Altered erector spinae activity and trunk motion occurs with moderate and severe unilateral hip OA

Janice Moreside; Ivan Wong; Derek Rutherford

doi:10.1002/jor.23841

Can the Weight of an External Breast Prosthesis Influence Trunk Biomechanics during Functional Movement in Postmastectomy Women?

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2017/9867694 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 2017 ◽

pp. 1-9 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Katarzyna Hojan ◽

Faustyna Manikowska

Keyword(s):

Body Movement ◽

Erector Spinae ◽

Lumbar Region ◽

Functional Movement ◽

Trunk Motion ◽

Breast Prosthesis ◽

Forward Bending ◽

Trunk Biomechanics ◽

Underlying Mechanisms ◽

Two Sides

Introduction. Recent papers indicate that one-side mastectomy can produce deleterious effects on the posture and musculoskeletal system. This study was conducted to better understand the underlying mechanisms involved in trunk motion in external prosthesis users.Objective. The aim was to evaluate the changes in surface electromyographic (SEMG) activity of the erector spinae muscles (ES) in postmastectomy women with and without breast prostheses during functional body movement tests.Methods. In 51 one-side postmastectomy women the SEMG muscle activity of bilateral ES was measured during symmetrical and asymmetrical dynamic activities in a counterbalanced manner with different weights of the breast prosthesis. Range-of-motion measurements were taken for forward bending, backward bending, lateral bending, and rotation.Results. The mean level of the ES activity in the lumbar region was not affected by the weight of the external breast prosthesis during most of the functional body tests (P>0.05). The activity of ES during functional body tests with and without different external breast prostheses did not differ between the two sides of the trunk (mastectomy and nonmastectomy) for most of the movement tests (P>0.05).Conclusion. The lumbar ES activity during functional tests is not associated with the weight of the external breast prosthesis in postmastectomy women.

Download Full-text

Biomechanics of Trunk During Walking Carrying Load on One Hand Using Nonlinear Methods

Volume 3: Biomedical and Biotechnology Engineering ◽

10.1115/imece2014-39720 ◽

2014 ◽

Author(s):

Vikas Yadav ◽

Maruti Ram Gudavalli ◽

P. K. Raju ◽

Dan Marghitu

Keyword(s):

Correlation Dimension ◽

Reaction Force ◽

Force Plate ◽

Approximate Entropy ◽

Peak Force ◽

Erector Spinae ◽

Trunk Muscles ◽

Emg Activity ◽

Median Frequency ◽

Trunk Motion

Activities of daily living include carrying objects using one hand. Carrying a load using one hand can alter the loading on the musculoskeletal system as well as the walking pattern. The objective of this pilot study was to quantify the ground reaction forces, electromyographic (EMG) activity of trunk muscles, and trunk motion during walking. Nine human volunteers with no symptoms of pain were recruited from the student and employee population of an academic institution. Data were recorded from 8 volunteer subjects. Participants were asked to walk at self-selected speed back and forth at their comfortable speed carrying loads varying from 0 to 25 pounds on right hand on a wooden walking platform for 30 steps/cycles. Motion data were recorded from T1, L1, L3, and S1 vertebrae at a sampling frequency of 120 Hz. Range of Motion (ROM), Correlation Dimension (CoD), and Approximate Entropy (ApEn) was computed using custom written MatLab programs. EMG data were recorded from six muscle groups bilaterally (right and left): Erector Spinae, Multifidus, Latissimus Dorsi, Internal Obliques, External Obliques and Rectus Abdominis at a frequency of 1200 Hz. Root mean square EMG values, Mean and Median Frequency of the EMG data were calculated to observe the effect of increasing load on muscle fatigue using custom developed MatLab program. Ground reaction force (GRF) data were collected using a force plate and the associated 1st peak force (Fz1), 2nd Peak force (Fz3) and minimum force (Fz2) between the two peak forces were calculated during gait cycle. The ROM values had a range from 2.6–3.2 deg. for Lumbar lateral bending (LB), 6.7–8.7 deg. for Thoracic LB. Approximate Entropy (ApEn) values ranged from 0.20–0.40 for Lumbar LB motion and 0.30–0.50 for Thoracic LB motion. Correlation Dimension (CoD) values ranged from 1.20–1.40 for lumbar LB and 1.20–1.30 for Thoracic LB. Normalized GRF increased during walking with increased load. Significance difference (P<0.05) were found for vGRF with increase in load. Motion and EMG data did not reveal any significant differences.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of Soft Versus Rigid Back-Support Exoskeletons during a Lifting Task

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph18158062 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (15) ◽

pp. 8062

Author(s):

Mathilde Schwartz ◽

Jean Theurel ◽

Kévin Desbrosses

Keyword(s):

Muscle Activity ◽

Erector Spinae ◽

Negative Effects ◽

Trunk Motion ◽

Dynamic Task ◽

And Gender ◽

Task Conditions ◽

The Impact ◽

Exoskeleton Design ◽

Lifting Task

This study investigated the influence of passive back-support exoskeletons (EXOBK) design, trunk sagittal inclination (TSI), and gender on the effectiveness of an exoskeleton to limit erector spinae muscle (ES) activation during a sagittal lifting/lowering task. Twenty-nine volunteers performed an experimental dynamic task with two exoskeletons (two different designs: soft (SUIT) and rigid (SKEL)), and without equipment (FREE). The ES activity was analyzed for eight parts of TSI, each corresponding to 25% of the range of motion (lifting: P1 to P4; lowering: P5 to P8). The impact of EXOBK on ES activity depended on the interaction between exoskeleton design and TSI. With SKEL, ES muscle activity significantly increased for P8 (+36.8%) and tended to decrease for P3 (−7.2%, p = 0.06), compared to FREE. SUIT resulted in lower ES muscle activity for P2 (−9.6%), P3 (−8.7%, p = 0.06), and P7 (−11.1%), in comparison with FREE. Gender did not influence the effect of either back-support exoskeletons on ES muscle activity. These results point to the need for particular attention with regard to (1) exoskeleton design (rigid versus soft) and to (2) the range of trunk motion, when selecting an EXOBK. In practice, the choice of a passive back-support exoskeleton, between rigid and soft design, requires an evaluation of human-exoskeleton interaction in real task conditions. The characterization of trunk kinematics and ranges of motion appears essential to identify the benefits and the negative effects to take into account with each exoskeleton design.

Download Full-text