Refine
Document Type
- Article (30)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (31)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (31)
Keywords
- MSD (4)
- Musculoskeletal diseases (4)
- Postural control (4)
- ergonomics (4)
- inertial motion capture (4)
- prevalence (4)
- dental profession (3)
- dentist (3)
- musculoskeletal disorders (3)
- Behandlungsposition (2)
Institute
Standard values of the upper body posture in healthy adults with special regard to age, sex and BMI
(2023)
In order to classify and analyze the parameters of upper body posture in clinical or physiotherapeutic settings, a baseline in the form of standard values with special regard to age, sex and BMI is required. Thus, subjectively healthy men and women aged 21–60 years were measured in this project. The postural parameters of 800 symptom-free male (n = 397) and female (n = 407) volunteers aged 21–60 years (Ø♀: 39.7 ± 11.6, Ø ♂: 40.7 ± 11.5 y) were studied. The mean height of the men was 1.8 ± 0.07 m, with a mean body weight of 84.8 ± 13.1 kg and an average BMI of 26.0 ± 3.534 kg/m2. In contrast, the mean height of the women was 1.67 ± 0.06 m, with a mean body weight of 66.5 ± 12.7 kg and an average BMI of 23.9 ± 4.6 kg/m2. By means of video rasterstereography, a 3-dimensional scan of the upper back surface was measured when in a habitual standing position. The means or medians, confidence intervals, tolerance ranges, the minimum, 2.5, 25, 50, 75, 97.5 percentiles and the maximum, plus the kurtosis and skewness of the distribution, were calculated for all parameters. Additionally, ANOVA and a factor analyses (sex, BMI, age) were conducted. In both sexes across all age groups, balanced, symmetrical upper body statics were evident. Most strikingly, the females showed greater thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis angles (kyphosis: Ø ♀ 56°, Ø♂ 51°; lordosis: Ø ♀ 49°, Ø♂ 32°) and lumbar bending angles (Ø ♀ 14°, Ø♂ 11°) than the males. The distance between the scapulae was more pronounced in men. These parameters also show an increase with age and BMI, respectively. Pelvic parameters were independent of age and sex. The upper body postures of women and men between the ages of 21 and 60 years were found to be almost symmetrical and axis-conforming with a positive correlation for BMI or age. Consequently, the present body posture parameters allow for comparisons with other studies, as well as for the evaluation of clinical (interim) diagnostics and applications.
Traditional ergonomic risk assessment tools such as the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) are often not sensitive enough to evaluate well-optimized work routines. An implementation of kinematic data captured by inertial sensors is applied to compare two work routines in dentistry. The surgical dental treatment was performed in two different conditions, which were recorded by means of inertial sensors (Xsens MVN Link). For this purpose, 15 (12 males/3 females) oral and maxillofacial surgeons took part in the study. Data were post processed with costume written MATLAB® routines, including a full implementation of RULA (slightly adjusted to dentistry). For an in-depth comparison, five newly introduced levels of complexity of the RULA analysis were applied, i.e., from lowest complexity to highest: (1) RULA score, (2) relative RULA score distribution, (3) RULA steps score, (4) relative RULA steps score occurrence, and (5) relative angle distribution. With increasing complexity, the number of variables times (the number of resolvable units per variable) increased. In our example, only significant differences between the treatment concepts were observed at levels that are more complex: the relative RULA step score occurrence and the relative angle distribution (level 4 + 5). With the presented approach, an objective and detailed ergonomic analysis is possible. The data-driven approach adds significant additional context to the RULA score evaluation. The presented method captures data, evaluates the full task cycle, and allows different levels of analysis. These points are a clear benefit to a standard, manual assessment of one main body position during a working task.
Triathletes often experience incoordination at the start of a transition run (TR); this is possibly reflected by altered joint kinematics. In this study, the first 20 steps of a run after a warm-up run (WR) and TR (following a 90 min cycling session) of 16 elite, male, long-distance triathletes (31.3 ± 5.4 years old) were compared. Measurements were executed on the competition course of the Ironman Frankfurt in Germany. Pacing and slipstream were provided by a cyclist in front of the runner. Kinematic data of the trunk and leg joints, step length, and step rate were obtained using the MVN Link inertial motion capture system by Xsens. Statistical parametric mapping was used to compare the active leg (AL) and passive leg (PL) phases of the WR and TR. In the TR, more spinal extension (~0.5–1°; p = 0.001) and rotation (~0.2–0.5°; p = 0.001–0.004), increases in hip flexion (~3°; ~65% AL−~55% PL; p = 0.001–0.004), internal hip rotation (~2.5°; AL + ~0–30% PL; p = 0.001–0.024), more knee adduction (~1°; ~80–95% AL; p = 0.001), and complex altered knee flexion patterns (~2–4°; AL + PL; p = 0.001–0.01) occurred. Complex kinematic differences between a WR and a TR were detected. This contributes to a better understanding of the incoordination in transition running.
Background; Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are a common health problem among dentists. Dental treatment is mainly performed in a sitting position. The aim of the study was to quantify the effect of different ergonomic chairs on the sitting position. In addition, it was tested if the sitting position of experienced workers is different from a non-dental group.
Methods; A total of 59 (28 m/31f) subjects, divided into two dentist groups according to their work experience (students and dentists (9 m/11f) < 10 years, dentists (9 m/10f) ≥ 10 years) and a control group (10 m/10f) were measured. A three-dimensional back scanner captured the bare back of all subjects sitting on six dentist’s chairs of different design. Initially, inter-group comparisons per chair, firstly in the habitual and secondly in the working postures, were carried out. Furthermore, inter-chair comparison was conducted for the habitual as well as for the working postures of all subjects and for each group. Finally, a comparison between the habitual sitting posture and the working posture for each respective chair (intra-chair comparison) was conducted (for all subjects and for each group). In addition, a subjective assessment of each chair was made.
For the statistical analysis, non-parametric tests were conducted and the level of significance was set at 5%.
Results: When comparing the three subject groups, all chairs caused a more pronounced spinal kyphosis in experienced dentists. In both conditions (habitual and working postures), a symmetrical sitting position was assumed on each chair.
The inter-chair comparisons showed no differences regarding the ergonomic design of the chairs. The significances found in the inter-chair comparisons were all within the measurementerror and could, therefore, be classified as clinically irrelevant.
The intra-chair comparison (habitual sitting position vs. working sitting position) illustrated position-related changes in the sagittal, but not in the transverse, plane. These changes were only position-related (forward leaned working posture) and were not influenced by the ergonomic sitting design of the respective chair. There are no differences between the groups in the subjective assessment of each chair.
Conclusions; Regardless of the group or the dental experience, the ergonomic design of the dentist’s chair had only a marginal influence on the upper body posture in both the habitual and working sitting postures. Consequently, the focus of the dentist’s chair, in order to minimize MSD, should concentrate on adopting a symmetrical sitting posture rather than on its ergonomic design.
Background: In clinical practice range of motion (RoM) is usually assessed with low-cost devices such as a tape measure (TM) or a digital inclinometer (DI). However, the intra- and inter-rater reliability of typical RoM tests differ, which impairs the evaluation of therapy progress. More objective and reliable kinematic data can be obtained with the inertial motion capture system (IMC) by Xsens. The aim of this study was to obtain the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the TM, DI and IMC methods in five RoM tests: modified Thomas test (DI), shoulder test modified after Janda (DI), retroflexion of the trunk modified after Janda (DI), lateral inclination (TM) and fingertip-to-floor test (TM).
Methods: Two raters executed the RoM tests (TM or DI) in a randomized order on 22 healthy individuals while, simultaneously, the IMC data (Xsens MVN) was collected. After 15 warm-up repetitions, each rater recorded five measurements.
Findings: Intra-rater reliabilities were (almost) perfect for tests in all three devices (ICCs 0.886–0.996). Inter-rater reliability was substantial to (almost) perfect in the DI (ICCs 0.71–0.87) and the IMC methods (ICCs 0.61–0.993) and (almost) perfect in the TM methods (ICCs 0.923–0.961). The measurement error (ME) for the tests measured in degree (°) was 0.9–3.3° for the DI methods and 0.5–1.2° for the IMC approaches. In the tests measured in centimeters the ME was 0.5–1.3cm for the TM methods and 0.6–2.7cm for the IMC methods. Pearson correlations between the results of the DI or the TM respectively with the IMC results were significant in all tests except for the shoulder test on the right body side (r = 0.41–0.81).
Interpretation: Measurement repetitions of either one or multiple trained raters can be considered reliable in all three devices.
In the application of range of motion (ROM) tests there is little agreement on the number of repetitions to be measured and the number of preceding warm-up protocols. In stretch training a plateau in ROM gains can be seen after four to five repetitions. With increasing number of repetitions, the gain in ROM is reduced. This study examines the question of whether such an effect occurs in common ROM tests. Twenty-two healthy sport students (10 m/12 f.) with an average age of 25.3 ± 1.94 years (average height 174.1 ± 9.8 cm; weight 66.6 ± 11.3 kg and BMI 21.9 ± 2.0 kg/cm2) volunteered in this study. Each subject performed five ROM tests in a randomized order—measured either via a tape measure or a digital inclinometer: Tape measure was used to evaluate the Fingertip-to-Floor test (FtF) and the Lateral Inclination test (LI). Retroflexion of the trunk modified after Janda (RF), Thomas test (TT) and a Shoulder test modified after Janda (ST) were evaluated with a digital inclinometer. In order to show general acute effects within 20 repetitions we performed ANOVA/Friedman-test with multiple comparisons. A non-linear regression was then performed to identify a plateau formation. Significance level was set at 5%. In seven out of eight ROM tests (five tests in total with three tests measured both left and right sides) significant flexibility gains were observed (FtF: p < 0.001; LI-left/right: p < 0.001/0.001; RF: p = 0.009; ST-left/right: p < 0.001/p = 0.003; TT-left: p < 0.001). A non-linear regression with random effects was successfully applied on FtF, RF, LI-left/right, ST-left and TT-left and thus, indicate a gradual decline in the amount of gained ROM. An acute effect was observed in most ROM tests, which is characterized by a gradual decline of ROM gain. For those tests, we can state that the acute effect described in the stretching literature also applies to the performance of typical ROM tests. Since a non-linear behavior was shown, it is the decision of the practitioner to weigh up between measurement accuracy and expenditure. Researchers and practitioners should consider this when applying ROM assessments to healthy young adults.
Background: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are common among dental professionals. The most common areas affected are the trunk, neck, shoulders and wrists. Current evidence suggests that the causes of MSD can be found in the physical demands of the profession. Posture and movement during treatment is influenced by the arrangement of the treatment concept (patient chair, equipment and cabinets). It has not been investigated whether the ergonomic risk differs between the treatment concepts.
Methods: To evaluate the prevalence of MSD in dental professionals, 1000 responses will be collected from a nationwide (Germany) online questionnaire (mod. Nordic Questionnaire and mod. Meyer questionnaire). In order to assess the ergonomic risk of the treatment techniques used in the four treatment concepts, 3D movement analyses are carried out with inertial sensors. For this purpose, 20 teams of dentists and dental assistants from four dental fields of specializations (generalists, orthodontists, endodontists and oral surgeons) and a student control group will be recruited. Each team will execute field specific standardized treatments at a dummy head. Measurements are carried out in each of the four treatment concepts. The data will be analyzed using the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) which will be modified for the evaluation of objective data.
Conclusions: On the basis of these investigations, a substantial gain of knowledge regarding work-related MSD in the field of dentistry and its potential biomechanical causes is possible. For the first time, objective and differentiated comparisons between the four treatment concepts are possible for different fields of dental specialization. Up to now, statically held positions of the trunk and proximal upper extremities, but also the repetitive movements of the hands have been considered a risk for MSD. Since both are included in the RULA, dental activities can be assessed in a detailed but also global manner with regard to ergonomic risks.
Zur ergonomischen Beurteilung von Arbeitsplätzen werden „ergonomic risk assessment tools“ (ERAT) verwendet. Mithilfe dieser kann die körperliche Belastung evaluiert und hinsichtlich eines biomechanischen Überlastungsrisikos bewertet werden. Dazu gehören neben Eigenangaben auch observatorische Methoden, deren Ergebnisse in Punktwerten („Scores“) zusammengefasst werden, wie z. B. die RULAMethode („rapid upper limb assessment“). Durch die technische Weiterentwicklung direkter Messmethoden können inertiale Motion-Capture-Systeme im 21. Jahrhundert präzise und kontinuierliche objektive Daten liefern. In einem neuen Ansatz wurde die observatorische Scoring-Methode RULA modifiziert und auf die digital erhobenen Daten angewendet, was differenzierte ergonomische Betrachtungen ganzer Arbeitsabläufe ermöglicht.
Musculoskeletal disorders of the trunk and neck are common among cleaners. Vacuum cleaning is a demanding activity. The aim of this study was to present the movement profile of the trunk and neck during habitual vacuuming. The data were collected from 31 subjects (21f./10 m) using a 3D motion analysis system (Xsens). 10 cycles were analysed in vacuuming PVC and carpet floors with 8 vacuum cleaners. The joint angles and velocities were represented statistically descriptive. When vacuuming, the trunk is held in a forwardly inclined position by a flexion in the hip and rotated from this position. In the joint angles and velocities of the spine, the rotation proved to be dominant. A relatively large amount of movement took place in the cervical spine and also in the lumbar spine. The shown movement profile is rather a comfort area of vacuuming which may serve as a reference for ergonomics in vacuuming.
Background: Vacuum cleaning, which is associated with musculoskeletal complaints, is frequently carried out in private households and by professional cleaners. The aim of this pilot study was to quantify the movements during habitual vacuuming and to characterize the movement profile with regard to its variability. Methods: The data were collected from 31 subjects (21 f/10 m) using a 3D motion analysis system (XSens). Eight vacuum cleaners were used to vacuum polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and carpet floors. In 15 joints of the right upper extremity, the trunk and the lower extremities, Principal Component Analysis was used to determine the predominantly varying joints during vacuuming. Results: The movements of the trunk and the lower extremities were relatively constant and, therefore, had less influence. The shoulder, elbow and wrist joints were identified as joints that can be decisive for the movement profile and that can be influenced. These joints were represented in the course of the vacuuming cycle by the mean movement with its standard deviation. Conclusion: In summary, the generalization of a movement profile is possible for the trunk and the lower extremities due to the relative homogeneity. In future it will be necessary to identify factors influencing variability in order to draw conclusions about movement ergonomics.
