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

Michael von Arx; Melanie Liechti; Lukas Connolly; Christian Bangerter; Michael L Meier; Stefan Schmid

doi:10.3389/fbioe.2021.769117

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

Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021 Nov 4:9:769117. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.769117. eCollection 2021.

Authors

Michael von Arx¹, Melanie Liechti¹, Lukas Connolly^{2

3

4}, Christian Bangerter¹, Michael L Meier^{2

3}, Stefan Schmid^{1

5}

Affiliations

¹ Spinal Movement Biomechanics Group, Division of Physiotherapy, School of Health Professions, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland.
² Integrative Spinal Research, Department of Chiropractic Medicine, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
³ University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
⁴ Department of Health Science and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
⁵ Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: biomechanics; freestyle lifting; motion capture; musculoskeletal modeling; posture; spinal loading; spine.