School of Design, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ergonomics. 2021 Jun;64(6):685-711. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2020.1870162. Epub 2021 Mar 16.
This study is an updated systematic review of papers published in the last 5 years on industrial back-support exoskeletons. The research questions were aimed at addressing the recent findings regarding objective (e.g. body loading, user performance) and subjective evaluations (e.g. user satisfaction), potential side effects, and methodological aspects of usability testing. Thirteen studies of active and twenty of passive exoskeletons were identified. The exoskeletons were tested during lifting and bending tasks, predominantly in laboratory settings and among healthy young men. In general, decreases in participants' back-muscle activity, peak L5/S1 moments and spinal compression forces were reported. User endurance during lifting and static bending improved, but performance declined during tasks that required increased agility. The overall user satisfaction was moderate. Some side effects were observed, including increased abdominal/lower-limb muscle activity and changes in joint angles. A need was identified for further field studies, involving industrial workers, and reflecting actual work situations. Due to increased research activity in the field, a systematic review was performed of recent studies on industrial back-support exoskeletons, addressing objective and subjective evaluations, side effects, and methodological aspects of usability testing. The results indicate the efficiency of exoskeletons in back-load reduction and a need for further studies in real work situations. BB: biceps brachii; BF: biceps femoris; CoM: centre of mass; DA: deltoideus anterior; EMG: electromyography; ES: erector spinae; ES-C: erector spinae-cervical; ESI: erector spinae iliocostalis; ESI-L: erector spinae iliocostalis-lumborum; ESL: erector spinae longissimus; ES-L: erector spinae-lumbar; ESL-L: erector spinae longissimus-lumborum; ESL-T: erector spinae longissimus-thoracis; ES-T: erector spinae-thoracic; GM: glutaeus maximus; LBP: low back pain; LD: latissimus dorsi; LPD: local perceived discomfort scale; LPP: local perceived pressure scale; MS: multifidus spinae; MSD: musculoskeletal disorder; M-SFS: modified spinal function sort; NMV: no mean value provided; OA: obliquus abdominis (internus and externus); OEA: obliquus externus abdominis; OIA : obliquus internus abdominis; RA: rectus abdominis; RF: rectus femoris; RoM: range of motion; SUS: system usability scale; T: trapezius (pars Ascendens and Descendens); TA: trapezius pars ascendens; TC: mid-cervical trapezius; TD: trapezius pars descendens; VAS: visual analog scale; VL: vastus lateralis; VM: vastus medialis.
本研究对过去 5 年发表的关于工业背部支撑式矫形器的文献进行了更新的系统综述。研究问题旨在针对近期关于客观(例如身体负荷、用户性能)和主观评估(例如用户满意度)、潜在副作用以及可用性测试的方法学方面的发现进行研究。确定了 13 项主动式和 20 项被动式矫形器的研究。矫形器在举重和弯曲任务中进行了测试,主要在实验室环境中和健康的年轻男性中进行。一般来说,报告了参与者背部肌肉活动、L5/S1 峰值时刻和脊柱压缩力的减少。参与者在举重和静态弯曲时的耐力提高了,但在需要提高敏捷性的任务中,性能下降了。总体用户满意度为中等。观察到一些副作用,包括腹部/下肢肌肉活动增加和关节角度的变化。需要进一步开展涉及工业工人和反映实际工作情况的现场研究。 由于该领域的研究活动增加,因此对工业背部支撑式矫形器的最新研究进行了系统综述,以评估客观和主观评估、副作用以及可用性测试的方法学方面。结果表明矫形器在减轻背部负荷方面的效率,并需要在实际工作情况下进行进一步的研究。 BB:肱二头肌;BF:股二头肌;CoM:质心;DA:三角肌前束;EMG:肌电图;ES:竖脊肌;ES-C:颈胸竖脊肌;ESI:髂肋肌;ESI-L:腰髂肋肌;ESL:最长竖脊肌;ES-L:腰竖脊肌;ESL-T:胸最长竖脊肌;ES-T:胸竖脊肌;GM:臀大肌;LBP:下腰痛;LD:背阔肌;LPD:局部知觉不适量表;LPP:局部知觉压力量表;MS:多裂肌;MSD:肌肉骨骼疾病;M-SFS:改良脊柱功能分类;NMV:未提供平均值;OA:腹外斜肌(内、外斜肌);OEA:腹外斜肌;OIA:腹内斜肌;RA:腹直肌;RF:股四头肌;RoM:活动范围;SUS:系统可用性量表;T:斜方肌(升、降肌);TA:斜方肌升肌;TC:颈中斜方肌;TD:斜方肌降肌;VAS:视觉模拟量表;VL:股外侧肌;VM:股中间肌。