The influence of different ways of backpack carrying on pelvic kinematics during gait among male students

Subject Areas : Exercise Physiology and Performance

Asefeh Pahlevani Nezhad ¹ , Parastoo ShamsehKohan ² , Maziar Meghdadi ³

1 - Department of Sport Injury and Corrective Exercises, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Science, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran.
2 - Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran. Community Health Research Center, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.
3 - Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran. Community Health Research Center, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.

Received: 2023-09-01 Accepted : 2023-10-12 Published : 2023-12-01

Keywords: variability, Walking, Coordination, Backpack, Pelvic, Pelvic-thigh injury,

Abstract :

Background: Carrying a backpack incorrectly can have an impact on the musculoskeletal system. The aim of this study was the influence of different ways of backpack carrying on pelvic kinematics during gait among male students.Methods: Twelve boys aged 7–12 years from Yazd participated in this study. Using a three-dimensional motion analysis system, unilateral and bilateral evaluations of walking while carrying backpacks were conducted. The data were processed using MATLAB software. The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to determine data distribution, and the paired t-test was employed for statistical analysis (p<0.05).Result: According to the research's findings, the two carrying techniques had similar amounts of anterior pelvic tilt. However, the unilateral backpack approach had slightly greater values for this angle. Due to the positioning of the body on the ground and the slower rate of thigh extension, the graph is downward throughout the stance phase of stepping, which comprises approximately the first 60% of the gate cycle. Additionally, the two carrying techniques in this range differ the most from one another. The levels of coordination variability differed by 30 to 40 degrees in various deciles between the two carrying techs. Furthermore, compared to the bilateral carrying approach, the unilateral carrying strategy had substantially higher hip rotation variability.Conclusion: Generally, the results indicated that except for hip-thigh coordination during walking, there are no appreciable differences in the effects of various backpack carrying techniques on the risk factors for hip-thigh injuries. Except for pelvic-thigh coordination during walking, while using various backpack carrying techniques, a significant difference was noticed.

References:

1. Rai A, Agarwal S, Bharti S, Ambedakar BB. Postural effect of back packs on school children: its consequences on their body posture. Int J Health Sci Res. 2013;3(10):109-6.


2. Paek S, Kang J, Shin B, Jung J, Rim H, Yoon M, Lee K, Yoo Y, Hong B, Lim S, Kim J. Changes in Trunk Muscle Activity during Unilateral Weight Bearing and Abnormal Postural Gait in Healthy Individuals. Medicina. 2022 Dec 6;58(12):1800.


3. Warren B, McQueen-Fuentes G. Reintroducing Healthy Movement Into Daily Life: Combating Stress, Disease and Ill Health. Taylor & Francis; 2023 Sep 6.


4. Remmen LN, Christiansen DH, Herttua K, Klakk H, Berg-Beckhoff G. The risk of an incident hospital contact with a musculoskeletal disorder in Danish occupational fishers: a register-based study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2023 Mar 6;24(1):168.


5. Atia DT, Elsayed NI, Abdelmonem AF, Mahmoud SM, Mahmoud MM, Mohamed KE, Turky KT, Rashad UM, Abdel Karim AE. Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Disorders among General and Technical Secondary School Students in Egypt. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023 Jan 13;20(2):1465.


6. Ryu G, Jung I, Han M, Ju H, Jung Y, Jeong S, Kim S, Bahn S. Risk factors of musculoskeletal disorders in loading and unloading tasks of couriers. Work. 2022 Nov 28(Preprint):1-1.


7. Tahirbegolli B, Obertinca R, Bytyqi A, Kryeziu B, Hyseni B, Taganoviq B, Shabani B. Factors affecting the prevalence of idiopathic scoliosis among children aged 8–15 years in Prishtina, Kosovo. Scientific Reports. 2021 Aug 18;11(1):16786.


8. Talbott NR. The effect of the weight, location and type of backpack on posture and postural stability of children. University of Cincinnati; 2005.


9. Seven YB, Akalan NE, Yucesoy CA. Effects of back loading on the biomechanics of sit-to-stand motion in healthy children. Human movement science. 2008 Feb 1;27(1):65-79.


10. Zhao G, Wang H, Wang L, Ibrahim Y, Wan Y, Sun J, Yuan S, Liu X. The Biomechanical Effects of Different Bag‐Carrying Styles on Lumbar Spine and Paraspinal Muscles: A Combined Musculoskeletal and Finite Element Study. Orthopaedic Surgery. 2023 Jan;15(1):315-27.


11. Lengkana AS, Rahman AA, Alif MN, Mulya G, Priana A, Hermawan DB. Static and dynamic balance learning in primary school students. International Journal of Human Movement and Sports Sciences. 2020;8(6):469-76.


12. Zajac FE, Neptune RR, Kautz SA. Biomechanics and muscle coordination of human walking: Part I: Introduction to concepts, power transfer, dynamics and simulations. Gait & posture. 2002 Dec 1;16(3):215-32.


13. Goswami A, Espiau B, Keramane A. Limit cycles in a passive compass gait biped and passivity-mimicking control laws. Autonomous Robots. 1997 Sep;4:273-86.


14. Nagano H, Begg RK, Sparrow WA, Taylor S. A comparison of treadmill and overground walking effects on step cycle asymmetry in young and older individuals. Journal of applied biomechanics. 2013 Apr 1;29(2):188-93.


15. Hollman JH, Watkins MK, Imhoff AC, Braun CE, Akervik KA, Ness DK. A comparison of variability in spatiotemporal gait parameters between treadmill and overground walking conditions. Gait & posture. 2016 Jan 1;43:204-9.


16. Zeni Jr JA, Richards JG, Higginson J. Two simple methods for determining gait events during treadmill and overground walking using kinematic data. Gait & posture. 2008 May 1;27(4):710-4.


17. Yeo SS, Park GY. Accuracy verification of spatio-temporal and kinematic parameters for gait using inertial measurement unit system. Sensors. 2020 Feb 29;20(5):1343.


18. Shih PC, Steele CJ, Nikulin V, Villringer A, Sehm B. Kinematic profiles suggest differential control processes involved in bilateral in-phase and anti-phase movements. Scientific reports. 2019 Mar 1;9(1):3273.


19. Eltoukhy M, Oh J, Kuenze C, Signorile J. Improved kinect-based spatiotemporal and kinematic treadmill gait assessment. Gait & posture. 2017 Jan 1;51:77-83.


20. Perrone M, Orr R, Hing W, Milne N, Pope R. The impact of backpack loads on school children: A critical narrative review. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2018 Nov;15(11):2529.


21. Obeidat MS, Samara MN, Nazzal MS, Alali AE. The effects of different carrying methods on human gait parameters. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2023 Jan 1;93:103403.


22. Rose JD, Mendel E, Marras WS. Carrying and spine loading. Ergonomics. 2013 Nov 1;56(11):1722-32.


23. Drzał-Grabiec J, Snela S, Rachwał M, Podgórska J, Rykała J. Effects of carrying a backpack in an asymmetrical manner on the asymmetries of the trunk and parameters defining lateral flexion of the spine. Human factors. 2015 Mar;57(2):218-26.


24. Babakhani F. The effect of backpack load on the posture of children and its relationship to trunk muscle activity during walking on a treadmill. 2011. (Doctoral Dissertation).


25. Ramadan MZ, Al-Tayyar SN. Development and experimental verification of an ergonomic backpack. BioMed Research International. 2020 May 15;2020.