Search

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.026 Byline: Stephan Milosavljevic (a), Allan B. Carman (a), Anthony G. Schneiders (a), Peter D. Milburn (a), Barry D. Wilson (b) Keywords: Sheep shearing; 3D spinal movement; Low back pain Abstract: Sheep shearers are known to work in sustained flexed postures and have a high prevalence of low back pain (LBP). As sustained posture and spinal movement asymmetry under substantial loads are known risk factors for back injury our aim was to describe the 3D spinal movement of shearers while working. We hypothesised that thoraco-lumbar and lumbo-sacral movement would be tri-axial, asymmetric, and task specific. Sufficient retro-reflective markers were placed on the trunk of 12 shearers to define thoraco-lumbar and lumbo-sacral 3D motion during three tasks. Thoraco-lumbar movement consistently involved flexion, left lateral flexion, and right rotation. Lumbo-sacral movement consistently involved right lateral flexion in flexion with minimal rotation. Shearers therefore work in sustained spinal flexion where concurrent, asymmetric spinal movements into both lateral flexion and rotation occur. These asymmetric movements combined with repetitive loading may be risk factors leading to the high incidence of LBP in this occupational group. Author Affiliation: (a) School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand (b) School of Physical Education, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand Article History: Received 27 June 2005; Accepted 19 April 2006

Researches indicate that sheep shearing can be classified as a very heavy work where the spine and hips are flexed for long periods of time, while handling awkward and heavy loads, expending high amounts of energy. The results of this study demonstrate the production of high levels of compressive and sheer forces within the spine of shearers during the three shearing tasks studied and that the use of a back support can substantially reduces the forces.

Purpose: This study explored the perceptions of people with a lower limb amputation as to important factors contributing to their low back pain (LBP). Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted (three focus groups and two individual interviews), with 11 participants with lower limb amputation and on-going LBP. The discussions were analysed using the General Inductive Approach. Results: Five major categories were identified with 'uneven posture and compensatory movements' of the back perceived to be the main contributor to LBP. 'Fatigue' during functional activities and 'prosthesis-related factors' may affect the 'uneven movements' of the back further leading to LBP. 'Multiple pain conditions' (i.e. phantom limb pain, non-amputated limb pain) could influence the pain perceptions contributing to LBP. 'Self-management strategies' in the form of maintaining optimal physical fitness and support from health care professionals helped to manage LBP symptoms, thereby assisted in preventing chronicity. Conclusion: The results suggest 'uneven movements' of the back affected by 'fatigue' and 'prosthesis-related factors' may alter the mechanical loading of the spine during functional activities and contribute to LBP. While being physically active helped participants cope with their LBP, identifying and addressing 'uneven movements' in the back during the performance of functional activities may be important to devise prevention strategies for LBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Spinal loading in excessive and repeated trunk flexion may hinder recovery from acute low back pain. The Spineangel® device provides real-time patient biofeedback on trunk flexion and may facilitate recovery from lower back injury. This cross-sectional study evaluates validity and reliability of this device in the laboratory setting. Participants included 18 healthy males. Angular displacements were simultaneously obtained from a Spineangel® device placed on the hip and criterion measures of hip, lumbar and total sagittal rotation, and pelvic tilt obtained via 3D Motion Analysis®. Each participant repeated four movements five times in a random order (forward bending fingertips-to-knees and to mid-lower leg, full flexion, and full extension). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for Spineangel® measurement of trunk motion were excellent (ICC>0.9). The coefficient of repeatability was less than 5.2° in both flexion and extension. Spineangel® showed the highest correlation with Motion Analysis® measurement of pelvic tilt with no statistical difference between measures when bending forward to fingertips-to-knees. Given its high reliability, the Spineangel® device has potential as a trunk flexion biofeedback device. Further investigation is required to see if these laboratory results can be reproduced in the clinical setting and to determine the clinical benefits of such a device. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]