Researcher profile

Christian Bangerter

Christian Bangerter contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Between-session reliability of skin marker-derived spinal kinematics during functional activities

Background: Skin marker-based analysis of functional spinal movement is a promising method for quantifying longitudinal effects of treatment interventions in patients with spinal pathologies. However, observed day-to-day changes might not necessarily be due to a treatment intervention, but can result from errors related to soft tissue artifacts, marker placement inaccuracies or biological day-to-day variability. Research question: How reliable are skin marker-derived three-dimensional spinal kinematics during functional activities between two separate measurement sessions? Methods: Twenty healthy adults (11f/9m) were invited to a movement analysis laboratory for two visits separated by 7-10 days. At each visit, they performed various functional activities (i.e. sitting, standing, walking, running, chair rising, box lifting and vertical jumping), while marker trajectories were recorded using a skin marker-based 10-camera optical motion capture system and used to calculate sagittal and frontal plane spinal curvature angles as well as transverse plane segmental rotational angles in the lumbar and thoracic regions. Between-session reliability for continuous data and discrete parameters was determined by analyzing systematic errors using one sample T-tests as well as by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and minimal detectable changes (MDCs). Results and Significance: The analysis indicated high relative consistency for sagittal plane curvature angles during all activities, but not for frontal and transverse plane angles during walking and running. MDCs were mostly below 15°, with relative values ranging between 10% and 750%. This study provides important information that can serve as a basis for researchers and clinicians aiming at investigating longitudinal effects of treatment interventions on spinal motion behavior in patients with spinal pathologies.

preprint2021arXiv

From Stoop to Squat: A comprehensive analysis of lumbar loading among different lifting styles

Lifting up objects from the floor has been identified as a risk factor for low back pain, whereby a flexed spine during lifting is often associated with producing higher loads in the lumbar spine. Even though recent biomechanical studies challenge these assumptions, conclusive evidence is still lacking. This study therefore aimed at comparing lumbar loads among different lifting styles using a comprehensive state-of-the-art motion capture-driven musculoskeletal modeling approach. Thirty healthy pain-free individuals were enrolled in this study and asked to repetitively lift a 15 kg-box by applying 1) a freestyle, 2) a squat and 3) a stoop lifting technique. Whole-body kinematics were recorded using an optical motion capture system and used to drive a full-body musculoskeletal model including a detailed thoracolumbar spine. Compressive, shear and total loads were calculated based on a static optimization approach and expressed as factor body weight (BW). In addition, lumbar lordosis angles and total lifting time were calculated. All parameters were compared among the lifting styles using a repeated measures design. For all lumbar segments, stoop lifting showed significantly lower compressive and total loads (-0.3 to -1.0BW) when compared to freestyle and squat lifting. Stoop lifting produced higher shear loads (+0.1 to +0.8BW) in the segments T12/L1 to L4/L5, but lower loads in L5/S1 (-0.2 to -0.4BW). Peak compressive and total loads during squat lifting occurred approximately 30% earlier in the lifting cycle compared to stoop lifting. Stoop lifting showed larger lumbar lordosis range of motion (35.9+/-10.1°) than freestyle (24.2+/-7.3°) and squat (25.1+/-8.2°) lifting. Lifting time differed significantly with freestyle being executed the fastest (4.6+/-0.7s), followed by squat (4.9+/-0.7s) and stoop (5.9+/-1.1s).