請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/4852
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 郭育良(Yue-Liang Guo) | |
dc.contributor.author | Yu-Ju Hung | en |
dc.contributor.author | 洪瑜嬬 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-14T17:48:46Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-03-12 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-14T17:48:46Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2015-03-12 | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2015-01-28 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. Seidler, A., et al., Occupational risk factors for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation; a case-control study. Occup Environ Med, 2003. 60(11): p. 821-30.
2. Seidler, A., et al., The role of cumulative physical work load in lumbar spine disease: risk factors for lumbar osteochondrosis and spondylosis associated with chronic complaints. Occup Environ Med, 2001. 58(11): p. 735-46. 3. Seidler, A., et al., Cumulative occupational lumbar load and lumbar disc disease--results of a German multi-center case-control study (EPILIFT). BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2009. 10: p. 48. 4. Modic, M.T., et al., Imaging of degenerative disk disease Radiology 1988: p. 177-186. 5. Battie, M.C., T. Videman, and E. Parent, Lumbar Disc Degeneration: Epidemiology and Genetic Influences. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2004. 29(23): p. 2679-90. 6. Battie, M.C., T. Videman, and L.e.a. Gibbons, 1995 Volvo Award in Clinical Sciences. Determinants of Lumbar Disc Degeneration. A study Relating Lifetime Exposures and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in Identical Twins. . Spine, 1995. 20 (24): p. 2601-2612. 7. Kelsey, J.L., et al., An epidemiologic study of lifting and twisting on the job and risk for acute prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc. J Orthop Res, 1984. 2(1): p. 61-6. 8. Jorgensen, S., H.O. Hein, and F. Gyntelberg, Heavy lifting at work and risk of genital prolapse and herniated lumbar disc in assistant nurses. Occup Med (Lond), 1994. 44(1): p. 47-9. 9. Sambrook, P.N., A.J. MacGregor, and T.D. Spector, Genetic influences on cervical and lumbar disc degeneration: a magnetic resonance imaging study in twins. Arthritis Rheum, 1999. 42(2): p. 366-72. 10. Lawrence, R.C., et al., Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and selected musculoskeletal disorders in the United States. Arthritis Rheum, 1998. 41(5): p. 778-99. 11. Endean, A., K.T. Palmer, and D. Coggon, Potential of magnetic resonance imaging findings to refine case definition for mechanical low back pain in epidemiological studies: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2011. 36(2): p. 160-9. 12. Boos, N., et al., 1995 Volvo Award in clinical sciences. The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging, work perception, and psychosocial factors in identifying symptomatic disc herniations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1995. 20(24): p. 2613-25. 13. Khalaf, K.A., et al., Determination of the effect of lift characteristics on dynamic performance profiles during manual materials handling tasks. Ergonomics, 1999. 42(1): p. 126-45. 14. Cohn, E.L., et al., Plain film evaluation of degenerative disk disease at the lumbosacral junction. Skeletal Radiol, 1997. 26(3): p. 161-6. 15. Hrubec, Z. and B.S. Nashold, Jr., Epidemiology of lumbar disc lesions in the military in World War II. Am J Epidemiol, 1975. 102(5): p. 367-76. 16. Videman, T., E. Levalahti, and M.C. Battie, The effects of anthropometrics, lifting strength, and physical activities in disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2007. 32(13): p. 1406-13. 17. Heliovaara, M., P. Knekt, and A. Aromaa, Incidence and risk factors of herniated lumbar intervertebral disc or sciatica leading to hospitalization. J Chronic Dis, 1987. 40(3): p. 251-8. 18. Videman, T., et al., Digital assessment of MRI for lumbar disc desiccation. A comparison of digital versus subjective assessments and digital intensity profiles versus discogram and macroanatomic findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1994. 19(2): p. 192-8. 19. Miller, J.A., C. Schmatz, and A.B. Schultz, Lumbar disc degeneration: correlation with age, sex, and spine level in 600 autopsy specimens. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1988. 13(2): p. 173-8. 20. Videman, T., et al., Magnetic resonance imaging findings and their relationships in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Insights into the etiopathogenesis of spinal degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1995. 20(8): p. 928-35. 21. Walker, B.F., The prevalence of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature from 1966 to 1998. J Spinal Disord, 2000. 13(3): p. 205-17. 22. Maniadakis, N. and A. Gray, The economic burden of back pain in the UK. Pain, 2000. 84(1): p. 95-103. 23. van Tulder, M.W., B.W. Koes, and L.M. Bouter, A cost-of-illness study of back pain in The Netherlands. Pain, 1995. 62(2): p. 233-40. 24. Dagenais, S., J. Caro, and S. Haldeman, A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J, 2008. 8(1): p. 8-20. 25. Craig, B.N., et al., A prospective field study of the relationship of potential occupational risk factors with occupational injury/illness. AIHA J (Fairfax, Va), 2003. 64(3): p. 376-87. 26. Guo, H.R., et al., Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorder among workers in Taiwan: a nationwide study. J Occup Health, 2004. 46(1): p. 26-36. 27. Erkintalo, M.O., et al., Development of degenerative changes in the lumbar intervertebral disk: results of a prospective MR imaging study in adolescents with and without low-back pain. Radiology, 1995. 196(2): p. 529-33. 28. Luoma, K., et al., Low back pain in relation to lumbar disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2000. 25(4): p. 487-92. 29. de Schepper, E.I., et al., The association between lumbar disc degeneration and low back pain: the influence of age, gender, and individual radiographic features. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010. 35(5): p. 531-6. 30. Jensen, M.C., et al., Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med, 1994. 331(2): p. 69-73. 31. Battie, M.C. and T. Videman, Lumbar disc degeneration: epidemiology and genetics. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2006. 88 Suppl 2: p. 3-9. 32. Twomey, L. and J. Taylor, Age changes in lumbar intervertebral discs. Acta Orthop Scand, 1985. 56(6): p. 496-9. 33. Kelsey, J.L., et al., Acute prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc. An epidemiologic study with special reference to driving automobiles and cigarette smoking. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1984. 9(6): p. 608-13. 34. Kelsey, J.L., An epidemiological study of acute herniated lumbar intervertebral discs. Rheumatol Rehabil, 1975. 14(3): p. 144-59. 35. Battie, M.C., et al., 1991 Volvo Award in clinical sciences. Smoking and lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration: an MRI study of identical twins. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1991. 16(9): p. 1015-21. 36. Inoue, H., et al., Radiographic evaluation of the lumbosacral disc height. Skeletal Radiol, 1999. 28(11): p. 638-43. 37. Tibrewal, S.B. and M.J. Pearcy, Lumbar intervertebral disc heights in normal subjects and patients with disc herniation. Spine, 1985. 10(5): p. 452-4. 38. Lu, J., et al., Cervical intervertebral disc space narrowing and size of intervertebral foramina. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2000(370): p. 259-64. 39. Brinckmann, P. and H. Grootenboer, Change of disc height, radial disc bulge, and intradiscal pressure from discectomy. An in vitro investigation on human lumbar discs. Spine, 1991. 16(6): p. 641-6. 40. Brinckmann, P. and M. Horst, The influence of vertebral body fracture, intradiscal injection, and partial discectomy on the radial bulge and height of human lumbar discs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1985. 10(2): p. 138-45. 41. Natarajan, R.N. and G.B. Andersson, The influence of lumbar disc height and cross-sectional area on the mechanical response of the disc to physiologic loading. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1999. 24(18): p. 1873-81. 42. Amonoo-Kuofi, H.S., Morphometric changes in the heights and anteroposterior diameters of the lumbar intervertebral discs with age. J Anat, 1991. 175: p. 159-68. 43. Luoma, K., et al., Disc height and signal intensity of the nucleus pulposus on magnetic resonance imaging as indicators of lumbar disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2001. 26(6): p. 680-6. 44. Roberts, N., C. Gratin, and G.H. Whitehouse, MRI analysis of lumbar intervertebral disc height in young and older populations. J Magn Reson Imaging, 1997. 7(5): p. 880-6. 45. Koeller, W., et al., Biomechanical properties of human intervertebral discs subjected to axial dynamic compression--influence of age and degeneration. J Biomech, 1986. 19(10): p. 807-16. 46. Berlemann, U., N.C. Gries, and R.J. Moore, The relationship between height, shape and histological changes in early degeneration of the lower lumbar discs. Eur Spine J, 1998. 7(3): p. 212-7. 47. Ala-Kokko, L., Genetic risk factors for lumbar disc disease. Ann Med, 2002. 34(1): p. 42-7. 48. Battie, M.C., et al., Similarities in degenerative findings on magnetic resonance images of the lumbar spines of identical twins. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1995. 77(11): p. 1662-70. 49. Chaffin, D.B., Andersson, G.B.J., Martin, B.J., ed. Occupational Biomechanics. 4 ed. 2006, John Wiley and Sons, Inc: New York. 50. Wiktorin, C., et al., Evaluation of perceived and self-reported manual forces exerted in occupational materials handling. Appl Ergon, 1996. 27(4): p. 231-9. 51. Jang, R., et al., Biomechanical evaluation of nursing tasks in a hospital setting. Ergonomics, 2007. 50(11): p. 1835-55. 52. Frymoyer, J.W., Lumbar disk disease: epidemiology. Instr Course Lect, 1992. 41: p. 217-23. 53. Battie, M.C., et al., The Twin Spine Study: contributions to a changing view of disc degeneration. Spine J, 2009. 9(1): p. 47-59. 54. Daynard, D., et al., Biomechanical analysis of peak and cumulative spinal loads during simulated patient-handling activities: a substudy of a randomized controlled trial to prevent lift and transfer injury of health care workers. Appl Ergon, 2001. 32(3): p. 199-214. 55. Norman, R., et al., A comparison of peak vs cumulative physical work exposure risk factors for the reporting of low back pain in the automotive industry. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 1998. 13(8): p. 561-573. 56. Gregory, D.E., S. Milosavljevic, and J.P. Callaghan, Quantifying low back peak and cumulative loads in open and senior sheep shearers in New Zealand: examining the effects of a trunk harness. Ergonomics, 2006. 49(10): p. 968-81. 57. Coenen, P., et al., Cumulative mechanical low-back load at work is a determinant of low-back pain. Occup Environ Med, 2014. 71(5): p. 332-7. 58. Kumar, S., Cumulative load as a risk factor for back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1990. 15(12): p. 1311-6. 59. Adams MA, H.W., Gradual disc prolapse. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1985. Jul-Aug;10(6)( Jul-Aug;10(6)): p. 524-31. 60. Jager, M. and A. Luttmann, Biomechanical analysis and assessment of lumbar stress during load lifting using a dynamic 19-segment human model. Ergonomics, 1989. 32(1): p. 93-112. 61. Herrin, G.D., M. Jaraiedi, and C.K. Anderson, Prediction of overexertion injuries using biomechanical and psychophysical models. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J, 1986. 47(6): p. 322-30. 62. Chaffin, D.B. and K.S. Park, A longitudinal study of low-back pain as associated with occupational weight lifting factors. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J, 1973. 34(12): p. 513-25. 63. Adams, M.A. and W.C. Hutton, Prolapsed intervertebral disc. A hyperflexion injury 1981 Volvo Award in Basic Science. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1982. 7(3): p. 184-91. 64. Work practices Guide for manual lifting, NIOSH, 1981: Cincinnati, OH, Report No.81-120. 65. Waters, T.R., et al., Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics, 1993. 36(7): p. 749-76. 66. Scientific Support Documentation for the Revised 1991 NIOSH Lifting Equation, 1991: Springfield, VA. 67. Evans, F.G. and H.R. Lissner, Biomechanical studies on the lumbar spine and pelvis. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1959. 41-A(2): p. 278-90. 68. David, G.C., Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Occup Med (Lond), 2005. 55(3): p. 190-9. 69. Nachemson, A., The load on lumbar disks in different positions of the body. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1966. 45: p. 107-22. 70. Wilke, H.J., et al., New in vivo measurements of pressures in the intervertebral disc in daily life. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1999. 24(8): p. 755-62. 71. Das, B. and R.M. Grady, Industrial workplace layout design. An application of engineering anthropometry. Ergonomics, 1983. 26(5): p. 433-47. 72. Marras, W.S., et al., A comprehensive analysis of low-back disorder risk and spinal loading during the transferring and repositioning of patients using different techniques. Ergonomics, 1999. 42(7): p. 904-26. 73. Merryweather, A.S., M.C. Loertscher, and D.S. Bloswick, A revised back compressive force estimation model for ergonomic evaluation of lifting tasks. Work, 2009. 34(3): p. 263-72. 74. Jones, T., M. Strickfaden, and S. Kumar, Physical demands analysis of occupational tasks in neighborhood pubs. Appl Ergon, 2005. 36(5): p. 535-45. 75. Modic, M.T. and J.S. Ross, Lumbar degenerative disk disease. Radiology, 2007. 245(1): p. 43-61. 76. Fardon, D.F. and P.C. Milette, Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology. Recommendations of the Combined task Forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2001. 26(5): p. E93-E113. 77. Farfan, H.F., Mechanical disorders of the low back. 1973. 78. Butler, D., et al., Discs degenerate before facets. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1990. 15(2): p. 111-3. 79. Fardon, D.F., et al., Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology. Recommendations of the Combined task Forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2001. 26(5): p. E93-E113. 80. Dabbs, V.M. and L.G. Dabbs, Correlation between disc height narrowing and low-back pain. Spine, 1990. 15(12): p. 1366-9. 81. Andersson, G.B., et al., Roentgenographic measurement of lumbar intervertebral disc height. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1981. 6(2): p. 154-8. 82. Hughes, R.E., et al., Evaluation of muscle force prediction models of the lumbar trunk using surface electromyography. J Orthop Res, 1994. 12(5): p. 689-98. 83. Hansson TH, K.T., Spengler DM., Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar spine. II. Fatigue strength during dynamic compressive loading., in J Orthop Res.1987. p. 479-87. 84. Hughes, R.E., J.C. Bean, and D.B. Chaffin, Evaluating the effect of co-contraction in optimization models. J Biomech, 1995. 28(7): p. 875-8. 85. Nussbaum, M.A. and D.B. Chaffin, Development and evaluation of a scalable and deformable geometric model of the human torso. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 1996. 11(1): p. 25-34. 86. Gordon, S.J., et al., Mechanism of disc rupture. A preliminary report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1991. 16(4): p. 450-6. 87. Vieira, E.R. and S. Kumar, Cut-points to prevent low back injury due to force exertion at work. Work, 2006. 27(1): p. 75-87. 88. Marshall, R.N. and A.F. Burnett, A kinematic, kinetic and electromyographic comparison of stooped sheep shearing techniques and shearing with a sheep manipulator. Appl Ergon, 2004. 35(2): p. 137-45. 89. Hung, Y.J., et al., The Dose-Response Relationship Between Cumulative Lifting Load and Lumbar Disk Degeneration Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings. Phys Ther, 2014. 90. Botsford, D.J., S.I. Esses, and D.J. Ogilvie-Harris, In vivo diurnal variation in intervertebral disc volume and morphology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1994. 19(8): p. 935-40. 91. Kalichman, L., et al., Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis: prevalence and association with low back pain in the adult community-based population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2009. 34(2): p. 199-205. 92. van der Beek, A.J. and M.H. Frings-Dresen, Assessment of mechanical exposure in ergonomic epidemiology. Occup Environ Med, 1998. 55(5): p. 291-9. 93. Burdorf, A. and J. Laan, Comparison of methods for the assessment of postural load on the back. Scand J Work Environ Health, 1991. 17(6): p. 425-9. 94. Pope, D.P., et al., Validity of a self-completed questionnaire measuring the physical demands of work. Scand J Work Environ Health, 1998. 24(5): p. 376-85. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/4852 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 前言:
腰椎椎間盤退化性疾病是導致下背疼痛的重要原因之一,在台灣與歐美各國的職業補償統計顯示其高盛行率與發生率所導致的相關失能,造成了醫療與產業成本提高,對於國家的經濟發展是一項沉重的負擔。過去的研究結果顯示職業性負重是椎間盤退化的重要危險因子之一,然而,因為其影響因子之多重性,職業暴露劑量之定量仍有其困難,與椎間盤退化之劑量反應關係尚無定論。因此本研究針對特定高危險性暴露的工作族群,進行詳細的終生累積負重調查,嘗試定量究竟多少終生暴露劑量的搬運重量會造成傷害;且更進一步的調查是否過去所有的負重皆對於傷害的發生有影響? 抑或單次負重中存在有著閾值, 超過此值後的累積負重才具危害效應? 男女性的閾值是否不同? 除了負重之外,椎間盤的形態學(高度與寬度)與椎間盤突出是否具有相關性?若有,是否可以藉由量測椎間盤的高度與寬度來預測椎間盤突出? 本研究期望能以此結果應用於職場上作為制定保護勞工健康的累積負重參考基準和預防疾病的發生。 方法: 本研究設計為橫斷性研究,個案來源為20-65歲之間的果菜市場搬運工作人員,作為高危險性暴露的工作族群,以及以國立台灣大學附設醫院內科的門診感冒病患,作為一般工作族群。每位受試者均接受一份問卷調查、腰椎 磁共振攝影(MRI)與工作姿勢的模擬取相。為了獲得個案的終身累積負重暴露,研究人員詳細詢問個案過去工作中的搬運重量與時間,現場取相個案所示範的搬運動作,並應用腰椎受力評估軟體(3D SSPP)預測每一個搬運姿勢下的腰椎受力,最終相加所有的腰椎受力與執行搬運的時間乘積,此總和值即為個案的終身累積負重暴露,單位為牛頓×小時(Newton×hour (Nh))。腰椎核磁共振攝影的檢查項目包括五節腰椎之椎間盤缺水(Dehydration)、纖維盤破裂(Annulus tear)、椎間盤變薄(Disc height narrowing)、突出(Bulging or protruding)與脊椎滑脫症(Degenerative spondylolithesis、 Spondylolytic spondylolithesis)、椎間孔狹窄(Foramina narrowing)、神經根壓迫(Nerve root compression),和椎間盤的高度與寬度。統計分析方法以邏輯斯迴歸模式檢視終生累積負重暴露與每一節腰椎之椎間盤退化疾病的相關性。以四種檢驗最適配方程式的統計法來比較各項負重閾值計算下的終生累積負重對椎間盤突出的發生有最佳的預測力。以ROC曲線下的面積大小比較二種預測椎間盤突出的預測力: Model 1以年齡、性別、身高、體重作為危險因子,Model 2以椎間盤的高度、寬度、年齡、性別、身高、體重作為危險因子。 結果: 共有715位自願者參與本研究,最後進行資料分析者為553位。研究結果顯示,終身累積負重與腰椎椎間盤退化疾病之間具有顯著相關,同時並呈現有暴露劑量-效應模式。其中,高負重暴露者(> 8.9×106Nh)相較於低負重者(< 4×105Nh)其第五節腰椎發生椎間盤缺水的危險性是2.5倍(AOR=2.5, CI=1.5,4.1),椎間盤變薄的危險性是4.1倍(AOR=4.1,95% CI=1.9,10.1);中度負重暴露者(4×105-8.9×106Nh)相較於低負重者發生椎間盤突出(Bulging)的危險性是2.1倍(AOR=2.1,95% CI=1.3,3.3)。超過閾值以上的負重才計入終生累積暴露的計算下,男性使用單次負重3000 牛頓,女性2800 牛頓,作為閾值的終生累積暴露值對L4-S1椎間盤突出有最好的預測度。針對腰椎後三節,椎間盤的高度、寬度與椎間盤突出具有相關性; 比較以年齡、性別、身高、體重作為危險因子的預測方程式(Model 1)和再加入椎間盤的高度、寬度作為危險因子的預測方程式(Model 2) ,發現後者的預測力較佳。 結論: 本研究顯示終生累積負重與椎間盤退化疾病之間具有劑量–效應關係,並定量出特定終生累積負重值對椎間盤退化的發生具有危險性; 男性單次負重閾值3000 牛頓,所計算的終生累積暴露值對L4-S1椎間盤突出有最好的預測度,女性為2800 牛頓。以椎間盤的高度、寬度、年齡、性別、身高、體重等危險因子構成的預測方程式可以用來預測椎間盤突出的發生。本研究計算腰椎終生累積負重的模式與預測椎間盤突出之方程式可作為職場上累積負重暴露與預防疾病發生的參考。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Background and Objective: Lumbar disc degeneration (LDD) has been related to heavy physical loading. However, the quantification of the exposure has been controversial and the dose-response relationship with the LDD has not been established. It is also unclear whether a specific threshold value exists in each lifting load, the accumulation above which best predicts lumbar disc protrusion, or on the other hand, all lifting load should be accumulated. In a clinical setting, the radiographic diagnosis of disc condition typically requires magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which is less readily available than plain radiograph is in most primary care facilities. If the relationship between reduced disc height and disc bulging or protrusion was existed, useful insight can be obtained to guide further direction of patient evaluation. The purposes of this study are to investigate the dose-response relationship between lifetime cumulative lifting load and LDD; to determine the optimal threshold value of lumbar compression load in each lifting, which allowed for best prediction for disc protrusion while lifetime cumulative load was calculated; and to determine the association between disc morphology and disc bulging or protrusion.
Method: This is a cross-sectional study. Every participant received assessments with a questionnaire, MRI of the lumbar spine and lumbar disc compression load. MRI assessments included disc dehydration, annulus tear, disc height narrowing, bulging, protrusion, extrusion, sequestration, degenerative and spondylolytic spondylolisthesis, foramina narrowing, and nerve root compression on each lumbar disc level. The compression load was predicted by a biomechanical software system. We sum up all lifting exposure to the calculation for examining the association between lifetime cumulative lifting load and LDD; and sum up only lifting load greater than proposed thresholds for determining the optimal threshold value of lumbar compression load in each lifting .For accumulation above different thresholds, predictive capabilities for disc protrusion were compared using four statistical values, (1) Area under the curve of a receiver operating characteristic curve, (2) R2, (3) Akaike information criterion, and (4) Bayesian information criterion. The intervertebral disc height and disc depth were measured. Logistic regression analysis was applied to identify the association between anthropometric factors, disc morphology factors, and disc bulging/protrusion. Model 1 was constructed using anthropometric variables to investigate the capacity for predicting disc bulging/protrusion. Model 2 was constructed using anthropometric variables and disc morphology variables. The ability of the models to discriminate between participants with and without disc bulging/protrusion was evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic curve. Result: A total of 553 participants were recruited in this study and categorized into tertiles by cumulative lifting load, i.e., <4.0 × 105, 4.0 × 105–8.9 × 106, and >= 8.9 × 106 Newton× hours. The risk of LDD increased with cumulative lifting load. The best dose-response relations was found at the L5–S1 disc level, in which high cumulative lifting load was associated with elevated odds ratios of 2.5 (95% CI 1.5–4.1) for dehydration, and 4.1(95% CI 1.9–10.1)for disc height narrowing comparing to low lifting load. Participants exposed to intermediate lifting load had increased odds ratios of 2.1(95% CI 1.3–3.3) for bulging comparing to low lifting load. The tests for trend were significant. For men, 3000 Newton for each lifting task was the optimal threshold value for predicting L4-S1 disc protrusion, whereas for women, 2800 Newton was optimal. Total of 452 MRI scans were analyzed for the morphology study. Age, body weight, body height, disc height, and disc depth were significantly associated with disc bulging/protrusion. The area-under-the-curve (AUC) statistics of Model 2 were significantly better than Model 1 at the L3-L4 (p<.05) and L4-L5 level (p<.05) but not at the L5-S1 level. Conclusions: The results suggest a dose-response relationship between cumulative lifting load and LDD. Cumulative lifting load predicted L4-S1 disc protrusion best when the threshold value was set at 3000 Newton for men, and 2800 Newton for women. The results showed an association between disc morphology and disc bulging/protrusion at the L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 level. We also developed a model by using anthropometric factors and disc morphology to predict disc bulging/protrusion. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-14T17:48:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-104-F95841025-1.pdf: 1807640 bytes, checksum: 6dae092aa85a7ad1f608e9f00e25f302 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 I
誌謝 II 摘要 III Abstract VI 目 錄 IX List of Tables XI List of Figures XIII Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Literature Review 4 A. Epidemiology of Low Back Pain and Intervertebral Disc Degeneration 4 B. Risk Factor of Intervertebral Disc Degeneration 6 I. Definition of Intervertebral Disc Degeneration 6 II. Prevalence of Disc Degeneration 6 III. Anthropometric Factors to Disc Degeneration 7 IV. Disc Morphology Factors to Disc Degeneration 9 V. Genetics Factors to Disc Degeneration 11 VI. Occupational Exposure and Disc Degeneration 12 C. Dose-Response Relationship between Cumulative Lifting Load and Disc Degeneration 14 D. Threshold Value of Lifting Load to Disc Degeneration 16 E. Exposure Assessment Methods 19 I. Exposure assessment methods 19 II. Three-Dimensional Static Strength Prediction Program (3D SSPP) 20 Chapter 3 Material and Method 22 Part I. Dose-Response Relationship between Lumbar Disc Degeneration and Life Time Cumulative Lifting Load 22 Part II. Threshold Values of Lumbar Load in Lifting for Calculating Lifetime Cumulative Load to Predict Disc Protrusion 32 Part III. Prediction of Lumbar Disc Bulging or Protrusion Based on Anthropometric Factors and Disc Morphology 39 Chapter 4 Results 43 Part I. Dose-Response Relationship between Lumbar Disc Degeneration and Life Time Cumulative Lifting Load 43 Part II. Threshold Values of Lumbar Load in Lifting for Calculating Lifetime Cumulative Load to Predict Disc Protrusion 47 Part III. Prediction of Lumbar Disc Bulging or Protrusion Based on Anthropometric Factors and Disc Morphology 49 Chapter 5 Discussion 53 A. Dose-Response Relationship between Lifetime Cumulative Lifting Load and LDD 53 B. Estimation of the Disc Compression Load 54 C. The Effect of Lifting Load Vary in Different LDD and Lumbar Levels 55 D. Study Population Selection 57 E. The Current Recommended Lifting Limits Would be Inappropriate Limits for Calculating the Lifetime Cumulative Liftload 59 F. Utilizing the Concept of Threshold per Lift Load in Calculating Lifetime Cumulative Load 61 G. Threshold per Lift Load between Genders 62 H. The Application of Lifetime Cumulative Lifting Load Calculation in the Workplace 62 I. The Association between Disc Height, Disc Depth and Disc Bulging/Protrusion 64 J. The Association between Anthropometric Factors and Disc Bulging/Protrusion 65 K. The Ability of Disc Morphology factor to Predict Disc Bulging/Protrusion at L5-S1level 67 L. Limitations 67 Chapter 6 Conclusion 71 References 72 Publication List 80 A. Referred papers 80 B. Conference papers 80 Appendix 114 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 腰椎椎間盤退化性疾病與終生累積負重之相關性研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Relationship between Lumbar Disc Degeneration Diseases and Life Time Cumulative Lifting Load | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 103-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.coadvisor | 黃耀輝(Yaw-Huei Hwang) | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳保中,施庭芳,劉紹興 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 椎間盤退化性疾病,終生累積負重,椎間盤突出,閾值,橫斷性研究,腰椎核磁共振攝影,預測方程式, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Lifetime cumulative lifting load,Lumbar disc degeneration,MRI,Dose-response relationship,disc morphology,disc protrusion,threshold value, | en |
dc.relation.page | 124 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2015-01-29 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 職業醫學與工業衛生研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 職業醫學與工業衛生研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-104-1.pdf | 1.77 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。