic data of load and human posture. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2015; 21(1): 55-61.
  28. van Dieen JH, Kingma I, van der Bug P. Evidence for a role of antagonistic cocontraction in controlling trunk stiffness during lifting. J Biomech 2003; 36(12): 1829-36.
  29. Zemp R, List R, Gulay T, Elsig JP, Naxera J, Taylor WR, et al. Soft tissue artefacts of the human back: comparison of the sagittal curvature of the spine measured using skin markers and an open upright MRI. PLoS One 2014; 9(4): e95426.
  30. Boocock MG, Mawston GA, Taylor S. Age-related differences do affect postural kinematics and joint kinetics during repetitive lifting. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2015; 30(2): 136-43.
  31. van Dieen JH, Creemers M, Draisma I, Toussaint HM, Kingma I. Repetitive lifting and spinal shrinkage, effects of age and lifting technique. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 1994; 9(6): 367-74.
  32. Han KS, Rohlmann A, Zander T, Taylor WR. Lumbar spinal loads vary with body height and weight. Med Eng Phys 2013; 35(7): 969-77.
  33. Burgess-Limerick R, Abernethy B. Qualitatively different modes of manual lifting. Int J Ind Ergon 1997; 19(5): 413-7.
  34. Apkarian AV, Baliki MN, Geha PY. Towards a theory of chronic pain. Prog Neurobiol 2009; 87(2): 81-97.
  35. Frank A. Low back pain. BMJ 1993; 306(6882): 901-9.
  36. Betsch M, Rapp W, Przibylla A, Jungbluth P, Hakimi M, Schneppendahl J, et al. Determination of the amount of leg length inequality that alters spinal posture in healthy subjects using rasterstereography. Eur Spine J 2013; 22(6): 1354-61.
  37. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35(8): 1381-95.
  38. Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J, Roussouly P, Labelle H. Analysis of the sagittal balance of the spine and pelvis using shape and orientation parameters. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005; 18(1): 40-7.
  39. Bernhardt M, Bridwell KH. Segmental analysis of the sagittal plane alignment of the normal thoracic and lumbar spines and thoracolumbar junction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989; 14(7): 717-21.
  40. Kobayashi T, Atsuta Y, Matsuno T, Takeda N. A longitudinal study of congruent sagittal spinal alignment in an adult cohort. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004; 29(6): 671-6.
  41. Vialle R, Levassor N, Rillardon L, Templier A, Skalli W, Guigui P. Radiographic analysis of the sagittal alignment and balance of the spine in asymptomatic subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87(2): 260-7.
  42. Lee CS, Chung SS, Kang KC, Park SJ, Shin SK. Normal patterns of sagittal alignment of the spine in young adults radiological analysis in a Korean population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36(25): E1648-E1654.
  43. Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J. Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30(3): 346-53.
  44. Smith A, O'Sullivan P, Straker L. Classification of sagittal thoraco-lumbo-pelvic alignment of the adolescent spine in standing and its relationship to low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008; 33(19): 2101-7.
  45. Dolphens M, Cagnie B, Coorevits P, Vleeming A, Danneels L. Classification system of the normal variation in sagittal standing plane alignment: A study among young adolescent boys. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38(16): E1003-E1012.
  46. Dolphens M, Cagnie B, Coorevits P, Vleeming A, Vanderstraeten G, Danneels L. Classification system of the sagittal standing alignment in young adolescent girls. Eur Spine J 2014; 23(1): 216-25.
  47. Gomez T, Beach G, Cooke C, Hrudey W, Goyert P. Normative database for trunk range of motion, strength, velocity, and endurance with the Isostation B-200 Lumbar Dynamometer. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991; 16(1): 15-21.
  48. Hasten DL, Lea RD, Johnston FA. Lumbar range of motion in male heavy laborers on the Applied Rehabilitation Concepts (ARCON) system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996; 21(19): 2230-4.
  49. Ng JK, Kippers V, Richardson CA, Parnianpour M. Range of motion and lordosis of the lumbar spine: reliability of measurement and normative values. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26(1): 53-60.
  50. Schinkel-Ivy A, DiMonte S, Drake JD. Repeatability of kinematic and electromyographical measures during standing and trunk motion: how many trials are sufficient? J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2015; 25(2): 232-8.
  51. Straker LM. A review of research on techniques for lifting low-lying objects: 2. Evidence for a correct technique. Work 2003; 20(2): 83-96.
  52. Dolan P, Mannion AF, Adams MA. Passive tissues help the back muscles to generate extensor moments during lifting. J Biomech 1994; 27(8): 1077-85.
  53. Lamberg EM, Hagins M. Breath control during manual free-style lifting of a maximally tolerated load. Ergonomics 2010; 53(3): 385-92.
  54. Dolan P, Earley M, Adams MA. Bending and compressive stresses acting on the lumbar spine during lifting activities. J Biomech 1994; 27(10): 1237-48.
  55. Mavor MP, Graham RB. Exploring the relationship between local and global dynamic trunk stabilities during repetitive lifting tasks. J Biomech 2015; 48(14): 3955-60.
  56. Cholewicki J, McGill SM. Mechanical stability of the in vivo lumbar spine: implications for injury and chronic low back pain. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 1996; 11(1): 1-15.
  57. Winter DA. Human balance and posture control during standing and walking. Gait & Posture 1995; 3(4): 193-214.
  58. Sheppard PS, Stevenson JM, Graham RB. Sex-based differences in lifting technique under increasing load conditions: A principal component analysis. Appl Ergon 2016; 54: 186-95.
  59. Zhang X, Buhr T. Are back and leg muscle strengths determinants of lifting motion strategy? Insight from studying the effects of simulated leg muscle weakness. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2002; 29(3): 161-9.
  60. van Dieen JH, Dekkers JJ, Groen V, Toussaint HM, Meijer OG. Within-subject variability in low back load in a repetitively performed, mildly constrained lifting task. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26(16): 1799-804.
  61. Plamondon A, Lariviere C, Denis D, St-Vincent M, Delisle A. Sex differences in lifting strategies during a repetitive palletizing task. Appl Ergon 2014; 45(6): 1558-69.
پژوهش در علوم توانبخشی
دوره 13، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 4
آبان 1397
صفحه 201-208