Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31828480›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2020

SPEXOR passive spinal exoskeleton decreases metabolic cost during symmetric repetitive lifting.

S J Baltrusch, J H van Dieën, A S Koopman, M B Näf, C Rodriguez-Guerrero, J Babič, H Houdijk

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

S J BaltruschDepartment of Research and Development, Rehabilitation Center Heliomare, Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands. s.baltrusch@heliomare.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9464-6894
J H van DieënDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A S KoopmanDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M B NäfRobotics and Multibody Mechanics Research Group, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Flanders Make, Brussels, Belgium.
C Rodriguez-GuerreroRobotics and Multibody Mechanics Research Group, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Flanders Make, Brussels, Belgium.
J BabičLaboratory for Neuromechanics and Biorobotics, Department of Automation, Biocybernetics and Robotics, Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
H HoudijkDepartment of Research and Development, Rehabilitation Center Heliomare, Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands.

Funding

Horizon 2020 687662
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBesides mechanical loading of the back, physiological strain is an important risk factor for low-back pain. Recently a passive exoskeleton (SPEXOR) has been developed to reduce loading on the low back. We aimed to assess the effect of this device on metabolic cost of repetitive lifting. To explain potential effects, we assessed kinematics, mechanical joint work, and back muscle activity.

methodsWe recruited ten male employees, working in the luggage handling department of an airline company and having ample experience with lifting tasks at work. Metabolic cost, kinematics, mechanical joint work and muscle activity were measured during a 5-min repetitive lifting task. Participants had to lift and lower a box of 10 kg from ankle height with and without the exoskeleton.

resultsMetabolic cost was significantly reduced by 18% when wearing the exoskeleton. Kinematics did not change significantly, while muscle activity decreased by up to 16%. The exoskeleton took over 18-25% of joint work at the hip and L5S1 joints. However, due to large variation in individual responses, we did not find a significant reduction of joint work around the individual joints.

conclusionWearing the SPEXOR exoskeleton decreased metabolic cost and might, therefore, reduce fatigue development and contribute to prevention of low-back pain during repetitive lifting tasks. Reduced metabolic cost can be explained by the exoskeleton substituting part of muscle work at the hip and L5S1 joints and consequently decreasing required back muscle activity.

Indexed as

Back MusclesExoskeleton DeviceTask Performance and AnalysisAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaElectromyographyEnergy MetabolismHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedMuscle, SkeletalOccupational DiseasesOxygen ConsumptionEnergy expenditureLifting deviceLow-back painMechanical workMovement behaviourMuscle activity

Identifiers

PMID31828480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.