Motor variability during a repetitive lifting task is impaired by wearing a passive back-support exoskeleton.

PURPOSE: Evaluate whether wearing a passive back-support exoskeleton during repetitive lifting impairs motor variability of erector spinae muscle and spine movement and whether this association is influenced by lifting style. SCOPE: Thirty-six healthy males performed ten lifts in four randomized conditions with exoskeleton (without, with) and lifting style (squat, stoop) as dependent variables. One lifting cycle contained four phases: bending/straighten without/with load. Erector spinae muscular activity, thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis were measured with surface electromyography and gravimetric position sensors, respectively. Absolute and relative cycle-to-cycle variability were calculated. The effects of exoskeleton and exoskeleton × lifting style were assessed on outcomes during the complete lifting cycle and its four phases. RESULTS: For the complete lifting cycle, muscular variability and thoracic kyphosis variability decreased whereas lumbar lordosis variability increased with exoskeleton. For lifting phases, effects of exoskeleton were mixed. Absolute and relative muscular variability showed a significant interaction effect for the phase straighten with load; variability decreased with exoskeleton during squat lifting. CONCLUSION: Using the exoskeleton impaired several motor variability parameters during lifting, supporting previous findings that exoskeletons may limit freedom of movement. The impact of this result on longer-term development of muscular fatigue or musculoskeletal disorders cannot yet be estimated.

A passive back exoskeleton supporting symmetric and asymmetric lifting in stoop and squat posture reduces trunk and hip extensor muscle activity and adjusts body posture - A laboratory study.

The influence of a passive exoskeleton was assessed during repetitive lifting with different lifting styles (squat, stoop) and orientations (frontal/symmetric, lateral/asymmetric) on trunk and hip extensor muscle activity (primary outcomes), abdominal, leg, and shoulder muscle activity, joint kinematics, and heart rate (secondary outcomes). Using the exoskeleton significantly and partially clinically relevant reduced median/peak activity of the erector spinae (≤6%), biceps femoris (≤28%), rectus abdominis (≤6%) and increased median/peak activity of the vastus lateralis (≤69%), trapezius descendens (≤19%), and median knee (≤6%) and hip flexion angles (≤11%). Using the exoskeleton had only limited influence on muscular responses. The findings imply the exoskeleton particularly supports hip extension and requires an adjusted body posture during lifting with different styles and orientations. The potential of using exoskeletons for primary/secondary prevention of musculoskeletal disorders should be investigated in future research including a greater diversity of users in terms of age, gender, health status.