Institute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen
Tübingen, Baden-Wurttemberg, 72074, Germany
NCT Number: NCT03725982
BACKGROUND Industrial tasks that are characterized by high loads, a high repetition rate, and/or awkward body postures, put employees at higher risk to develop work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSD), especially low back pain. To counteract the prevalence of WRMSD, human-robot interaction could improve the power of a person and reduce the physical strain. For the lower back, a reduction of spinal loading could be helpful. The passive upper-extremity exoskeleton Laevo® is developed to support physically heavy work: it supports the back during bending and should, consequently, result in less low back pain (Laevo®, the Netherlands).
OBJECTIVES The primary aim of this study is to assess to what extent wearing the exoskeleton changes:
* muscular activity of the erector spinae and biceps femoris muscles; * knee compression force; * posture of the upper and lower spine, trunk, hips and knees; ...in different tasks (static vs. dynamic), different trunk postures (trunk flexion vs. trunk flexion and rotation) and different knee postures (straight vs. stooped).
Secondary aims of this study are to assess to what extent wearing the exoskeleton changes:
* muscular activity of the trapezius descendens, rectus abdominis, vastus medialis and gastrocnemius medialis; * perceived discomfort; * heart rate; * internal loadings on the spine, using a lumbar spine model; * the performance of subjects during functional activities (e.g., stair climbing) when wearing the exoskeleton (either turned on or off); ...in different tasks (static vs. dynamic), different trunk postures (trunk flexion vs. trunk flexion and rotation), different knee postures (stoop vs. squat), and different static holding positions(0° vs. 30° vs. 60°) with different weights (0kg vs. 8kg vs. 16kg).
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year–40 year
Male
Interventional
Not applicable
Tübingen, Baden-Wurttemberg, 72074, Germany
METHODS Different experiments will be performed.
ANALYSES Depending on the outcome parameter, different analyses will be performed including a various number of independent variables.
DATA PROTECTION All participating subjects will receive a refund of € 45 after study completion. Subjects will sign an informed consent and their data will be numerically pseudonymized to guarantee anonymity.
SIMULATED TASKS
IMPORTANT NOTE --- On this platform, results of the static sorting task ONLY will be reported. Results of other parts of the study will be reported in the respective publication. Links to these publications will be added as soon as they are published and available. --- IMPORTANT NOTE
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
A passive exoskeleton supporting the lower back during bending and lifting tasks (for more information, visit the manufacturer's website: http://en.laevo.nl/).
Other names: Exoskeleton
The subjects will not wear any supporting device to perform the experiment, which serves as the control condition.
Other names: No exoskeleton
Time frame: Average RMS-value (%MVE) over the time period running from baseline (0 min) to directly after (1.5 min) the experimental condition
Root-mean-square (RMS) of the electrical activity of the erector spinae muscle using surface electromyography (sEMG). The sEMG signals will be continuously recorded, and the RMS will be normalized to a maximal voluntary contraction (%MVE) and averaged over the time period of each experimental condition.
Time frame: Average RMS-value (%RVE) over the time period running from baseline (0 min) to directly after (1.5 min) the experimental condition
Root-mean-square (RMS) of the electrical activity of the biceps femoris muscle using surface electromyography (sEMG). The sEMG signals will be continuously recorded, and the RMS will be normalized to a reference voluntary contraction (%RVE) and averaged over the time period of each experimental condition.
Time frame: Average thoracic kyphosis over time period baseline (0 min) to directly after (1.5 min) the experimental condition
The posture of the upper spine (thoracic kyphosis) determined using 2D gravimetric position sensors placed on the thoracic vertebrae T1 and lumbar vertebrae L1. The difference value between both sensors reflects the thoracic kyphosis, which was averaged over each experimental condition.
Time frame: Average lumbar lordosis over time period baseline (0 min) to directly after (1.5 min) the experimental condition
The posture of the lower spine (lumbar lordosis) determined using 2D gravimetric position sensors placed on the lumbar vertebrae L1 and L5. The difference value between both sensors reflects the lumbar lordosis, which was averaged over each experimental condition.
Time frame: Average trunk flexion over time period baseline (0 min) to directly after (1.5 min) the experimental condition
The posture of the trunk determined using a 2D gravimetric position sensor placed on the thoracic vertebrae T10. The flexion angle of the sensor was averaged over each experimental condition.
Time frame: Average hip flexion over time period baseline (0 min) to directly after (1.5 min) the experimental condition
The posture of the hip (hip flexion) determined using 2D gravimetric position sensors placed on the lumbar vertebrae L5 and the upper leg (femur). The difference value between both sensors reflects the hip flexion, which was averaged over each experimental condition.
Time frame: Average knee flexion over time period baseline (0 min) to directly after (1.5 min) the experimental condition
The posture of the knee (knee flexion) determined using 2D gravimetric position sensors placed on the upper leg (femur) and lower leg (tibia). The difference value between both sensors reflects the knee flexion, which was averaged over each experimental condition.
Time frame: Average knee compression force (KCF) over the time period running from baseline (0 min) to directly after (1.5 min) the experimental condition
The knee compression force (KCF) is calculated using 2D inverse modelling with continuous recordings from 2D gravimetric position sensors (for joint angles) and a force plate (for ground reaction forces). The average knee compression force will be calculated over each experimental condition and summarized for both the left and right knee, since the task is executed in the frontal plane.
Time frame: Average RMS-value (%RVE) over the time period running from baseline (0 min) to directly after (1.5 min) the experimental condition.
Root-mean-square (RMS) of the electrical activity of the rectus abdominis, vastus lateralis, gastrocnemius medialis and trapezius descendens muscles using surface electromyography (sEMG). The sEMG signals will be continuously recorded, and the RMS will be normalized to a refeernce voluntary contraction (%RVE) and averaged over the time period of each experimental condition.
Time frame: Change from baseline (0 min) to directly after (1.5 min) both experimental conditions
Discomfort (RPD) was assessed using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS), ranging from 0 (no discomfort at all) to 10 (maximally imaginable discomfort). It was assessed directly before (0 min) and directly after (1.5 min) each experimental condition. The experimental conditions consisted of either static or dynamic tasks, that lasted up to 1.5 minutes.
Time frame: Average heart activity over time period baseline (0 min) to directly after (1.5 min) the experimental condition
Continuous recording electrocardiography allows calculating the heart rate, a parameter reflecting the central stress state of the participant. The average heart rate will be calculated per time period.
Time frame: Directly after the experimental condition during which the exoskeleton was worn (~ 4.5-6.5 min)
The NASA Task Load Index (TLX) of Hart and Staveland (1988) will be used to evaluate workload. This standardized tool contains six dimensions (mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, own performance, effort, frustration), of which each scale ranges from from 0 (low) to 100 (high).
We will include three dimensions of interest, i.e. physical demand, temporal demand, effort, and calculate the unweighted average of the score of these three dimensions (Hoonakker et al. 2011).
Time frame: Directly after the experiment (~2.5 hours)
This questionnaire will consist of questions about usability and acceptance of the intervention (the Laevo device), stemming from standardized questions from existing questionnaires, including:
The questionnaire can only be filled out after the condition within which the technology (here: exoskeleton) was used. That means that results are only provided and, thus, reported from the arm "with exoskeleton".
University Hospital Tuebingen
Other
Acronym: ADVANCE
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.