dy Design. Subjective ratings of discomfort were compared between a fixed lumbar support and lumbar support continuous passive motion (CPM) device. Objective. To compare a fixed lumbar support with a lumbar support CPM device during prolonged sitting. Summary of Background Data. To prevent low back pain during prolonged sitting, an inflatable lumbar sup- port CPM has been developed. There are no studies that compare static lumbar support with lumbar CPM using the same pressure in the cushions. Methods. A total of 31 male volunteers without low back pain sat in the same chair for a 2-hour period on each of 3 consecutive days under 3 randomized test meth- ods: 1, no lumbar support; 2, static lumbar support; and 3, lumbar support CPM. Each subject rated low back pain, stiffness, fatigue, and buttock numbness on a visual ana- log scale (VAS). Fixed lumbar support and CPM device were compared with a same inflation pressure in the cushion. For 10 subjects, the whole body posture and the pressure distribution changes of the human-seat interface during CPM were evaluated. Results. Compared with no lumbar support, a signifi- cant improvement in VAS scores for low back pain, stiff- ness, and fatigue was obtained with both static lumbar support and with lumbar support CPM (P ô°ƒ 0.005). A significant (P ô°ƒ 0.005) improvement for buttock numb- ness was obtained only with lumbar support CPM. There were no statistical differences in all VAS scores between the fixed lumbar support and the CPM device. A forward rotation of the pelvic region was obtained during inflation of the cushion during CPM. Significant differences (P ô°ƒ 0.05) were found between cushion inflation and deflation periods both in contact areas and in the peak pressures at the human-seat interface. Conclusion. There were no statistical differences in the subjective ratings of discomfort between the fixed lumbar support and the CPM device. Inglês > Português Tradutor Online, Tradutor Inglês-Português

Digite o texto na caixa abaixo

dy Design. Subjective ratings of discomfort were compared between a fixed lumbar support and lumbar support continuous passive motion (CPM) device. Objective. To compare a fixed lumbar support with a lumbar support CPM device during prolonged sitting. Summary of Background Data. To prevent low back pain during prolonged sitting, an inflatable lumbar sup- port CPM has been developed. There are no studies that compare static lumbar support with lumbar CPM using the same pressure in the cushions. Methods. A total of 31 male volunteers without low back pain sat in the same chair for a 2-hour period on each of 3 consecutive days under 3 randomized test meth- ods: 1, no lumbar support; 2, static lumbar support; and 3, lumbar support CPM. Each subject rated low back pain, stiffness, fatigue, and buttock numbness on a visual ana- log scale (VAS). Fixed lumbar support and CPM device were compared with a same inflation pressure in the cushion. For 10 subjects, the whole body posture and the pressure distribution changes of the human-seat interface during CPM were evaluated. Results. Compared with no lumbar support, a signifi- cant improvement in VAS scores for low back pain, stiff- ness, and fatigue was obtained with both static lumbar support and with lumbar support CPM (P ô°ƒ 0.005). A significant (P ô°ƒ 0.005) improvement for buttock numb- ness was obtained only with lumbar support CPM. There were no statistical differences in all VAS scores between the fixed lumbar support and the CPM device. A forward rotation of the pelvic region was obtained during inflation of the cushion during CPM. Significant differences (P ô°ƒ 0.05) were found between cushion inflation and deflation periods both in contact areas and in the peak pressures at the human-seat interface. Conclusion. There were no statistical differences in the subjective ratings of discomfort between the fixed lumbar support and the CPM device.

Texto Traduzido

DY Design. AvaliaÃ§Ãµes subjetivas de desconforto foram comparadas entre um dispositivo de movimento passivo contÃnuo (CPM) de apoio lombar e apoio lombar fixo.Objectivo. Para comparar um apoio lombar fixo com um dispositivo CPM de apoio lombar durante uma prolongada sessÃ£o.Resumo dos dados de fundo. Para evitar a dor lombar durante a sessÃ£o prolongada, foi desenvolvido um CPM de sup-port lombar inflÃ¡vel. NÃ£o existem estudos que comparam o apoio lombar estÃ¡tico com CPM lombar, usando a mesma pressÃ£o nas almofadas.MÃ©todos. Um total de 31 voluntÃ¡rios masculinos sem dor lombar sentou-se na mesma cadeira por um perÃodo de 2 horas em cada um dos 3 dias consecutivos em 3 ensaio randomizado metanfetamina-ods: 1, sem apoio lombar; 2, apoio lombar estÃ¡tica; e 3, suporte lombar CPM. Cada sujeito avaliado baixa dormÃªncia traseira de dor, rigidez, fadiga e nÃ¡dega em escala log-ana visual (VAS). Apoio lombar fixo e dispositivo do CPM foram comparados com uma mesma pressÃ£o de inflaÃ§Ã£o na almofada. De 10 indivÃduos, a postura de corpo inteiro e as mudanÃ§as de distribuiÃ§Ã£o de pressÃ£o da interface humano-assento durante CPM foram avaliadas.Resultados. Em comparaÃ§Ã£o com nenhum suporte lombar, uma melhoria signifi-cant partituras VAS para dor lombar, stiff-ness e fadiga foi obtido com tanto apoio lombar estÃ¡tica e com apoio lombar CPM (udbffudc03 P 0,005). Um significativo (P udbffudc03 0,005) melhoria para nÃ¡dega numb-ness foi obtida apenas com lombar apoio CPM. NÃ£o havia diferenÃ§as estatÃsticas em todas as pontuaÃ§Ãµes VAS entre o apoio lombar fixo e o dispositivo do CPM. Obteve-se uma rotaÃ§Ã£o para frente da regiÃ£o pÃ©lvica durante o enchimento da almofada durante CPM. Foram encontradas diferenÃ§as significativas (P udbffudc03 0,05) entre perÃodos coxim inflaÃ§Ã£o e deflaÃ§Ã£o tanto nas Ã¡reas de contato e as pressÃµes de pico na interface humano-assento.ConclusÃ£o. NÃ£o havia diferenÃ§as estatÃsticas nas avaliaÃ§Ãµes subjetivas de desconforto entre o apoio lombar fixo e o dispositivo do CPM.

Nova Tradução