Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2W6, Canada.
Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada.
Appl Ergon. 2014 May;45(3):482-9. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.06.009. Epub 2013 Jul 20.
Previous research suggests that a general whole-body movement screen could be used to identify personal movement attributes that promote potentially injurious low-back loading patterns at work. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS) composite scores and the low-back loading response to lifting.
Fifteen men who scored greater than 14 on the FMS (high-scorers) and 15 height- and weight-matched low-scorers (FMS < 14) performed sagittally symmetric and asymmetric laboratory-based lifting tasks. A three-dimensional dynamic biomechanical model was used to calculate peak low-back loading levels, and the angle of the lumbar spine was captured at the instant when the peak compressive force was applied.
Regardless of the lifting task performed, there were no differences in peak low-back compression (p ≥ 0.4157), anterior/posterior reaction shear (p ≥ 0.5645), or medial/lateral reaction shear (p ≥ 0.2581) forces between the high- and low-scorers. At the instant when peak compressive forces were applied, differences in the lumbar spine angle between high- and low-scores were not statistically significant about the lateral bend (p ≥ 0.4215), axial twist (p ≥ 0.2734), or flexion/extension (p ≥ 0.1354) axes, but there was a tendency for the lumbar spine to be more deviated in the low-scorers.
Using the previously established injury prediction threshold value of 14, the composite FMS score was not related to the peak low-back loading magnitudes in lifting. Though not statistically significant, the tendency for the lumbar spines of low-scorers to be more deviated when the peak low-back compression force was imposed could be biomechanically meaningful because spinal load tolerance varies with posture. Future attempts to modify or reinterpret FMS scoring are warranted given that several previous studies have revealed links between composite FMS scores and musculoskeletal complaints.
先前的研究表明，一般的全身运动筛查可以用来识别个人运动特征，这些特征可导致工作中潜在的有害下背部负荷模式。本研究的目的是检验功能性运动筛查测试（FMS）综合评分与下背部负重反应之间的关系。
15 名 FMS 评分大于 14 分的男性（高分者）和 15 名身高和体重匹配的 FMS 评分小于 14 分的低分者（FMS<14 分）进行了基于实验室的对称和不对称的举物任务。使用三维动态生物力学模型来计算峰值下背部负荷水平，并在施加峰值压缩力的瞬间捕捉腰椎的角度。
无论进行何种举物任务，高分者和低分者之间的峰值下背部压缩力（p≥0.4157）、前后向反应剪切力（p≥0.5645）或内外向反应剪切力（p≥0.2581）均无差异。在施加峰值压缩力的瞬间，高分者和低分者之间的腰椎角度差异在侧屈（p≥0.4215）、轴向扭转（p≥0.2734）或屈伸（p≥0.1354）轴上没有统计学意义，但低分者的腰椎更倾向于偏斜。
使用先前建立的 14 分的损伤预测阈值，FMS 综合评分与举重时的峰值下背部负荷大小无关。尽管没有统计学意义，但在施加峰值下背部压缩力时，低分者的腰椎更倾向于偏斜的趋势可能具有生物力学意义，因为脊柱的负荷耐受度随姿势而变化。鉴于先前的几项研究表明 FMS 综合评分与肌肉骨骼投诉之间存在关联，因此有必要对 FMS 评分进行修改或重新解释。
