Fig 1.
Methodology used to evaluate lumbar belts.
Fig 2.
Schematic lumbar belt according to the French Healthcare system recommendation.
1 and 2: fastening system, 3: rigid whalebones, 4: soft whalebones.
Table 1.
Description of the belt fabrics studied.
Table 2.
Manufacturer indications for the two lumbar belts analysed in the study.
Table 3.
(*) healthy weight, (**) overweight, (***) severely obese.
Fig 3.
Tensile force per unit width vs stretch curve for the five studied fabrics (in warp direction).
Fig 4.
Force-displacement curves for the two studied lumbar belts.
Fig 5.
Model with springs of: a. Belt A, b. Belt B.
Table 4.
Stiffness and Poisson’s ratio of studied fabrics.
Table 5.
Stiffness and equivalent stiffness of lumbar belts.
Fig 6.
Belt strain and pressure obtained numerically for (A) 27 y.o. woman, BMI = 21.2 kg/m2 and (B) 46 y.o. man, BMI = 29.0 kg/m2. (Belt A case, CoA = 0.3, asymmetric locking).
Fig 7.
Resulting forces per cross section–sagittal view for (A) 27 y.o. woman, BMI = 21.2 kg/m2 and (B) 46 y.o. man, BMI = 29.0 kg/m2. (Belt A case, CoA = 0.3, asymmetric locking).
Fig 8.
Mean pressure for the two belts.
Fig 9.
Mean pressure around the trunk depending on belt locking strategy and CoA (Belt A). Belt closure is at 90°, and patient’s back is centred at 270°. Illustrations are given for (A) 27 y.o. woman, BMI = 21.2 kg/m2 and (B) 46 y.o. man, BMI = 29.0 kg/m2.
Fig 10.
Mean pressure evolution with coefficient of adhesion.
Fig 11.
Bending moment vs BMI for all the patients and all the belts.