With mechanical loading as the main risk factor for LBP in mind, exoskeletons are designed to reduce the load on the back by taking over a part of the required moment. The present study assessed the effect of a passive exoskeleton on back and abdominal muscle activation, hip and lumbar flexion and on the contribution of both the human and the exoskeleton to the L5/S1 net moment, during static bending at five different hand heights. Two configurations of the exoskeleton (LOW & HIGH) differing in angle-torque characteristics were tested. L5/S1 moments generated by the subjects were significantly reduced (15-20% for the most effective type) at all hand heights. LOW generated 4-11 Nm more support than HIGH at 50%, 25% and 0% upright stance hand height and HIGH generated 4-5 Nm more support than LOW at 100% and 75%. Significant reductions (11-57%) in back muscle activity were found compared to WITHOUT for both exoskeletons for some conditions. However, EMG reductions compared to WITHOUT were highly variable across subjects and not always significant. The device allowed for substantial lumbar bending (up to 70°) so that a number of participants showed the flexion-relaxation phenomenon, which prevented further reduction of back EMG by the device and even an increase from 2% to 6% MVC in abdominal activity at 25% hand height. These results indicate that flexion relaxation and its interindividual variation should be considered in future exoskeleton developments.

The number one cause of disability in the world is low-back pain, with mechanical loading as one of the major risk factors. To reduce mechanical loading, exoskeletons have been introduced in the workplace. Substantial reductions in back muscle activity were found when using the exoskeleton during static bending and manual materials handling. However, most exoskeletons only have one joint at hip level, resulting in loss of range of motion and shifting of the exoskeleton relative to the body. To address these issues, a new exoskeleton design has been developed and tested. The present study investigated the effect of the SPEXOR passive exoskeleton on compression forces, moments, muscle activity and kinematics during static bending at six hand heights and during lifting of a box of 10 kg from around ankle height using three techniques: Free, Squat and Stoop. For static bending, the exoskeleton reduced the compression force by 13-21% depending on bending angle. Another effect of the exoskeleton was that participants substantially reduced lumbar flexion. While lifting, the exoskeleton reduced the peak compression force, on average, by 14%. Lifting technique did not modify the effect of the exoskeleton such that the reduction in compression force was similar. In conclusion, substantial reductions in compression forces were found as a result of the support generated by the exoskeleton and changes in behavior when wearing the exoskeleton. For static bending, lumbar flexion was reduced with the exoskeleton, indicating reduced passive tissue strain. In addition, the reduced peak compression force could reduce the risk of compression induced tissue failure during lifting.

Low-back pain is the number one cause of disability in the world, with mechanical loading as one of the major risk factors. Exoskeletons have been introduced in the workplace to reduce low back loading. During static forward bending, exoskeletons have been shown to reduce back muscle activity by 10% to 40%. However, effects during dynamic lifting are not well documented. Relative support of the exoskeleton might be smaller in lifting compared to static bending due to higher peak loads. In addition, exoskeletons might also result in changes in lifting behavior, which in turn could affect low back loading. The present study investigated the effect of a passive exoskeleton on peak compression forces, moments, muscle activity and kinematics during symmetric lifting. Two types (LOW and HIGH) of the device, which generate peak support moments at large and moderate flexion angles, respectively, were tested during lifts from knee and ankle height from a near and far horizontal position, with a load of 10 kg. Both types of the trunk exoskeleton tested here reduced the peak L5S1 compression force by around 5-10% for lifts from the FAR position from both KNEE and ANKLE height. Subjects did adjust their lifting style when wearing the device with a 17% reduced peak trunk angular velocity and 5 degrees increased lumbar flexion, especially during ANKLE height lifts. In conclusion, the exoskeleton had a minor and varying effect on the peak L5S1 compression force with only significant differences in the FAR lifts.

To estimate the mechanical load on the low back in manual materials handling, the Static Strength Prediction Model (SSPM, University of Michigan) is widely used in the occupational field. It requires (for practical reasons) only a small number of input variables (five body segment angles, standing height, total body mass, external load on the hands) on which basis the moment at the lumbo-sacral intervertebral joint (beside other parameters) is computed. The dynamic character of the activities is ignored in the calculations. To evaluate the validity of the SSPM in various situations, lumbar moments in lifting/lowering activities at different lifting techniques and speeds obtained by the SSPM, were compared with those obtained by a more comprehensive dynamic model (DM). An analysis of variance showed significant effects (p = 0.001) of the biomechanical model applied and the lifting speed used on the peak lumbar moment values. No effects of lifting technique were found. The differences in results from the SSPM and DM were dependent on the lifting speed: the SSPM peak lumbar moments were on average 9% (not significant), 21% (significant atp = 0.005) and 42% (p = 0.0001) smaller compared to the DM moments in the slow (mean velocity in a complete lifting/lowering cycle, 0.2 m s⁻¹), normal (0.4 m s⁻¹) and fast (0.8 m s⁻¹) speed condition respectively. The results indicate that the static/dynamic difference between the models is a major source for the different lumbar moments, while other differences between the SSPM and DM are of minor importance.