To date there is a paucity of information about how different types of conventional running shoes influence lower limb kinematics. The aim of the study was to determine the influence of motion control, neutral, and cushioned running shoes upon lower limb kinematics. Twenty-eight active males completed one test session running in standardized motion control, neutral, and cushioned running shoes on a treadmill at a self-selected pace (2.9 [0.6] m·s−1). Kinematic data were collected using a VICON motion analysis system with hip, knee, and ankle joint angles calculated. Discrete parameters associated with stance phase kinematics were compared between footwear conditions. Significant (P < .05) differences in knee flexion and internal rotation at toe off, and knee adduction range of motion were reported between footwear conditions. Significant (P < .05) differences in ankle joint dorsiflexion and adduction upon initial contact, peak dorsiflexion, eversion and abduction, and inversion at toe off were reported between footwear conditions. The influence of motion control, neutral, and cushioned running shoes on joint function dissipates moving proximally, with larger changes reported at the ankle compared with knee and hip joints. Although significant differences were reported between footwear conditions, these changes were of a small magnitude and effect size.
Ben Langley, Mary Cramp, and Stewart C. Morrison
Ben Langley, Nick Knight, and Stewart C. Morrison
Medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) is a common running-related injury. Alterations in movement patterns and movement coordination patterns have been linked to the development of overuse injuries. The aim of this study was to compare transverse plane tibial and frontal plane rearfoot motion and the coordination of these movements between runners with MTSS and healthy controls. A total of 10 recreational runners with MTSS and 10 healthy controls ran at 11 km/h on a treadmill. A 3-camera motion analysis system operating at 200 Hz was used to calculate tibia and rearfoot motion. Stance phase motion patterns were compared between groups using multivariate analysis, specifically, Hotelling T 2 test with statistical parametric mapping. A modified vector coding technique was used to classify the coordination of transverse plane tibial and frontal plane rearfoot motion. The frequency of each coordination pattern displayed by each group was compared using independent samples t tests. Individuals with MTSS displayed significantly (P = .037, d = 1.00) more antiphase coordination (tibial internal rotation with rearfoot inversion) despite no significant (P > .05) differences in stance phase kinematics. The increased antiphase movement may increase the torsional stress placed upon the medial aspect of the tibia, contributing to the development of MTSS.
Adam Jones, Richard Page, Chris Brogden, Ben Langley, and Matt Greig
Context: The influence of playing surface on injury risk in soccer is contentious, and contemporary technologies permit an in vivo assessment of mechanical loading on the player. Objective: To quantify the influence of playing surface on the PlayerLoad elicited during soccer-specific activity. Design: Repeated measures, field-based design. Setting: Regulation soccer pitches. Participants: Fifteen amateur soccer players (22.1 [2.4] y), injury free with ≥6 years competitive experience. Interventions: Each player completed randomized order trials of a soccer-specific field test on natural turf, astroturf, and third-generation artificial turf. GPS units were located at C7 and the mid-tibia of each leg to measure triaxial acceleration (100 Hz). Main Outcome Measures: Total accumulated PlayerLoad in each movement plane was calculated for each trial. Ratings of perceived exertion and visual analog scales assessing lower-limb muscle soreness were measured as markers of fatigue. Results: Analysis of variance revealed no significant main effect for playing surface on total PlayerLoad (P = .55), distance covered (P = .75), or postexercise measures of ratings of perceived exertion (P = .98) and visual analog scales (P = .61). There was a significant main effect for GPS location (P < .001), with lower total loading elicited at C7 than mid-tibia (P < .001), but with no difference between limbs (P = .70). There was no unit placement × surface interaction (P = .98). There was also a significant main effect for GPS location on the relative planar contributions to loading (P < .001). Relative planar contributions to loading in the anterioposterior:mediolateral:vertical planes was 25:27:48 at C7 and 34:32:34 at mid-tibia. Conclusions: PlayerLoad metrics suggest that playing surface does not influence mechanical loading during soccer-specific activity (not including tackling). Clinical reasoning should consider that PlayerLoad magnitude and axial contributions were sensitive to unit placement, highlighting opportunities in the objective monitoring of load during rehabilitation.
Adam Jones, Chris Brogden, Richard Page, Ben Langley, and Matt Greig
Context: Contemporary synthetic playing surfaces have been associated with an increased risk of ankle injury in the various types of football. Triaxial accelerometers facilitate in vivo assessment of planar mechanical loading on the player. Objective: To quantify the influence of playing surface on the PlayerLoad elicited during footwork and plyometric drills focused on the mechanism of ankle injury. Design: Repeated-measures, field-based design. Setting: Regulation soccer pitches. Participants: A total of 15 amateur soccer players (22.1 [2.4] y), injury free with ≥6 years competitive experience. Interventions: Each player completed a test battery comprising 3 footwork drills (anterior, lateral, and diagonal) and 4 plyometric drills (anterior hop, inversion hop, eversion hop, and diagonal hop) on natural turf (NT), third-generation artificial turf (3G), and AstroTurf. Global positioning system sensors were located at C7 and the mid-tibia of each leg to measure triaxial acceleration (100 Hz). Main Outcome Measures: PlayerLoad in each axial plane was calculated for each drill on each surface and at each global positioning system location. Results: Analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for sensor location in all drills, with PlayerLoad higher at mid-tibia than at C7 in all movement planes. AstroTurf elicited significantly higher PlayerLoad in the mediolateral and anteroposterior planes, with typically no difference between NT and 3G. In isolated inversion and eversion hopping trials, the 3G surface also elicited lower PlayerLoad than NT. Conclusions: PlayerLoad magnitude was sensitive to unit placement, advocating measurement with greater anatomical relevance when using microelectromechanical systems technology to monitor training or rehabilitation load. AstroTurf elicited higher PlayerLoad across all planes and drills and should be avoided for rehabilitative purposes, whereas 3G elicited a similar mechanical response to NT.