Researcher profile

Lukas Connolly

Lukas Connolly 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

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).

preprint2021arXiv

Skin marker-based subject-specific spinal alignment modeling: A feasibility study

Musculoskeletal models have the potential to improve diagnosis and optimize clinical treatment by predicting accurate outcomes on an individual basis. However, the subject-specific modeling of spinal alignment is often strongly simplified or is based on radiographic assessments, exposing subjects to unnecessary radiation. We therefore developed a novel skin marker-based approach for modeling subject-specific spinal alignment and evaluated its feasibility by comparing the predicted with the actual intervertebral joint (IVJ) locations/orientations (ground truth) using lateral-view radiographic images. Moreover, the predictive performance of the subject-specific models was evaluated by comparing the predicted L1/L2 spinal loads during various functional activities with in vivo measured data obtained from the OrthoLoad database. IVJ locations/orientations were predicted closer to ground truth as opposed to standard model scaling, with average location prediction errors of 0.99+/-0.68 cm on the frontal and 1.21+/-0.97 cm on the transverse axis as well as an average orientation prediction error of 4.74°+/-2.80°. Simulated spinal loads showed similar curve patterns but considerably larger values as compared to in vivo measured data. Differences in spinal loads between generic and subject-specific models become only apparent on an individual subject level. These results underline the feasibility of the proposed method and associated workflow for inter- and intra-subject investigations using musculoskeletal simulations. When implemented into standard model scaling workflows, it is expected to improve the accuracy of muscle activity and joint loading simulations, which is crucial for investigations of treatment effects or pathology-dependent deviations.