Lateral Pelvis and Lumbar Motion in Seated and Standing Office Work and Their Association With Transient Low Back Pain.

IF 2.9 3区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Jessa M Davidson, Jackie D Zehr, Mamiko Noguchi, Donna J Fok, Liana M Tennant, Jack P Callaghan
{"title":"Lateral Pelvis and Lumbar Motion in Seated and Standing Office Work and Their Association With Transient Low Back Pain.","authors":"Jessa M Davidson, Jackie D Zehr, Mamiko Noguchi, Donna J Fok, Liana M Tennant, Jack P Callaghan","doi":"10.1177/00187208241249423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess frontal plane motion of the pelvis and lumbar spine during 2 h of seated and standing office work and evaluate associations with transient low back pain.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Although bending and twisting motions are cited as risk factors for low back injuries in occupational tasks, few studies have assessed frontal plane motion during sedentary exposures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-one participants completed 2 h of seated and standing office work while pelvic obliquity, lumbar lateral bending angles, and ratings of perceived low back pain were recorded. Mean absolute angles were compared across 15-min blocks, amplitude probability distribution functions were calculated, and associations between lateral postures and low back pain were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean pelvic obliquity (sit = 4.0 ± 2.8°, stand = 3.5 ± 1.7°) and lumbar lateral bending (sit = 4.5 ± 2.5°, stand = 4.1 ± 1.6°) were consistently asymmetrical. Pelvic obliquity range of motion was 4.7° larger in standing (13.6 ± 7.5°) than sitting (8.9 ± 8.7°). In sitting, 52% (pelvis) and 71% (lumbar) of participants, and in standing, 71% (pelvis and lumbar) of participants, were considered asymmetric for >90% of the protocol. Lateral postures displayed weak to low correlations with peak low back pain (<i>R</i> ≤ 0.388).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The majority of participants displayed lateral asymmetries for the pelvis and lumbar spine within 5° of their upright standing posture.</p><p><strong>Application: </strong>In short-term sedentary exposures, associations between lateral postures and pain indicated that as the range in lateral postures increases there may be an increased possibility of pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":56333,"journal":{"name":"Human Factors","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208241249423","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess frontal plane motion of the pelvis and lumbar spine during 2 h of seated and standing office work and evaluate associations with transient low back pain.

Background: Although bending and twisting motions are cited as risk factors for low back injuries in occupational tasks, few studies have assessed frontal plane motion during sedentary exposures.

Methods: Twenty-one participants completed 2 h of seated and standing office work while pelvic obliquity, lumbar lateral bending angles, and ratings of perceived low back pain were recorded. Mean absolute angles were compared across 15-min blocks, amplitude probability distribution functions were calculated, and associations between lateral postures and low back pain were evaluated.

Results: Mean pelvic obliquity (sit = 4.0 ± 2.8°, stand = 3.5 ± 1.7°) and lumbar lateral bending (sit = 4.5 ± 2.5°, stand = 4.1 ± 1.6°) were consistently asymmetrical. Pelvic obliquity range of motion was 4.7° larger in standing (13.6 ± 7.5°) than sitting (8.9 ± 8.7°). In sitting, 52% (pelvis) and 71% (lumbar) of participants, and in standing, 71% (pelvis and lumbar) of participants, were considered asymmetric for >90% of the protocol. Lateral postures displayed weak to low correlations with peak low back pain (R ≤ 0.388).

Conclusion: The majority of participants displayed lateral asymmetries for the pelvis and lumbar spine within 5° of their upright standing posture.

Application: In short-term sedentary exposures, associations between lateral postures and pain indicated that as the range in lateral postures increases there may be an increased possibility of pain.

坐姿和站姿办公室工作中的骨盆外侧和腰部运动及其与短暂性腰痛的关系。
摘要评估坐姿和站姿办公室工作 2 小时期间骨盆和腰椎的额面运动,并评估与短暂腰痛的关联:背景:虽然弯曲和扭转运动被认为是职业任务中腰部受伤的风险因素,但很少有研究对久坐时的额面运动进行评估:21名参与者完成了2小时的坐姿和站姿办公室工作,同时记录了骨盆倾斜度、腰部侧弯角度和腰痛感觉评分。比较各 15 分钟区块的平均绝对角度,计算振幅概率分布函数,并评估侧向姿势与腰痛之间的关联:平均骨盆倾斜度(坐姿 = 4.0 ± 2.8°,站姿 = 3.5 ± 1.7°)和腰椎侧弯(坐姿 = 4.5 ± 2.5°,站姿 = 4.1 ± 1.6°)始终不对称。站立时的骨盆斜度活动范围(13.6 ± 7.5°)比坐姿时(8.9 ± 8.7°)大 4.7°。在坐姿中,52% 的参与者(骨盆)和 71%的参与者(腰部)被认为在超过 90% 的规程中不对称;在站姿中,71% 的参与者(骨盆和腰部)被认为不对称。侧向姿势与腰痛峰值的相关性较弱或较低(R ≤ 0.388):结论:大多数参与者的骨盆和腰椎在直立姿势的 5° 范围内显示出侧向不对称:应用:在短期久坐情况下,横向姿势与疼痛之间的关联表明,随着横向姿势范围的增加,出现疼痛的可能性也会增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Human Factors
Human Factors 管理科学-行为科学
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society publishes peer-reviewed scientific studies in human factors/ergonomics that present theoretical and practical advances concerning the relationship between people and technologies, tools, environments, and systems. Papers published in Human Factors leverage fundamental knowledge of human capabilities and limitations – and the basic understanding of cognitive, physical, behavioral, physiological, social, developmental, affective, and motivational aspects of human performance – to yield design principles; enhance training, selection, and communication; and ultimately improve human-system interfaces and sociotechnical systems that lead to safer and more effective outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信