Development and Biomechanical Evaluation of a Back Exoskeleton to Support Lifting Tasks
Source abstract
Abstract
Musculoskeletal disorders, particularly lower back pain, are common among healthcare workers due to frequent lifting, bending, and prolonged standing. To address this issue, we developed a lightweight, soft, and active exoskeleton designed to support lifting movements while maintaining user mobility and comfort. This paper presents the design of the exoskeleton. To assess the physiological effects on the wearer’s body, we conducted a biomechanical analysis, evaluating joint kinematics (hip and knee) and muscle activation (m. erector spinae and m. semitendinosus) during a lifting task. The results showed that the exoskeleton effectively reduced muscle activation in the m. erector spinae by 15.82 ± 13.35% and m. semitendinosus by 19.89 ± 20.84% without significantly altering the analyzed joint kinematics. These findings indicate that the system provides targeted support without restricting mobility, making it a promising tool for reducing physical strain in healthcare and other physically demanding professions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics · Muscle activation and electromyography studies · Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Laboratory for Manufacturing Technology, Helmut-Schmidt-University, Holstenhofweg 85, 22043 Hamburg, Germany
Chair for Automated and Autonomous Systems, TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Leipziger Str. 28, 09599 Freiberg, Germany
Funding
dtec.bw—Digitalization and Technology Research Center of the Bundeswehr
References (39)
Show source-provided references
1. Krishnan, K.S., Raju, G., and Shawkataly, O. (2021). Prevalence of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: Psychological and Physical Risk Factors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18.10.3390/ijerph18179361 ↗
2. Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Disorders for Nurses in Hospitals, Long-Term Care Facilities, and Home Health Care: A Comprehensive Review10.1177/0018720815581933 ↗
3. Interventions to prevent and reduce the impact of musculoskeletal injuries among nurses: A systematic review10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.03.018 ↗
4. Occupational Exoskeletons: Overview of Their Benefits and Limitations in Preventing Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders10.1080/24725838.2019.1638331 ↗
5. Karafillidis, A., and Weidner, R. (2018). Developing Support Technologies, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-030-01836-8 ↗
6. Assessment of Exoskeletons on Nurses’ Quality of Work Life: A Pilot Study at Foch Hospital10.3390/nursrep13020068 ↗
7. Effects of back-support exoskeletons with different functional mechanisms on trunk muscle activity and kinematics10.1017/wtc.2023.5 ↗
8. Koopman, A.S., Näf, M., Baltrusch, S.J., Kingma, I., Rodriguez-Guerrero, C., Babič, J., de Looze, M.P., and van Dieën, J.H. (2020). Biomechanical evaluation of a new passive back support exoskeleton. J. Biomech., 105.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.109795 ↗
9. Awkward trunk postures and their relationship with low back pain in hospital nurses
10. Liang, F., Mo, L., Sun, Y., Guo, C., Gao, F., Liao, W.-H., Cao, J., Li, B., Song, Z., and Wang, D. (2024). Interlimb and Intralimb Synergy Modeling for Lower Limb Assistive Devices: Modeling Methods and Feature Selection. Cyborg Bionic Syst., 5.10.34133/cbsystems.0122 ↗
11. Ali, A., Fontanari, V., Schmoelz, W., and Agrawal, S.K. (2021). Systematic Review of Back-Support Exoskeletons and Soft Robotic Suits. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., 9.10.3389/fbioe.2021.765257 ↗
12. Schüppstuhl, T. (2022). Approach of a Decision Support Matrix for the Implementation of Exoskeletons in Industrial Workplaces. Annals of Scientific Society for Assembly, Handling and Industrial Robotics 2021, Springer International Publishing AG.
13. Inoue, Y., Kuroda, Y., Yamanoi, Y., Yabuki, Y., and Yokoi, H. (2024). Development of Wrist Separated Exoskeleton Socket of Myoelectric Prosthesis Hand for Symbrachydactyly. Cyborg Bionic Syst., 5.10.34133/cbsystems.0141 ↗
14. The-state-of-the-art of soft robotics to assist mobility: A review of physiotherapist and patient identified limitations of current lower-limb exoskeletons and the potential soft-robotic solutions10.1186/s12984-022-01122-3 ↗
15. Preethichandra, D.M.G., Piyathilaka, L., Sul, J.-H., Izhar, U., Samarasinghe, R., Arachchige, S.D., and de Silva, L.C. (2024). Passive and Active Exoskeleton Solutions: Sensors, Actuators, Applications, and Recent Trends. Sensors, 24.10.3390/s24217095 ↗
16. Ott, O., Ralfs, L., and Weidner, R. (2022). Framework for qualifying exoskeletons as adaptive support technology. Front. Robot. AI, 9.10.3389/frobt.2022.951382 ↗
17. Neťuková, S., Bejtic, M., Malá, C., Horáková, L., Kutílek, P., Kauler, J., and Krupička, R. (2022). Lower Limb Exoskeleton Sensors: State-of-the-Art. Sensors, 22.10.3390/s22239091 ↗
18. Rayssiguie, E., and Erden, M.S. (2022). A Review of Exoskeletons Considering Nurses. Sensors, 22.10.3390/s22187035 ↗
19. Intention to Use Exoskeletons in Geriatric Care Work: Need for Ergonomic and Social Design
20. Singleton, W.T. (1982). Biomechanics. The Body at Work: Biological Ergonomics, Cambridge University Press.
21. Biomechanical evaluation of nursing tasks in a hospital setting10.1080/00140130701674661 ↗
22. Al-Amri, M., Nicholas, K., Button, K., Sparkes, V., Sheeran, L., and Davies, J.L. (2018). Inertial Measurement Units for Clinical Movement Analysis: Reliability and Concurrent Validity. Sensors, 18.10.3390/s18030719 ↗
23. Sorbie, G.G., Williams, M.J., Boyle, D.W., Gray, A., Brouner, J., Gibson, N., Baker, J.S., Easton, C., and Ugbolue, U.C. (2018). Intra-session and Inter-day Reliability of the Myon 320 Electromyography System During Sub-maximal Contractions. Front. Physiol., 9.10.3389/fphys.2018.00309 ↗
24. One-dimensional statistical parametric mapping in Python10.1080/10255842.2010.527837 ↗
25. An industrial exoskeleton user acceptance framework based on a literature review of empirical studies10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103615 ↗
26. Upper limb soft robotic wearable devices: A systematic review10.1186/s12984-022-01065-9 ↗
27. A Systematic Review on Rigid Exoskeleton Robot Design for Wearing Comfort: Joint Self-Alignment, Attachment Interface, and Structure Customization10.1109/TNSRE.2024.3479283 ↗
28. The effects of a passive exoskeleton on muscle activity, discomfort and endurance time in forward bending work10.1016/j.apergo.2015.12.003 ↗
29. A Cable-Driven Exoskeleton With Personalized Assistance Improves the Gait Metrics of People in Subacute Stroke10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3281409 ↗
30. Maciolek, W. (2024, January 27–29). Development of a Cable-Driven Upper Limb Exosuit for Both Pulling and Lifting. Proceedings of the 2024 10th International Conference on Mechatronics and Robotics Engineering, ICMRE 2024, Milan, Italy.
31. Physiological and kinematic effects of a soft exosuit on arm movements10.1186/s12984-019-0495-y ↗
32. Cappello, L., Binh, D.K., Yen, S.-C., and Masia, L. (2016, January 26–29). Design and preliminary characterization of a soft wearable exoskeleton for upper limb. Proceedings of the 6th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), UTown, Singapore.10.1109/BIOROB.2016.7523695 ↗
33. Exoskeleton robots for lower limb assistance: A review of materials, actuation, and manufacturing methods10.1177/09544119211032010 ↗
34. Assessing the Work Activities Related to Musculoskeletal Disorder among Critical Care Nurses
35. Effectiveness of an on-body lifting aid (HAL® for care support) to reduce lower back muscle activity during repetitive lifting tasks10.1016/j.jocn.2019.01.038 ↗
36. Effects of passive back-support exoskeletons on physical demands and usability during patient transfer tasks10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103373 ↗
37. Yao, Z., Linnenberg, C., Weidner, R., and Wulfsberg, J. (2019, January 20–24). Development of A Soft Power Suit for Lower Back Assistance. Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Montreal, QC, Canada.10.1109/ICRA.2019.8794026 ↗
38. Fanti, V., Sanguineti, V., Caldwell, D.G., Ortiz, J., and Di Natali, C. (2022). Assessment methodology for human-exoskeleton interactions: Kinetic analysis based on muscle activation. Front. Neurorobot., 16.10.3389/fnbot.2022.982950 ↗
39. Missiroli, F., Lotti, N., Xiloyannis, M., Sloot, L.H., Riener, R., and Masia, L. (2020). Relationship Between Muscular Activity and Assistance Magnitude for a Myoelectric Model Based Controlled Exosuit. Front. Robot. AI, 7.10.3389/frobt.2020.595844 ↗