From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles

Lifting up objects from the floor has been identified as a risk factor for low back pain, whereby a flexed spine during lifting is often associated with producing higher loads in the lumbar spine. Even though recent biomechanical studies challenge these assumptions, conclusive evidence is still lacking. This study therefore aimed at comparing lumbar loads among different lifting styles using a comprehensive state-of-the-art motion capture-driven musculoskeletal modeling approach. Thirty healthy pain-free individuals were enrolled in this study and asked to repetitively lift a 15 kg-box by applying 1) a freestyle, 2) a squat and 3) a stoop lifting technique. Whole-body kinematics were recorded using a 16-camera optical motion capture system and used to drive a full-body musculoskeletal model including a detailed thoracolumbar spine. Continuous as well as peak compressive, anterior-posterior shear and total loads (resultant load vector of the compressive and shear load vectors) were calculated based on a static optimization approach and expressed as factor body weight (BW). In addition, lumbar lordosis angles and total lifting time were calculated. All parameters were compared among the lifting styles using a repeated measures design. For each lifting style, loads increased towards the caudal end of the lumbar spine. For all lumbar segments, stoop lifting showed significantly lower compressive and total loads (−0.3 to −1.0BW) when compared to freestyle and squat lifting. Stoop lifting produced higher shear loads (+0.1 to +0.8BW) in the segments T12/L1 to L4/L5, but lower loads in L5/S1 (−0.2 to −0.4BW). Peak compressive and total loads during squat lifting occurred approximately 30% earlier in the lifting cycle compared to stoop lifting. Stoop lifting showed larger lumbar lordosis range of motion (35.9 ± 10.1°) than freestyle (24.2 ± 7.3°) and squat (25.1 ± 8.2°) lifting. Lifting time differed significantly with freestyle being executed the fastest (4.6 ± 0.7 s), followed by squat (4.9 ± 0.7 s) and stoop (5.9 ± 1.1 s). Stoop lifting produced lower total and compressive lumbar loads than squat lifting. Shear loads were generally higher during stoop lifting, except for the L5/S1 segment, where anterior shear loads were higher during squat lifting. Lifting time was identified as another important factor, considering that slower speeds seem to result in lower loads.

Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting

(1) Background: Yearly, more than 40% of the European employees suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Still, ergonomic guidelines defining optimal lifting techniques to decrease work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) has not been unambiguously defined. Therefore, this study investigates if recommended squat lifting imposes lower musculoskeletal loading than stoop lifting while using a complex full body musculoskeletal OpenSim model. (2) Methods: Ten healthy participants lifted two different weights using both lifting techniques. 3D marker trajectories and ground reaction forces were used as input to calculate joint angles, moments and power using a full body musculoskeletal model with articulated lumbar spine. In addition, the muscle activity of nine different muscles was measured to investigate muscle effort when lifting. (3) Results: Peak moments and peak joint power in L5S1 were not different between the squat and the stoop, but higher peak moments and peak power in the hip, knee, elbow and shoulder were found during squat lifting. Moment impulses in L5S1 were higher during stoop lifting. This is reflected in higher peak electromyography (EMG) but lower muscle effort in prior described muscles during the squat. (4) Conclusions: Squat lifting imposes higher peak full body musculoskeletal loading but similar low back loading compared to stoop lifting, as reflected in peak moments, peak power, and peak EMG.