Validation of Lumbar Compressive Force Simulation in Forward Flexion Condition
Source abstract
Abstract
Safety standard requirements must be implemented for lumbar support robots, which are mainly used for preventing low back pain (LBP) in caregivers. Usually, simulations are used to mimic actions that are not allowed for a real person. However, a comprehensive validation of a simulator in dynamic conditions has not been conducted. In this study, an ergonomic simulator is validated through forward flexion invasive experiments. The correspondence between the simulated and experimental compressive force (CF), as well as the CF obtained using two existing models about the unified angle, is investigated. The results show that the CF error between the measurements and the simulator at a flexion angle of 30∘ is 11.8% and is lower than those obtained for the other two models (16.8% and 20.6%). Linear regression shows that the invasive data and estimated CF are close (slope = 1) in Merryweather’s model and CF simulator but not for Potvin’s model. We evaluate the precision of the simulator by using intraclass correlation coefficient method. Merryweather’s model is moderately consistent with invasive measurements, with R–0.685 and 0.627 at 0 and 30∘, while the CF simulator shows good consistency with Merryweather’s model with R–0.879 and 0836 at 0 and 30∘.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation · Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology · Effects of Vibration on Health
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical Systems Engineering, Nagoya University, Furo-Cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan
Funding
the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 201610.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2 ↗
2. Effect of foot movement and an elastic lumbar back support on spinal loading during free-dynamic symmetric and asymmetric lifting exertions10.1080/001401300184314 ↗
3. Assessment of the impact of lifting device use on low back pain and musculoskeletal injury claims among nurses10.1136/oemed-2012-101210 ↗
4. Exoskeletons for industrial application and their potential effects on physical work load10.1080/00140139.2015.1081988 ↗
5. An on-body personal lift augmentation device (PLAD) reduces EMG amplitude of erector spinae during lifting tasks10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.12.021 ↗
6. Power assist method based on phase sequence and muscle force condition for HAL10.1163/1568553054455103 ↗
7. Rationale, implementation and evaluation of assistive strategies for an active back-support exoskeleton10.3389/frobt.2018.00053 ↗
8. ISO 13482:2014 (2014). Robotics. Robots and Robotic Devices. Safety Requirements for Personal care Robots, International Organization for Standardization.
9. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks10.1080/00140139308967940 ↗
10. Trunk muscle activation in low-back pain patients, an analysis of the literature10.1016/S1050-6411(03)00041-5 ↗
11. The effect of acute back muscle fatigue on postural control strategy in people with and without recurrent low back pain10.1007/s00586-011-1825-3 ↗
12. Dynamic changes of elasticity, cross-sectional area, and fat infiltration of multifidus at different postures in men with chronic low back pain10.1016/j.spinee.2011.12.004 ↗
13. Standard performance test of wearable robots for lumbar support10.1109/LRA.2018.2810860 ↗
14. JIS B 8456-1:2017 (2017). Personal Care Robots, Part 1: Physical Assistant Robots for Lumbar Support, Japanese Standards Association. (In Japanese).
15. Use of NIOSH equation inputs to calculate lumbosacral compression forces10.1080/001401397187847 ↗
16. A revised back compressive force estimation model for ergonomic evaluation of lifting tasks10.3233/WOR-2009-0924 ↗
17. Validity of estimates of spinal compression forces obtained from worksite measurements10.1080/00140131003675091 ↗
18. Chaffin, D.B., Andersson, G., and Martin, B.J. (2006). Occupational Biomechanical Models. Occupational Biomechanics, John Wiley & Sons.
19. An explicit expression for the moment in multibody systems10.1016/0021-9290(92)90076-D ↗
20. Validation of a full body 3-D dynamic linked segment model10.1016/S0167-9457(96)00034-6 ↗
21. A biomechanical model for analysis of symmetric sagittal plane lifting10.1080/05695557008974726 ↗
22. Effects of an anatomically detailed erector spinae model on L4L5 disc compression and shear10.1016/0021-9290(87)90280-6 ↗
23. Comparative evaluation of six quantitative lifting tools to estimate spine loads during static activities10.1016/j.apergo.2014.11.002 ↗
24. A comprehensive analysis of low-back disorder risk and spinal loading during the transferring and repositioning of patients using different techniques10.1080/001401399185207 ↗
25. Endo, Y., Tada, M., and Mochimaru, M. (2014, January 20–22). Dhaiba: Development of virtual ergonomic assessment system with human models. Proceedings of the 3rd International Digital Human Symposium, Tokyo, Japan.
26. Imamura, Y., Ayusawa, K., Endo, Y., and Yoshida, E. (2017, January 17–20). Simulation-based design for robotic care device: Optimizing trajectory of transfer support robot. Proceedings of the ICORR 2017–15th IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, London, UK.10.1109/ICORR.2017.8009355 ↗
27. A simple polynomial that predicts low-back compression during complex 3-D tasks10.1080/00140139608964532 ↗
28. An EMG-assisted model of trunk loading during free-dynamic lifting10.1016/0021-9290(95)00003-Z ↗
29. Jäger, M., Luttmann, A., Göllner, R., and Laurig, W. (2001). “The Dortmunder”-Biomechanical Model for Quantification and Assessment of the Load on the Lumbar Spine. SAE Trans., 2163–2171.10.4271/2001-01-2085 ↗
30. In vivo measurements of intradiscal pressure: Discometry, a method for the determination of pressure in the lower lumbar discs10.2106/00004623-196446050-00012 ↗
31. New in vivo measurements of pressures in the intervertebral disc in daily life10.1097/00007632-199904150-00005 ↗
32. In vivo intradiscal pressure measurement in healthy individuals and in patients with ongoing back problems10.1097/00007632-199912010-00008 ↗
33. Mechanical load of the lumbar spine during forward bending motion of the trunk-a biomechanical study10.1097/01.brs.0000192636.69129.fb ↗
34. Sensitivity of lumbar spine loading to anatomical parameters10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.11.003 ↗
35. Development and validation of a musculoskeletal model of the fully articulated thoracolumbar spine and rib cage10.1115/1.4030408 ↗
36. Is it possible to estimate the compressive force in the lumbar spine from intradiscal pressure measurements? A finite element evaluation10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.03.007 ↗
37. Validation of computational models in biomechanics10.1243/09544119JEIM649 ↗
38. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 ↗
39. Intervertebral disc decompression following endplate damage: Implications for disc degeneration depend on spinal level and age10.1097/BRS.0b013e318290f3cc ↗
40. The protective role of dynamic stabilization on the adjacent disc to a rigid instrumented level. An in vitro biomechanical analysis10.1007/s00402-013-1685-x ↗
41. Development and clinical application of an intradiscal pressure sensor
42. Effects of antagonistic co-contraction on differences between electromyography based and optimization based estimates of spinal forces10.1080/00140130512331332918 ↗
43. A universal model of the lumbar back muscles in the upright position
44. Moment arms of spinal musculature determined from CT scans10.1016/0268-0033(88)90059-9 ↗
45. Measurement of the trunk musculature of active males using ct scan radiography: Implications for force and moment generating capacity about the l4l5 joint10.1016/0021-9290(88)90262-X ↗
46. Moment arm lengths of trunk muscles to the lumbosacral joint obtained in vivo with computed tomography10.1097/00007632-198603000-00011 ↗
47. The mechanics of back-extensor torque production about the lumbar spine10.1016/S0021-9290(03)00015-0 ↗
48. A myoelectrically based dynamic three-dimensional model to predict loads on lumbar spine tissues during lateral bending10.1016/0021-9290(92)90259-4 ↗
49. Mechanical stability of the in vivo lumbar spine: Implications for injury and chronic low back pain10.1016/0268-0033(95)00035-6 ↗
50. Quantitative anatomy of the lumbar musculature10.1016/S0021-9290(98)00164-X ↗
51. Intradiscal pressure together with anthropometric data–a data set for the validation of models10.1016/S0268-0033(00)00103-0 ↗
52. Back and hip extensor fatigability in chronic low back pain patients and controls10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90142-3 ↗
53. Age-related injury risk curves for the lumbar spine for use in low-back-pain prevention in manual handling tasks10.1186/s40648-019-0139-9 ↗
54. Peak and average rectified EMG measures: Which method of data reduction should be used for assessing core training exercises?10.1016/j.jelekin.2010.06.001 ↗