Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) · 2005
Co-contraction recruitment and spinal load during isometric trunk flexion and extension.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Granata Kevin P, Lee Patrick E, Franklin Timothy C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pushing and pulling tasks account for 20% of occupational low-back injury claims. Primary torso muscle groups recruited during pushing tasks include rectus abdominis and the external obliques. However, analyses suggest that antagonistic co-contraction of the paraspinal muscles is necessary to stabilize the spine during flexion exertions. The study quantified co-contraction and spinal load differences during isometric flexion and extension exertions. The goal was to provide insight into the mechanisms requiring greater co-contraction during trunk flexion exertions compared to extension exertions.
METHODS: Electromyographic (EMG) signals were recorded from the trunk muscles of healthy volunteers during isometric trunk flexion and extension exertions. A biomechanical model was implemented to estimate total muscle force from the measured EMG and trunk moment data. A similar model estimated the muscle forces necessary to achieve equilibrium while minimizing the sum of squared muscle forces. The difference in these forces represented co-contraction. Spinal load attributed to co-contraction was computed.
RESULTS: Average co-contraction during flexion exertions was approximately twice the value of co-contraction during extension, i.e. 28% and 13% of total muscle forces respectively. Co-contraction accounted for up to 47% of the total spinal load during flexion exertions. Consequently, spinal compression during the flexion tasks was nearly 50% greater than during extension exertions despite similar levels of trunk moment.
INTERPRETATION: Co-contraction must be considered when evaluating spinal load during pushing exertions. Results underscore the need to consider neuromuscular control of spinal stability when evaluating the biomechanical risks.
METHODS: Electromyographic (EMG) signals were recorded from the trunk muscles of healthy volunteers during isometric trunk flexion and extension exertions. A biomechanical model was implemented to estimate total muscle force from the measured EMG and trunk moment data. A similar model estimated the muscle forces necessary to achieve equilibrium while minimizing the sum of squared muscle forces. The difference in these forces represented co-contraction. Spinal load attributed to co-contraction was computed.
RESULTS: Average co-contraction during flexion exertions was approximately twice the value of co-contraction during extension, i.e. 28% and 13% of total muscle forces respectively. Co-contraction accounted for up to 47% of the total spinal load during flexion exertions. Consequently, spinal compression during the flexion tasks was nearly 50% greater than during extension exertions despite similar levels of trunk moment.
INTERPRETATION: Co-contraction must be considered when evaluating spinal load during pushing exertions. Results underscore the need to consider neuromuscular control of spinal stability when evaluating the biomechanical risks.