Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Back Injuries”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 145 records · Page 8Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Increased pain tolerance as an indicator of return to work in low-back injuries after work hardening.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined retrospective data from a multidisciplinary work-hardening program that compared patients who did and did not return to work after low-back injury. The objective of this study was to identify differences between these groups to better guide work-hardening programs and return-to-work decisions. METHOD: Retrospective data from patients with low-back injuries (n = 115) who participated in a northern California work-hardening program were analyzed. Using two-way analysis of variance, male and female patients who did and did not return to work were compared. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between men and women for any of the variables studied. Patients who did and did not return to work were not significantly different in age, length of injury, and subjective pain at the beginning or end of the work-hardening program or in activity tolerance (p = .08). Patients who returned to work perceived a significantly (p < or = . 05) greater improvement in pain tolerance by the end of the work-hardening program than those who did not return to work. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that rehabilitation emphasis should not be placed on the reduction of subjective pain but, rather, on strategies to cope with existing pain while improving functional ability.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

A comparison of body mechanic usage in employees participating in three back injury prevention programmes.

Fifty-eight subjects, 23 female and 35 male, 19-62 years of age employed by four local industries, participated in one of three different Back Injury Prevention Programmes offered by a community hospital. Group A, 31 males, received two 1.5 hr classes of informational and exercise instruction plus mandatory 10-min daily exercise participation. Group B received three 1-hr mandatory classes of informational and exercise instruction with no follow-up daily exercise, and Group C received 1 hr of information and exercise demonstration only. Differences in body mechanic performance between the three groups were examined using Body Mechanic Questionnaire (BMQ) scores. The BMQ consists of 11 Likert-type questions developed by the researcher which were administered pre-, 1-week post-, and 3-months post-class instruction. At final post-testing, Group A showed a 12.9% improvement over pre-test scores; Group B, a 5.1% increase; and Group C, a 13.3% increase. These findings are discussed in terms of mandatory, continued reinforcement and Pender's Health Promotion Model.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Reducing incidence of low-back injuries reduces cost.

To reduce musculoskeletal injuries in employees and to lower the financial costs associated with them, a 525-bed county nursing home in upstate New York initiated a five-step ergonomics program and purchased mechanical lifting devices. The five steps in the program were (1) creation of a resident transfer evaluation team, (2) establishment of an accident review committee, (3) mandatory ergonomics training for new nursing aides, (4) regular maintenance checks for lifting equipment, and (5) direct access to the management and budget process. During the 7-year period of this study, 8 smooth movers, 10 hydraulic stretchers, 7 Hoyer lifts, 1 Arjo lift, 9 Sarita lifts, and 1 Maxilift were purchased. Comparisons in health and financial outcomes were made between the preintervention period (1992-1993) and the intervention period (1994-1998). There was a significant reduction in the number of low-back injuries per 100 full-time nursing aides from 15.7 in the preintervention period to 11.0 in the postintervention period (p<0.05). The total number of lost workdays was significantly (p<0.05) reduced from 1476 per year before the intervention to 625 per year after the intervention. In addition, the lost workdays per full-time nursing assistant was significantly reduced from 7.8 to 3.0 (p<0.05). Although the average number of lost workdays per injury decreased from 49 to 27 days, this decrease was not statistically significant. Financially, there was a significant reduction in the average yearly cost associated with low-back injuries from $201,100 before the intervention to $91,800 during the intervention.

Back Injuries↗
PubMed2000

Back injuries and the fast bowler in cricket.

Here, I review research that has investigated the aetiology of injuries experienced by adolescent and adult fast bowlers. Mechanical factors play an important role in the aetiology of degenerative processes and injuries to the lumbar spine. This is particularly so in fast bowling, where a player must absorb vertical and horizontal components of the ground reaction force that are approximately five and two times body weight at front-foot and rear-foot impact, respectively. Attenuated forces are transmitted to the spine through the lower limb, while additional forces at the lumbo-sacral junction are caused by trunk hyperextension, lateral flexion and twisting during the delivery stride. Fast bowlers are classified as side-on, front-on or mixed. The mixed action is categorized by the lower body configuration of the front-on action and the upper body configuration of the side-on technique. This upper body configuration is produced by counter-rotation away from the batsman in the transverse plane about the longitudinal axis of the body of a line through the two shoulders. Counter-rotations of 12-40 degrees during a delivery stride have predicted an increased incidence of lumbar spondylolysis, disc abnormality and muscle injury in fast bowlers. During the delivery stride, the mixed bowling action also shows: more lateral flexion and hyperextension of the lumbar spine at front-foot impact, and a greater range of motion of the trunk over the delivery stride when compared with the side-on and front-on techniques. The pars interarticularis of each vertebra is vulnerable to injury if repetitive flexion, rotation and hyperextension are present in the activity. Fast bowlers should reduce shoulder counter-rotation during the delivery stride to reduce the incidence of back injuries. When a player is required to bowl for extended periods irrespective of technique, overuse is also related to an increased incidence of back injuries and must be avoided.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

First in a series. Preventing back injury in home care.

Home care organizations focus on patients and families. But caring for care providers--their employees--is another paramount responsibility. In this and the following two issues, CARING magazine will highlight and suggest strategies for preventing a major problem facing employees, employers, and patients: back injuries. This article will give an overview of the problem and focus on organizational needs and responses. The subsequent issues will cover ergonomic and personal approaches to preventing back injury.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed1990

The influence of prophylactic orthoses on abdominal strength and low back injury in the workplace.

This study was designed to determine the effect of multimodal intervention and the prevention of back injury, and to evaluate the adverse side effects of using a lumbosacral corset in the workplace. Subjects were 90 male warehouse workers randomly selected from over 800 employees at a grocery distribution center. Subjects were assigned to three groups: true controls, no back school, no brace orthoses; back school only; and back school plus wearing a custom molded lumbosacral orthosis. Comparisons of pre-testing and 6-month follow-up post-testing for abdominal strength, cognitive data, work injury incidence and productivity and use of health care services were evaluated. Controls and training-only group showed no changes in strength productivity or lost time. Orthoses and training-group showed no changes in strength productivity or accident rate; however, they showed substantially less lost time. This study supports the concept of using education and prophylactic bracing to prevent back injury and reduce time loss. It appears that the use of intermittent prophylactic bracing has no adverse affects on abdominal muscle strength and may contribute to decreased lost time from work injuries.

Abdomen↗