Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists · 2025
Arm supports for the prevention of work-related upper extremity disorders: A narrative review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Bouffard Jason, Campeau-Lecours Alexandre, Roy Jean-Sébastien
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Work-related upper extremity disorders are often exacerbated by repetitive tasks and sustained non-neutral positions. These disorders significantly impact workers' quality of life, leading to absenteeism, decreased productivity, and economic burden.
PURPOSE: This narrative review aims to summarize the characteristics and effectiveness of arm support technologies to prevent work-related upper extremity disorders.
STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review.
METHODS: Arm supports were categorized based on their design characteristics. Outcomes observed during laboratory and field studies were summarized according to previously published frameworks.
RESULTS: Arm supports are categorized into static and dynamic types, with dynamic supports further divided into two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) systems. The mobility of 3D systems is provided by planar or pivoting armrests, or by supporting slings. Exoskeletons, a type of 3D dynamic support, provide portability as it follows the user instead of being fixed within a given workspace. The evaluation of arm supports is complex and requires a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Assessment should be conducted during well controlled tasks to test specific hypotheses as well as during ecologically valid use contexts to evaluate its applicability in actual work situations. Arm supports generally decrease the activity of deltoids and trapezius muscles. User acceptance is supported by perceived effort reduction and comfort, with simpler supports sometimes preferred over complex systems. Some drawbacks such as discomfort, increased antagonist muscle activity, or interference with movements can however be experienced. Implementing arm supports in workplaces involves challenges related to technology, user needs, and context. Successful integration requires considering physical and social environments, task-specific requirements, and user feedback.
CONCLUSIONS: Arm supports may prevent work-related upper extremity disorders for specific individuals in selected work contexts. Further research is needed to optimize arm support technologies and develop assessment tools to identify the right worker and right context for the implementation of the right technologies.
PURPOSE: This narrative review aims to summarize the characteristics and effectiveness of arm support technologies to prevent work-related upper extremity disorders.
STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review.
METHODS: Arm supports were categorized based on their design characteristics. Outcomes observed during laboratory and field studies were summarized according to previously published frameworks.
RESULTS: Arm supports are categorized into static and dynamic types, with dynamic supports further divided into two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) systems. The mobility of 3D systems is provided by planar or pivoting armrests, or by supporting slings. Exoskeletons, a type of 3D dynamic support, provide portability as it follows the user instead of being fixed within a given workspace. The evaluation of arm supports is complex and requires a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Assessment should be conducted during well controlled tasks to test specific hypotheses as well as during ecologically valid use contexts to evaluate its applicability in actual work situations. Arm supports generally decrease the activity of deltoids and trapezius muscles. User acceptance is supported by perceived effort reduction and comfort, with simpler supports sometimes preferred over complex systems. Some drawbacks such as discomfort, increased antagonist muscle activity, or interference with movements can however be experienced. Implementing arm supports in workplaces involves challenges related to technology, user needs, and context. Successful integration requires considering physical and social environments, task-specific requirements, and user feedback.
CONCLUSIONS: Arm supports may prevent work-related upper extremity disorders for specific individuals in selected work contexts. Further research is needed to optimize arm support technologies and develop assessment tools to identify the right worker and right context for the implementation of the right technologies.