Abstract
There are currently no evidence-based practical automated injury risk factor estimation tools to monitor low back compressive force in ambulatory or sporting environments. For this purpose, inertial sensors may potentially replace laboratory-based systems with comparable results. The objective was to investigate inertial sensor validity to monitor low back compression force. Thirty participants completed a series of lifting tasks from the floor. Back compression force was estimated using a hand calculated method, an inertial sensor method and a three-dimensional motion capture method. Results demonstrated that semi-automation with a sensor had a higher agreement with motion capture compared to the hand calculated method, with angle errors of less than six degrees and back compression force errors of less than 200 Newtons. It was concluded that inertial sensors are valid to implement for static low back compression force estimations.
Highlights
Low back disorders (LBDs) refer to musculoskeletal health, pain and injuries of the low back region
One Sports and Biomedical Engineering Laboratory (SABEL) Sense device was attached with rigid strapping tape just above the S1 spinous process landmark with an attached rigid body of reflective markers
Both methods were considered practical; utilising inertial sensors to semi-automate the HCBCF equation was more accurate than traditional hand calculation
Summary
Low back disorders (LBDs) refer to musculoskeletal health, pain and injuries of the low back region. In Australia, over 30% of reported low back injuries are due to avoidable bodily stressing, related to any lifting, pushing, pulling and bending tasks [2]. Comparable statistics span the globe, LBD primary prevention initiatives are a large area of research and investment [1]. Back compressive force (BCF) is a known risk factor for sustaining LBDs, which can cause a disruption to the mechanical environment of the spine [3]. Risk factors of LBD that contribute toward unsafe compressive loads include tissue overload, prolonged exposure to postures with large spine flexion and inadequate rest between tasks [4,5]. Gold standard methods of monitoring BCF are expensive, have high expertise requirements and are bound to laboratory environments [5,6,7]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
