Impact of Unilateral Handbag Loads on Spine–Hip Kinematics and Paraspinal Muscle Activities: A PCA-Based Analysis

Öz

Unilateral handbag carriage is a common practice in daily life, which imposes asymmetric demands on the trunk. This study examined the resulting kinematic and muscular adaptations during walking in 22 healthy male adults who carried a unilateral 5 kg handbag. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to analyze spine–hip kinematics and paraspinal EMG, and its robustness was confirmed through component stability and sensitivity analyses. Load carriage significantly altered both kinematics (Pillai's trace = 0.978, p < 0.001) and muscular activations (Pillai's trace = 0.745, p < 0.001). Six kinematic and two muscular principal components (PC) explained 95% of the variance. Kinematic adaptations to load were driven by axial rotation at L3–L4 (31.0% contribution), lateral bending at T8–T9 (36.5% contribution), and flexion/extension at L3–L4 (73.9%), particularly in PCs 2, 4, and 5. Muscular changes were dominated by increased activation in the longissimus (d = 1.493, p < 0.001) and iliocostalis (d = 0.663, p = 0.02) on the side contralateral to the carried bag, and reflected in PCs 1 and 2. Complementary univariate analyses confirmed reduced thoracolumbar mobility and elevated contralateral paraspinal activation ( adjusted p < 0.05). Together, these findings demonstrate an integrated compensatory strategy adjustment under asymmetric load. The robustness of the methodology was confirmed via PC jackknife and bootstrap analyses; however, the findings are based on healthy young male participants under a fixed 5 kg load, acknowledging limited generalizability.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• unilateral load carrying
• spine–hip kinematics
• paraspinal muscles
• multivariate analysis
• principal components

Tek Taraflı El Çantası Taşınmasının Omurga–Kalça Kinematiği ve Paraspinal Kas Aktiviteleri Üzerine Etkisi: PCA Tabanlı Bir Analiz

Öz

Tek taraflı el çantası taşımak, günlük yaşamda yaygın bir uygulamadır ve gövde üzerinde asimetrik talepler oluşturur. Bu çalışma, tek taraflı 5 kg’lık bir el çantasını taşıyan 22 sağlıklı erkek yetişkinin yürüyüşü sırasında ortaya çıkan kinematik ve kas uyumlarını incelemiştir. Temel bileşen analizi (PCA), omurga–kalça kinematiği ve paraspinal EMG verilerini çözümlemede kullanılmış; yöntemin sağlamlığı bileşen kararlılığı ve duyarlılık analizleriyle doğrulanmıştır. Yük taşıma, hem kinematikleri (Pillai’s trace = 0.978, p < 0.001) hem de kas aktivasyonlarını (Pillai’s trace = 0.745, p < 0.001) anlamlı şekilde değiştirmiştir. Altı kinematik ve iki kas temelli temel bileşen (PC), toplam varyansın %95’ini açıklamıştır. Kinematik uyumlar, özellikle L3–L4 düzeyinde aksiyel rotasyon (%31.0 katkı), T8–T9 düzeyinde lateral fleksiyon (%36.5 katkı) ve L3–L4 düzeyinde fleksiyon/ekstansiyon (%73.9 katkı) ile yönlendirilmiş, bu etkiler özellikle PC2, PC4 ve PC5’te belirgin olmuştur. Kas değişiklikleri, taşınan çantanın karşı tarafındaki longissimus (d = 1.493, p < 0.001) ve iliocostalis (d = 0.663, p = 0.02) kaslarında artan aktivasyonla baskın hale gelmiş ve bu değişimler PC1 ve PC2’de yansımıştır. Tamamlayıcı tek değişkenli analizler, torakolomber hareketliliğin azaldığını ve karşı taraf paraspinal aktivasyonunun arttığını (düzeltilmiş p < 0.05) doğrulamıştır. Bu bulgular, asimetrik yük altında bütünleşik bir telafi edici strateji ayarlanmasının ortaya çıktığını göstermektedir. Yöntemin sağlamlığı, PC jackknife ve bootstrap analizleri ile doğrulanmıştır; ancak bulgular, sabit 5 kg yük altında test edilen sağlıklı genç erkek katılımcılarla sınırlıdır ve genellenebilirliğin kısıtlı olduğu kabul edilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• tek taraflı yük taşıma
• omurga–kalça kinematiği
• paraspinal kaslar
• çok değişkenli analiz
• temel bileşenler

Kaynakça

1. Marras, W. S., & Davis, K. G. (1998). Spine loading during asymmetric lifting using one versus two hands. Ergonomics, 41(6), 817-834. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401398186667
2. Abaraogu, U. O., Duru, D. O., Imaji, B., Ezenwankwo, E. F., & Fawole, H. (2020). Musculoskeletal problems and backpack carriage among students in Nigeria. Work, 65(1), 175-180. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-193071
3. Matur, F., Alnamroush, F., & Büyüksaraç, B. (2025). Impact of backpack load during walking: an EMG and biomechanical analysis. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 63(5), 1427-1433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-024-03280-z
4. Toledo, A. D. O., Rodrigues, B. K. M. M., Maciel, M. A. M., Lima, P. O. D. P., Porto, M. A., & Abdon, A. P. V. (2023). Effect of unilateral bag use on plantar pressures and static balance in women. Fisioterapia em Movimento, 36, e36109. https://doi.org/10.1590/fm.2023.36109
5. Rodríguez-Soto, A. E., Berry, D. B., Palombo, L., Valaik, E., Kelly, K. R., & Ward, S. R. (2017). Effect of load magnitude and distribution on lumbar spine posture in active-duty marines. Spine, 42(5), 345-351. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001742
6. Rodrigues, B. K. M. M., Maciel, M. A. M., Parente, B. L., de Paula Lima, P. O., & Abdon, A. P. V. (2020). Use and weight of shoulder bag in female gait. Motricidade, 16(2), 144-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.6063/motricidade.16954
7. Mandrekar, S., Chavhan, D., Shyam, A. K., & Sancheti, P. K. (2022). Effects of carrying school bags on cervical and shoulder posture in static and dynamic conditions in adolescent students. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 34(1), 20190073. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2019-0073
8. Jalalvand, A., Hoseini, Y., & Jahani, M. R. (2022). The effect of backpack carriage in different weights on ground reaction force components, loading rate and free moment of Schoolchildren's gait. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 90, 103324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2022.103324

9. Middleton, K., Vickery-Howe, D., Dascombe, B., Clarke, A., Wheat, J., McClelland, J., & Drain, J. (2022). Mechanical differences between men and women during overground load carriage at self-selected walking speeds. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(7), 3927. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph190739273
10. Anwer, S., Li, H., Antwi-Afari, M. F., Umer, W., Mehmood, I., & Wong, A. Y. L. (2022). Effects of load carrying techniques on gait parameters, dynamic balance, and physiological parameters during a manual material handling task. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 29(9), 3415-3438. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073927
11. McGill, S. M., Marshall, L., & Andersen, J. (2013). Low back loads while walking and carrying: comparing the load carried in one hand or in both hands. Ergonomics, 56(2), 293-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.752528
12. Zhang, X. A., Ye, M., & Wang, C. T. (2010). Effect of unilateral load carriage on postures and gait symmetry in ground reaction force during walking. Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering, 13(3), 339-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255840903213445
13. Silva, J. J., Batistela, R. A., Goncalves, C. T., Rinaldi, N. M., & Moraes, R. (2020). Stability control in older adults with asymmetrical load carrying when stepping down a curb. Journal of Biomechanics, 106, 109840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.109840
14. Wang, J., & Gillette, J. (2017). Carrying asymmetric loads during stair negotiation. Gait & posture, 53, 67-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.01.006
15. Wang, J., Stephenson, M. L., Hass, C. J., Janelle, C. M., & Tillman, M. D. (2021). Carrying asymmetric loads while walking on a treadmill interferes with lower limb coordination. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(9), 4549. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094549
16. Corrigan, L. P., & Li, J. X. (2014). The effect of unilateral hockey bag carriage on the muscle activities of the trunk and lower limb of young healthy males during gait. Research in Sports Medicine, 22(1), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15438627.2013.852094
17. Cook, T. M., & Neumann, D. A. (1987). The effects of load placement on the EMG activity of the low back muscles during load carrying by men and women. Ergonomics, 30(10), 1413-1423. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140138708966035
18. Sanguansat, P. (Ed.). (2012). Principal component analysis. BoD–Books on Demand.
19. Federolf, P. A. (2016). A novel approach to study human posture control:“Principal movements” obtained from a principal component analysis of kinematic marker data. Journal of biomechanics, 49(3), 364-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.12.030
20. Brandon, S. C., Graham, R. B., Almosnino, S., Sadler, E. M., Stevenson, J. M., & Deluzio, K. J. (2013). Interpreting principal components in biomechanics: representative extremes and single component reconstruction. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 23(6), 1304-1310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.09.010
21. Lambert-Shirzad, N., & Van Der Loos, H. M. (2017). On identifying kinematic and muscle synergies: a comparison of matrix factorization methods using experimental data from the healthy population. Journal of neurophysiology, 117(1), 290-302. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00435.2016
22. Bosco, G. (2010). Principal component analysis of electromyographic signals: An overview. The Open Rehabilitation Journal, 3(1). https://benthamopenarchives.com/contents/pdf/TOREHJ/TOREHJ-3-127.pdf
23. Plato, C. C., Fox, K. M., & Garruto, R. M. (1984). Measures of lateral functional dominance: Hand dominance. Human Biology, 259-275. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41463570
24. Kerrigan, D. C., Todd, M. K., & Croce, U. D. (1998). Gender differences in joint biomechanics during walking normative study in young adults. American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation, 77(1), 2-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-199801000-00002
25. Delysy Incorporated, Wireless biofeedback system (2024). URL https://www.delsys.com
26. Stegeman, D., & Hermens, H. (2007). Standards for surface electromyography: The European project Surface EMG for non-invasive assessment of muscles (SENIAM). Enschede: Roessingh Research and Development, 10(8). URL: http://seniam.org
27. Cizek, V. (1970). Discrete hilbert transform. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 18(4), 340-343. https://doi.org/10.1109/tau.1970.1162139
28. Stanimirova, I., Daszykowski, M., & Walczak, B. (2007). Dealing with missing values and outliers in principal component analysis. Talanta, 72(1), 172-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2006.10.011
29. Abdi, H., & Williams, L. J. (2010). Principal component analysis. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: computational statistics, 2(4), 433-459. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.101
30. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. Bmj, 310(6973), 170. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6973.170
31. MathWorks (2025), Inc., MATLAB version 25.2.0 (R2025b), Natick, Massachusetts, available at URL:https://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab.html
32. Ateş, C., Kaymaz, Ö., Kale, H. E., & Tekindal, M. A. (2019). Comparison of test statistics of nonnormal and unbalanced samples for multivariate analysis of variance in terms of type‐I error rates. Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2019(1), 2173638. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2173638
33. DeVita, P., Hong, D., & Hamill, J. (1991). Effects of asymmetric load carrying on the biomechanics of walking. Journal of biomechanics, 24(12), 1119-1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(92)90268-6
34. Shea, C., Bettany-Saltikov, J. A., & Warren, J. G. (2006). Effect of same-sided and cross-body load carriage on 3D back shape in young adults. Studies in health technology and informatics, 123, 159.