Search

BACKGROUND: There is limited data available regarding the cost of firefighter injuries. This information is necessary to develop targeted injury prevention strategies. OBJECTIVE: To categorize the cost of injuries filed in 2012 by firefighters from a from a large department by job duty, injury type, body part affected, and the general motion pattern employed at the time of injury. METHODS: Data were taken from reports filed by CFD personnel and claims filed with the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) of Alberta between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012. RESULTS: Of the 244 injuries reported, 65% were categorized as sprains and strains, the most frequent of which affected the back (32%). The total cost of all claims was $555,955; 77% were sprain/strain-related. Knee and back injuries were most costly ($157,383 and $100,459). Categorized by job duty, most sprains/strains (31%) were sustained while attending to fire station responsibilities, although physical training was associated with the highest costs (34%). Fireground operations were attributed to 18% of sprains/strains and 16% of costs. Lifting injuries were more frequent (23%) and costly (20%) than all injuries. CONCLUSIONS: The most common and costly injuries occurred while attending to fire station-related responsibilities and during physical training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Linking firefighter injury reporting to general motion patterns may provide insight into potential injury mechanisms and the development of prevention strategies. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the injuries sustained by members of a large Canadian metropolitan fire department over a 5-year span. METHODS: Data were taken from injury reports filed by career firefighters between 2007 and 2011. Injuries were described by job duty, type, body part affected, and the general motion pattern employed at the time of injury (e.g. lifting). RESULTS: Of the 1311 injuries reported, 64% were categorized as sprains and strains (musculoskeletal disorders - MSDs), the most frequent of which affected the back (32%). Categorized by job duty, 65% of MSDs were sustained while working at the fire station or during physical training-related activities. Only 15% were attributed to fireground operations. Furthermore, the associated job duty could not differentiate the types of injuries sustained; back injuries occurred primarily while lifting, knee injuries while stepping, and shoulder injuries during pushing/pulling-related activities. CONCLUSIONS: Firefighter injuries are not just a fireground problem. Injury causation may be better understood by linking the injury location and type with motion patterns rather than job duties. This information could assist in developing general prevention strategies for the fire service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increased intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) commonly observed when the spine is loaded during physical activities is hypothesized to increase lumbar spine stability. The mechanical stability of the lumbar spine is an important consideration in low back injury prevention and rehabilitation strategies. This study examined the effects of raised IAP and an abdominal belt on lumbar spine stability. Two hypotheses were tested: (1) An increase in IAP leads to increased lumbar spine stability, (2) Wearing an abdominal belt increases spine stability. Ten volunteers were placed in a semi-seated position in a jig that restricted hip motion leaving the upper torso free to move in any direction. The determination of lumbar spine stability was accomplished by measuring the instantaneous trunk stiffness in response to a sudden load release. The quick release method was applied in isometric trunk flexion, extension, and lateral bending. Activity of 12 major trunk muscles was monitored with electromyography and the IAP was measured with an intra-gastric pressure transducer. A two-factor repeated measures design was used (P < 0.05), in which the spine stability was evaluated under combinations of the following two factors: belt or no belt and three levels of IAP (0, 40, and 80% of maximum). The belt and raised IAP increased trunk stiffness in all directions, but the results in extension lacked statistical significance. In flexion, trunk stiffness increased by 21% and 42% due to 40% and 80% IAP levels respectively; in lateral bending, trunk stiffness increased by 16% and 30%. The belt added between 9% and 57% to the trunk stiffness depending on the IAP level and the direction of exertion. In all three directions, the EMG activity of all 12 trunk muscles increased significantly due to the elevated IAP. The belt had no effect on the activity of any of the muscles with the exception of the thoracic erector spinae in extension and the lumbar erector spinae in flexion, whose activities decreased. The results indicate that both wearing an abdominal belt and raised IAP can each independently, or in combination, increase lumbar spine stability. However, the benefits of the belt must be interpreted with caution in the context of the decreased activation of a few trunk extensor muscles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to determine whether regression equations could be developed, as an alternative to biochemical models, to predict the peak L4(L5 disc compression force during dynamic, sagittal plane lifting. Eighteen male subjects performed a squat and a stoop lift with loads of 6, 14, 22, 29, and 32 kg. Each lift was analysed with a linked segment biomechanical model that output the compression force time history during the lift. The peak compression served as the dependent variable for two regression models. The independent variables in each model were measures which described the subject's body dimensions, body posture, internal lifting mechanics, load location and load effects. A ‘lab’ model was developed (R2=0·93) which required only four inputs and had an RMS error of only 8·3% between the biomechanical model estimate of the peak L4/L5 disc compression force and that predicted from the regression equation. A seven variable ‘field’ model was developed with an R2 of 0·90 and an RMS error of 9·7%. It was concluded that both of the proposed models were potentially useful to the practising ergonomist interested in easily and quickly estimating lumbar compression forces during dynamic sagittal plane lifting. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Biomechanical models used to estimate loads on the lumbar spine often predict internal low back forces for heavy lifts that exceed known tissue tolerances, yet the particular lift caused no apparent damage to the lifter. To deal with this paradox, many researchers have incorporated some form of spinal compression alleviation from intra-abdominal pressure (IAP). The purpose of this work was to re-examine some of the issues involved in the feasibility of IAP to reduce spinal loads during stressful lifts. Questions remain over the trade-off between the beneficial tensile force on the spine, exerted via the diaphragm and pelvic floor when IAP is produced, and the undesirable compressive effects of abdominal muscular force required to maintain the pressure within the abdomen. Various strategies of modelling IAP and its effects on low back loading were employed, Three major differences between this and most previous models of IAP effects were the attempt to quantify the size of abdominal muscle forces and the utilization of a considerably smaller diaphragm cross-sectional area and corresponding IAP moment arm. Abdominal EMG recorded from rectus abdominis, external oblique and internal oblique generally indicated low levels of activity throughout the high loading phase of the lifts. However, model output predicted that the compressive forces generated by the abdominal wall musculature were larger than the beneficial action of those forces thought to alleviate spinal compression via IAP. These results suggest that modelling IAP as a force vector which produces a trunk extensor moment and lumbar disc compression alleviation, without accounting for the compressive effects of abdominal muscle forces required to produce the IAP, is incorrect. This does not exclude a possible role of IAP in assisting the trunk during loading, only that the role of IAP is not modelled properly at present. IAP may indeed play a role in spinal stabilization as yet not well understood. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]