Lumbar Extension during Stoop Lifting is Delayed by the Load and Hamstring Tightness

Risa Iwasaki, Ginga Yokoyama, Satoshi Kawabata, Tomotaka Suzuki, Risa Iwasaki, Ginga Yokoyama, Satoshi Kawabata, Tomotaka Suzuki

Abstract

[Purpose] This study investigated the relationship between lumbar pelvic rhythm and the physical characteristics of stoop lifting. [Subjects and Methods] Participants performed a stoop lifting task under two conditions: with and without load. We assessed the lumbar kyphosis and sacral inclination angles using the SpinalMouse(®) system, as well as hamstring flexibility. During stoop lifting, surface electromyograms and the lumbar and sacral motions were recorded using a multi-channel telemetry system and flexible electrogoniometers. [Results] In the initial phase of lifting, lumbar extension was delayed by load; the delay showed a negative correlation with sacral inclination angle at trunk flexion, whereas a positive correlation was observed with electromyogram activity of the lumbar multifidus. Additionally, a positive correlation was observed between sacral inclination angle and hip flexion range of motion during the straight leg raise test. [Conclusion] We found that a disorder of the lumbar pelvic rhythm can be caused by both load and hamstring tightness. In the initial phase of stoop lifting, delayed lumbar extension is likely to lead to an increase in spinal instability and stress on the posterior ligamentous system. This mechanism shows that stoop lifting of a load may be harmful to the lower back of people with hamstring tightness.

Keywords: Hamstring flexibility; Lifting; Lumbar pelvic rhythm.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
The lumbar pelvic rhythm during stoop lifting with or without load. Normalized extension in lumbar spine and sacrum are plotted against the percentage of total extension. The graph of lumbar spine is shifted to the right because of a delay in lumbar extension at the initial phase of lifting.

References

    1. Andersson GB: Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet, 1999, 354: 581–585
    1. van Dieën JH, Hoozemans MJ, Toussaint HM: Stoop or squat: a review of biomechanical studies on lifting technique. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 1999, 14: 685–696
    1. Bazrgari B, Shirazi-Adl A, Arjmand N: Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads. Eur Spine J, 2007, 16: 687–699
    1. Nelson JM, Walmsley RP, Stevenson JM: Relative lumbar and pelvic motion during loaded spinal flexion/extension. Spine, 1995, 20: 199–204
    1. Neumann DA, Rowan EE: Kinesiology of the musculoskeletal system: foundations for physical rehabilitation, 1st ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 2002, pp 297–299, 346–349.
    1. Esola MA, McClure PW, Fitzgerald GK, et al. : Analysis of lumbar spine and hip motion during forward bending in subjects with and without a history of low back pain. Spine, 1996, 21: 71–78
    1. McClure PW, Esola M, Schreier R, et al. : Kinematic analysis of lumbar and hip motion while rising from a forward, flexed position in patients with and without a history of low back pain. Spine, 1997, 22: 552–558
    1. Mitnitski A, Yahia L, Newman N, et al. : Coordination between the lumbar spine lordosis and trunk angle during weight lifting. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 1998, 13: 121–127
    1. Granata KP, Sanford AH: Lumbar-pelvic coordination is influenced by lifting task parameters. Spine, 2000, 25: 1413–1418
    1. Maduri A, Pearson BL, Wilson SE: Lumbar-pelvic range and coordination during lifting tasks. J Electromyogr Kinesiol, 2008, 18: 807–814
    1. Mannion AF, Knecht K, Balaban G, et al. : A new skin-surface device for measuring the curvature and global and segmental ranges of motion of the spine: reliability of measurements and comparison with data reviewed from the literature. Eur Spine J, 2004, 13: 122–136
    1. Guermazi M, Ghroubi S, Kassis M, et al. : Validity and reliability of Spinal Mouse to assess lumbar flexion. Ann Readapt Med Phys, 2006, 49: 172–177
    1. McGill SM: Electromyographic activity of the abdominal and low back musculature during the generation of isometric and dynamic axial trunk torque: implications for lumbar mechanics. J Orthop Res, 1991, 9: 91–103
    1. Hislop HJ, Montgomery J, Connolly BH: Daniels and Worthingham’s muscle testing: techniques of manual examination, 7th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1995, pp 216–221.
    1. Panjabi MM: Clinical spinal instability and low back pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol, 2003, 13: 371–379
    1. Farfan HF: Muscular mechanism of the lumbar spine and the position of power and efficiency. Orthop Clin North Am, 1975, 6: 135–144
    1. Dolan P, Mannion AF, Adams MA: Passive tissues help the back muscles to generate extensor moments during lifting. J Biomech, 1994, 27: 1077–1085
    1. Solomonow M, Zhou BH, Harris M, et al. : The ligamento-muscular stabilizing system of the spine. Spine, 1998, 23: 2552–2562
    1. Gajdosik RL, Albert CR, Mitman JJ: Influence of hamstring length on the standing position and flexion range of motion of the pelvic angle, lumbar angle, and thoracic angle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 1994, 20: 213–219

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel