Background: Physiological curvature changes of the lumbar spine and disc herniation can cause abnormal biomechanical responses of the lumbar spine. Finite element (FE) studies on special weightlifter models are limited, yet understanding stress in damaged lumbar spines is crucial for preventing and rehabilitating lumbar diseases. This study analyzes the biomechanical responses of a weightlifter with lumbar straightening and L4-L5 disc herniation during symmetric bending and lifting to optimize training and rehabilitation. Methods: Based on the weightlifter’s computed tomography (CT) data, an FE lumbar spine model (L1-L5) was established. The model included normal intervertebral discs (IVDs), vertebral endplates, ligaments, and a degenerated L4-L5 disc. The bending angle was set to 45°, and weights of 15 kg, 20 kg, and 25 kg were used. The flexion moment for lifting these weights was theoretically calculated. The model was tilted at 45° in Abaqus 2021 (Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., Johnston, RI, USA), with L5 constrained in all six degrees of freedom. A vertical load equivalent to the weightlifter’s body mass and the calculated flexion moments were applied to L1 to simulate the weightlifter’s bending and lifting behavior. Biomechanical responses within the lumbar spine were then analyzed. Results: The displacement and range of motion (ROM) of the lumbar spine were similar under all three loading conditions. The flexion degree increased with the load, while extension remained unchanged. Right-side movement and bending showed minimal change, with slightly more right rotation. Stress distribution trends were similar across loads, primarily concentrated in the vertebral body, increasing with load. Maximum stress occurred at the anterior inferior margin of L5, with significant stress at the posterior joints, ligaments, and spinous processes. The posterior L5 and margins of L1 and L5 experienced high stress. The degenerated L4-L5 IVD showed stress concentration on its edges, with significant stress also on L3-L4 IVD. Stress distribution in the lumbar spine was uneven. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the impact on spinal biomechanics and suggest reducing anisotropic loading and being cautious of loaded flexion positions affecting posterior joints, IVDs, and vertebrae. This study offers valuable insights for the rehabilitation and treatment of similar patients.

Background: Pes cavus is a multiplanar foot deformity with an abnormal plantar pressure distribution and an overhigh medial longitudinal arch (MLA). Its causes are complex. In the past, people have usually focused on clinical surgery for pes cavus. However, this is not necessarily the best choice for some patients with non-ongoing or mild symptoms. In the 21st century, studies have just begun to focus on assistive devices intervention for pes cavus, which has been proven to be an effective non-surgical treatment. However, the effectiveness of assistive devices for patients with arched feet of any etiology has not been evaluated and evidence-based guidelines for clinical treatment options are lacking. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed, employing a comprehensive search across the databases of Web of Science, PubMed, as well as Scopus. The selected studies adhered to specific eligibility criteria, which included: (1) involving patients with pes cavus; (2) interventions with assistive devices; and (3) outcome measures of plantar pressure distribution and anatomical characteristics (MLA). Meanwhile, the standard mean difference was selected as the effect size. Results: A total of three studies were selected, and the authors achieved an agreement on the risk of bias with a kappa value equal to 0.74. According to the results of network meta-analysis, customized foot orthotics compared to other devices (lace-up ankle-support brace, semirigid brace) demonstrated the highest likelihood of being the most effective in optimizing plantar-pressure distribution among pes cavus patients. On the other hand, wearing hard custom foot orthotics compared to other devices (soft custom foot orthotics, off-the-shelf orthotics) showed the greatest potential in improving the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) of pes cavus patients. Discussion: Although becoming better than wearing regular footwear, wearing lace-up ankle-support braces or semirigid braces might not be optimal choices for treatments of pes cavus with the potential mechanism that the internal force created by the fixation of the proximal joint might be much less than the ground reaction force loaded on the distal segments that touch the ground. It could be concluded that foot orthotics show great potential in treating pes cavus under non-surgical conditions. This systematic review could provide valuable evidence for future research and clinical practice. Other: The PROSPERO Registration Number is CRD42022349687.