A comparison of neck bending and flexion measurement methods for assessment of ergonomic risk

• Autorzy: Zare M. , Biau S. , Gourlay A. , Roquelaure Y.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Head movements of workers were measured in the sagittal plane in order to establish a precise and accurate assessment method to be used in real work situations. Measurements were performed using two inclinometers connected to an embedded recording system. Two quantitative analysis methods were tested, i.e., measurement of bending with an inclinometer attached to the head, and measurement of flexion/extension by using an additional inclinometer located at C7/T1. The results were also compared with a video observation method (qualitative). The results showed that bending measurements were significantly different from those of flexion/extension for angles between 0° and 20°, and angles >45°. There were also significant differences between workers for flexion >45°, reflecting individual variability. Additionally, several limitations of observational methods were revealed by this study.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

ergonomic; flexion; bending; head; cervical spine

PL

ergonomia; pozycja zgięta; uraz głowy; uraz odcinka szyjnego kręgosłupa

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: Vol. 21, No. 3
• Strony: 330--335
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 18 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Zare M.

• University of Angers, France

autor

Biau S.

• National Scool of Equitation, France

autor

Gourlay A.

• University of Angers, France

autor

Roquelaure Y.

• University of Angers, France
• Centre Hopital Universite (CHU) Angers, France

Bibliografia

• 1. Law EYH, Chiu TTW. Measurement of Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) by electronic CROM goniometer: a test of reliability and validity. J Back Musculoskeletal Rehabil. 2013;26(2):141-148.
• 2.Jordan K, Dziedzic K, Jones P, et al. The reliability of the three-dimensional FASTRAK measurement system in measuring cervical spine and shoulder range of motion in healthy subjects. Rheumatology. 2000;39(4):382–388.
• 3. Dvir Z, Prushansky T. Reproducibility and instrument validity of a new ultrasonography-based system for measuring cervical spine kinematics. Clin Biomech. 2000;15(9):658-664.
• 4. Mannion A, Klein G, Dvorak J, et al. Range of global motion of the cervical spine: intraindividual reliability and the influence of measurement device. Eur Spine J. 2000;9(5):379-385.
• 5. Lau HMC, Chiu TTW, Lam TH. Measurement of craniovertebral angle with electronic head posture instrument: criterion validity. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47(9):911-918.
• 6. Edmondston SJ, Henne SE, Loh W, et al. Influence of cranio-cervical posture on three-dimensional motion of the cervical spine. Manual Ther. 2005;10(1):44-51.
• 7. Demaille-Wlodyka S, Chiquet C, Lavaste JF, et al. Cervical range of motion and cephalic kinesthesis: ultrasonographic analysis by age and sex. Spine. 2007;32(8):E254-E61.
• 8. Loudon JK, Ruhl M, Field E. Ability to reproduce head position after whiplash injury. Spine. 1997;22(8):865-868.
• 9. Youdas JW, Garrett TR, Suman VJ, et al. Normal range of motion of the cervical spine: an initial goniometric study. Phys Ther. 1992;72(11):770–780.
• 10. Bjurvald M. Ergonomic Strain Unit, Swedish Work Environment Authority, Guide values for loads, Technical Occupational Health Care Association, 1991/2, 13-18.
• 11. Zare M, Biau S, Croq M, et al. Development of a biomechanical method for ergonomic evaluation: comparison with observational methods. Int J Soc Manag Econ Bus Eng. 2014;8(1):223-227.
• 12. Åkesson I, Hansson GÅ, Balogh I, et al. Quantifying work load in neck, shoulders and wrists in female dentists. Int Arch Occ Env Hea. 1997;69(6):461-474.
• 13. Malmström E-M, Karlberg M, Fransson PA, et al. Primary and coupled cervical movements: the effect of age, gender, and body mass index. A 3-dimensional movement analysis of a population without symptoms of neck disorders. Spine. 2006;31(2):E44-E50.
• 14. Castro WH, Sautmann A, Schilgen M, et al. Noninvasive three-dimensional analysis of cervical spine motion in normal subjects in relation to age and sex: an experimental examination. Spine. 2000;25(4):443-449.
• 15. Hansson GÅ, Balogh I, Ohlsson K, et al. Physical workload in various types of work: Part II. Neck, shoulder and upper arm. Int J Ind Ergonom. 2010;40(3):267-281.
• 16. Möller T, Mathiassen SE, Franzon H, et al. Job enlargement and mechanical exposure variability in cyclic assembly work. Ergonomics. 2004;47(1):19-40.
• 17. Leskinen T, Hall C, Rauas S, et al. Validation of Portable Ergonomic Observation (PEO) method using optoelectronic and video recordings. Appl Ergon. 1997;28(2):75–83.
• 18. Juul-Kristensen B, Hansson GÅ, Fallentin N, et al. Assessment of work postures and movements using a video-based observation method and direct technical measurements. Appl Ergon. 2001;32(5):517-524.

Uwagi

PL

Opracowanie ze środków MNiSW w ramach umowy 812/P-DUN/2016 na działalność upowszechniającą naukę.