Santaguida PL, Pierrynowski M, Goldsmith C, Fernie G, et al.
Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon). Date of publication 2005 Nov 1;volume 20(9):906-16.
1. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005 Nov;20(9):906-16. doi:
10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.06.001.
Comparison of cumulative low back loads of caregivers when transferring patients
using overhead and floor mechanical lifting devices.
Santaguida PL(1), Pierrynowski M, Goldsmith C, Fernie G.
Author information:
(1)Evidence-based Practice Centre, McMaster University, DTC Room 309, 1280 Main
Street West, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L8. santag@mcmaster.ca
BACKGROUND: Mechanical lifting devices are recommended as an important
intervention for reducing lifting injuries among nursing personnel; previous
research suggests that spinal loads are not minimized for all device types. The
purpose of this study was to describe the spinal loading pattern while
performing a bed to chair transfer comparing Overhead and Floor powered lifting
devices.
METHODS: A Latin Square design was employed to evaluate five lifting devices
while performing a heavy patient transfer. The primary outcomes were spinal
compression, and anterior shear (across median and cumulative loading
conditions), and ratings of perceived exertion. An inverse dynamic approach was
used to calculate the net joint forces and moments about the L5/S1 spinal level.
The transfer was partitioned into seven distinct phases for biomechanical
analysis.
FINDINGS: The proportion of time spent and the mean loads sustained in each
phase of the transfer were described. Significant differences in loads were
observed between the differing lifting devices, particularly during the
transport phases for the Overhead devices. Nurse subjects consistently ranked
Overhead lifting devices as most preferred.
INTERPRETATION: A large proportion of the time to complete the transfer and
cumulative loads occurred during phases that involved only the sling and not the
mechanical component of the device. Overhead lifting devices were shown to have
lower spinal loads during the transport phases. The results of this study have
implications for the use and selection of mechanical lifting devices as part of
a strategy to reduce back injuries.
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.06.001
PMID: 16054280 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
