Comparison of trunk mechanics and spatiotemporal outcomes in caregivers using a robotic assisted transfer device and a mobile floor lift

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare trunk mechanics, distance covered, and average instantaneous velocity and acceleration recorded with caregivers performing transfer tasks using a research mannequin with both a prototype robotic assisted transfer device (RATD) and a mobile floor lift. Design: Cross-Sectional. Setting: Biomechanics Lab and Human Engineering Research Laboratories. Participants: Caregivers (N = 21). Intervention: Robotic Assisted Transfer Device. Outcome Measures: Range of flexion-extension, lateral bend, and axial rotation; distance covered; average instantaneous velocity and acceleration. Results: Caregivers performing transfers using the RATD as compared to when using the moble floor lift reported significantly smaller range of trunk flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, and reported lower pelvic based distance covered and slower average instantaneous velocity and acceleration (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The design and usability of a RATD indicates design driven mobility advantages over clinical standard mobile floor lifts due to its ability to expand the workspace while further reducing risk factors for low back pain. While the concept is promising, further testing is required to address limitations and confirm the concept for clinical applications.

目的：本研究旨在比较护理人员使用研究人体模型进行转移任务时，使用原型机器人辅助转移设备（RATD）和移动地面升降机所记录的躯干力学、移动距离以及平均瞬时速度和加速度。 设计：横断面研究。 地点：生物力学实验室和人类工程研究实验室。 参与者：护理人员（N = 21）。 干预措施：机器人辅助转移设备。 结果测量指标：屈伸范围、侧屈和轴向旋转范围；移动距离；平均瞬时速度和加速度。 结果：与使用移动地面升降机相比，使用RATD进行转移的护理人员报告的躯干屈伸、侧屈和轴向旋转范围明显更小，报告的基于骨盆的移动距离更短，平均瞬时速度和加速度更慢（P < 0.001）。 结论：RATD的设计和可用性表明，由于其能够扩大工作空间，同时进一步降低腰痛的风险因素，与临床标准的移动地面升降机相比，具有设计驱动的移动优势。虽然这一概念很有前景，但需要进一步测试以解决局限性，并确认其在临床应用中的可行性。