Suppr超能文献

不同 lifting 技术下椎体置换的体内负荷。 (注:lifting 这里可能是一种特定的专业动作表述,若有更准确的专业术语,可替换“lifting”以更精准表意)

In vivo loads on a vertebral body replacement during different lifting techniques.

作者信息

Dreischarf Marcel, Rohlmann Antonius, Graichen Friedmar, Bergmann Georg, Schmidt Hendrik

机构信息

Julius Wolff Institute, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany.

Julius Wolff Institute, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany.

出版信息

J Biomech. 2016 Apr 11;49(6):890-895. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.09.034. Epub 2015 Nov 10.

Abstract

The repeated lifting of heavy weights has been identified as a risk factor for low back pain (LBP). Whether squat lifting leads to lower spinal loads than stoop lifting and whether lifting a weight laterally results in smaller forces than lifting the same weight in front of the body remain matters of debate. Instrumented vertebral body replacements (VBRs) were used to measure the in vivo load in the lumbar spine in three patients at level L1 and in one patient at level L3. Stoop lifting and squat lifting were compared in 17 measuring sessions, in which both techniques were performed a total of 104 times. The trunk inclination and amount of knee bending were simultaneously estimated from recorded images. Compared with the aforementioned lifting tasks, the patients additionally lifted a weight laterally with one hand 26 times. Only a small difference (4%) in the measured resultant force was observed between stoop lifting and squat lifting, although the knee-bending angle (stoop 10°, squat 45°) and trunk inclination (stoop 52°, squat 39°) differed considerably at the time points of maximal resultant forces. Lifting a weight laterally caused 14% less implant force on average than lifting the same weight in front of the body. The current in vivo biomechanical study does not provide evidence that spinal loads differ substantially between stoop and squat lifting. The anterior-posterior position of the lifted weight relative to the spine appears to be crucial for spinal loading.

摘要

反复搬运重物已被确认为下背痛(LBP)的一个风险因素。深蹲式提举是否比弯腰式提举导致的脊柱负荷更低,以及横向提举重物是否比在身体前方提举相同重量的物体产生的力量更小,仍是存在争议的问题。使用仪器化椎体置换物(VBRs)测量了3例L1节段患者和1例L3节段患者腰椎的体内负荷。在17次测量过程中对弯腰式提举和深蹲式提举进行了比较,两种提举技术共进行了104次。从记录的图像中同时估算出躯干倾斜度和膝关节弯曲程度。与上述提举任务相比,患者还用一只手横向提举重物26次。尽管在最大合力时间点膝关节弯曲角度(弯腰10°,深蹲45°)和躯干倾斜度(弯腰52°,深蹲39°)有很大差异,但弯腰式提举和深蹲式提举之间在测量的合力上仅观察到微小差异(4%)。横向提举重物平均比在身体前方提举相同重量的物体产生的植入物受力小14%。当前的体内生物力学研究没有提供证据表明弯腰式提举和深蹲式提举之间的脊柱负荷有显著差异。所提举重物相对于脊柱的前后位置似乎对脊柱负荷至关重要。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验