The movement profile of trunk and neck during habitual vacuuming.

Musculoskeletal disorders of the trunk and neck are common among cleaners. Vacuum cleaning is a demanding activity. The aim of this study was to present the movement profile of the trunk and neck during habitual vacuuming. The data were collected from 31 subjects (21f./10 m) using a 3D motion analysis system (Xsens). 10 cycles were analysed in vacuuming PVC and carpet floors with 8 vacuum cleaners. The joint angles and velocities were represented statistically descriptive. When vacuuming, the trunk is held in a forwardly inclined position by a flexion in the hip and rotated from this position. In the joint angles and velocities of the spine, the rotation proved to be dominant. A relatively large amount of movement took place in the cervical spine and also in the lumbar spine. The shown movement profile is rather a comfort area of vacuuming which may serve as a reference for ergonomics in vacuuming.

Influence of design of dentist's chairs on body posture for dentists with different working experience.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are a common health problem among dentists. Dental treatment is mainly performed in a sitting position. The aim of the study was to quantify the effect of different ergonomic chairs on the sitting position. In addition, it was tested if the sitting position of experienced workers is different from a non-dental group. METHODS: A total of 59 (28 m/31f) subjects, divided into two dentist groups according to their work experience (students and dentists (9 m/11f) < 10 years, dentists (9 m/10f) ≥ 10 years) and a control group (10 m/10f) were measured. A three-dimensional back scanner captured the bare back of all subjects sitting on six dentist's chairs of different design. Initially, inter-group comparisons per chair, firstly in the habitual and secondly in the working postures, were carried out. Furthermore, inter-chair comparison was conducted for the habitual as well as for the working postures of all subjects and for each group. Finally, a comparison between the habitual sitting posture and the working posture for each respective chair (intra-chair comparison) was conducted (for all subjects and for each group). In addition, a subjective assessment of each chair was made. For the statistical analysis, non-parametric tests were conducted and the level of significance was set at 5%. RESULTS: When comparing the three subject groups, all chairs caused a more pronounced spinal kyphosis in experienced dentists. In both conditions (habitual and working postures), a symmetrical sitting position was assumed on each chair. The inter-chair comparisons showed no differences regarding the ergonomic design of the chairs. The significances found in the inter-chair comparisons were all within the measurementerror and could, therefore, be classified as clinically irrelevant. The intra-chair comparison (habitual sitting position vs. working sitting position) illustrated position-related changes in the sagittal, but not in the transverse, plane. These changes were only position-related (forward leaned working posture) and were not influenced by the ergonomic sitting design of the respective chair. There are no differences between the groups in the subjective assessment of each chair. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the group or the dental experience, the ergonomic design of the dentist's chair had only a marginal influence on the upper body posture in both the habitual and working sitting postures. Consequently, the focus of the dentist's chair, in order to minimize MSD, should concentrate on adopting a symmetrical sitting posture rather than on its ergonomic design.

A device-based stretch training for office workers resulted in increased range of motion especially at limited baseline flexibility.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether and under which conditions stretch training programs lead to gains in flexibility when applied in work health promotion for office workers in order to reduce musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze whether the stretch training "five-Business" leads to gains in range of motion (ROM). Furthermore, the influence of baseline flexibility and socio-demographic factors (sex, age, weight, height and body mass index (BMI)) on trainability was assessed. METHODS: 161 office workers (n = 45 female; n = 116 male) without major MSD were recruited. Over three months, a standardized static stretch training ("five-Business") was executed on a device, supervised twice per week for 10 min. ROM was assessed using a digital inclinometer (shoulder, hip and trunk extension) and a tape measure (fingertip-to-floor and lateral inclination). RESULTS: ROM gains (p≤0.001) were present in all tests, except for the hip extension. ROM changes correlated moderately (0.24-0.62) with the baseline flexibility (p≤0.001). Subjects with limited flexibility reached the largest gains (1.41-25.33%). Regarding the socio-demographic factors only one low correlation occurred (weight - retroflexion; -0.177). CONCLUSION: The "five-Business" stretch training effectively increases ROM in office workers, especially when baseline flexibility is limited.

Standard reference values of weight and maximum pressure distribution in healthy adults aged 18-65 years in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to collect standard reference values of the weight and the maximum pressure distribution in healthy adults aged 18-65 years and to investigate the influence of constitutional parameters on it. METHODS: A total of 416 healthy subjects (208 male / 208 female) aged between 18 and 65 years (Ø 38.3 ± 14.1 years) participated in this study, conducted 2015-2019 in Heidelberg. The age-specific evaluation is based on 4 age groups (G1, 18-30 years; G2, 31-40 years; G3, 41-50 years; G4, 51-65 years). A pressure measuring plate FDM-S (Zebris/Isny/Germany) was used to collect body weight distribution and maximum pressure distribution of the right and left foot and left and right forefoot/rearfoot, respectively. RESULTS: Body weight distribution of the left (50.07%) and right (50.12%) foot was balanced. There was higher load on the rearfoot (left 54.14%; right 55.09%) than on the forefoot (left 45.49%; right 44.26%). The pressure in the rearfoot was higher than in the forefoot (rearfoot left 9.60 N/cm2, rearfoot right 9.51 N/cm2/forefoot left 8.23 N/cm2, forefoot right 8.59 N/cm2). With increasing age, the load in the left foot shifted from the rearfoot to the forefoot as well as the maximum pressure (p ≤ 0.02 and 0.03; poor effect size). With increasing BMI, the body weight shifted to the left and right rearfoot (p ≤ 0.001, poor effect size). As BMI increased, so did the maximum pressure in all areas (p ≤ 0.001 and 0.03, weak to moderate effect size). There were significant differences in weight and maximum pressure distribution in the forefoot and rearfoot in the different age groups, especially between younger (18-40 years) and older (41-65 years) subjects. DISCUSSION: Healthy individuals aged from 18 to 65 years were found to have a balanced weight distribution in an aspect ratio, with a 20% greater load of the rearfoot. Age and BMI were found to be influencing factors of the weight and maximum pressure distribution, especially between younger and elder subjects. The collected standard reference values allow comparisons with other studies and can serve as a guideline in clinical practice and scientific studies.