Refine
Document Type
- Article (reviewed) (6) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (6) (remove)
Keywords
- overuse injuries (2)
- running (2)
- Additive manufacturing (1)
- Biofeedback (1)
- Biomechanik (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- Confinements (1)
- Coronavirus (1)
- Customised (1)
- Elektromyographie (1)
Institute
Open Access
- Open Access (4)
- Closed (2)
- Gold (2)
- Hybrid (2)
Injury prevention is essential in running due to the risk of overuse injury development. Tailoring running shoes to individual needs may be a promising strategy to reduce this risk. Novel manufacturing processes allow the production of individualised running shoes that incorporate features that meet individual biomechanical and experiential needs. However, specific ways to individualise footwear to reduce injury risk are poorly understood. Therefore, this scoping review provides an overview of (1) footwear design features that have the potential for individualisation; and (2) the literature on the differential responses to footwear design features between selected groups of individuals. These purposes focus exclusively on reducing the risk of overuse injuries. We included studies in the English language on adults that analysed: (1) potential interaction effects between footwear design features and subgroups of runners or covariates (e.g., age, sex) for running-related biomechanical risk factors or injury incidences; (2) footwear comfort perception for a systematically modified footwear design feature. Most of the included articles (n = 107) analysed male runners. Female runners may be more susceptible to footwear-induced changes and overuse injury development; future research should target more heterogonous sampling. Several footwear design features (e.g., midsole characteristics, upper, outsole profile) show potential for individualisation. However, the literature addressing individualised footwear solutions and the potential to reduce biomechanical risk factors is limited. Future studies should leverage more extensive data collections considering relevant covariates and subgroups while systematically modifying isolated footwear design features to inform footwear individualisation.
Bewegungsanalysesysteme in der Forschung und für niedergelassene Orthopädinnen und Orthopäden
(2023)
Hintergrund
Komplexe biomechanische Bewegungsanalysen können für eine Vielzahl orthopädischer Fragestellungen wichtige Informationen liefern. Bei der Beschaffung von Bewegungsanalysesystemen sind neben den klassischen Messgütekriterien (Validität, Reliabilität, Objektivität) auch räumliche und zeitliche Rahmenbedingungen sowie Anforderungen an die Qualifikation des Messpersonals zu berücksichtigen.
Anwendung
In der komplexen Bewegungsanalyse werden Systeme zur Bestimmung der Kinematik, der Kinetik und der Muskelaktivität (Elektromyographie) eingesetzt. Der vorliegende Artikel gibt einen Überblick über Methoden der komplexen biomechanischen Bewegungsanalyse für den Einsatz in der orthopädischen Forschung oder in der individuellen Patientenversorgung. Neben dem Einsatz zur reinen Bewegungsanalyse wird auch der Einsatz von Bewegungsanalyseverfahren im Bereich des Biofeedbacktrainings diskutiert.
Beschaffung
Für die konkrete Anschaffung von Bewegungsanalysesystemen empfiehlt sich die Kontaktaufnahme mit Fachgesellschaften (z. B. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Biomechanik), Hochschulen und Universitäten mit vorhandenen Bewegungsanalyseeinrichtungen oder Vertriebsfirmen im Bereich der Biomechanik.
Background:
Ankle braces aim to reduce lateral ankle sprains. Next to protection, factors influencing user compliance, such as sports performance, motion restriction, and users’ perceptions, are relevant for user compliance and thus injury prevention. Novel adaptive protection systems claim to change their mechanical behavior based on the intensity of motion (eg, the inversion velocity), unlike traditional passive concepts of ankle bracing.
Purpose:
To compare the performance of a novel adaptive brace with 2 passive ankle braces while considering protection, sports performance, freedom of motion, and subjective perception.
Study Design:
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods:
The authors analyzed 1 adaptive and 2 passive (one lace-up and one rigid brace) ankle braces, worn in a low-cut, indoor sports shoe, which was also the no-brace reference condition. We performed material testing using an artificial ankle joint system at high and low inversion velocities. Further, 20 male, young, healthy team sports athletes were analyzed using 3-dimensional motion analysis in sports-related movements to address protection, sports performance, and active range of motion dimensions. Participants rated subjective comfort, stability, and restriction experienced when using the products.
Results:
Subjective stability rating was not different between the adaptive and passive systems. The rigid brace was superior in restricting peak inversion during the biomechanical testing compared with the passive braces. However, in the material test, the adaptive brace increased its stiffness by approximately 400% during the fast compared with the slow inversion velocities, demonstrating its adaptive behavior and similar stiffness values to passive braces. We identified minor differences in sports performance tasks. The adaptive brace improved active ankle range of motion and subjective comfort and restriction ratings.
Conclusion:
The adaptive brace offered similar protective effects in high-velocity inversion situations to those of the passive braces while improving range of motion, comfort, and restriction rating during noninjurious motions.
Clinical Relevance:
Protection systems are only effective when used. Compared with traditional passive ankle brace technologies, the novel adaptive brace might increase user compliance by improving comfort and freedom of movement while offering similar protection in injurious situations.
Background: Running overuse injuries (ROIs) occur within a complex, partly injury-specific interplay between training loads and extrinsic and intrinsic risk factors. Biomechanical risk factors (BRFs) are related to the individual running style. While BRFs have been reviewed regarding general ROI risk, no systematic review has addressed BRFs for specific ROIs using a standardized methodology.
Objective: To identify and evaluate the evidence for the most relevant BRFs for ROIs determined during running and to
suggest future research directions.
Design: Systematic review considering prospective and retrospective studies. (PROSPERO_ID: 236,832).
Data Sources: PubMed. Connected Papers. The search was performed in February 2021.
Eligibility Criteria: English language. Studies on participants whose primary sport is running addressing the risk for the seven most common ROIs and at least one kinematic, kinetic (including pressure measurements), or electromyographic BRF. A BRF needed to be identified in at least one prospective or two independent retrospective studies. BRFs needed to be determined during running.
Results: Sixty-six articles fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Levels of evidence for specific ROIs ranged from conflicting to moderate evidence. Running populations and methods applied varied considerably between studies. While some BRFs appeared for several ROIs, most BRFs were specific for a particular ROI. Most BRFs derived from lower-extremity joint kinematics and kinetics were located in the frontal and transverse planes of motion. Further, plantar pressure, vertical ground reaction force loading rate and free moment-related parameters were identified as kinetic BRFs.
Conclusion: This study offers a comprehensive overview of BRFs for the most common ROIs, which might serve as a starting point to develop ROI-specific risk profiles of individual runners. We identified limited evidence for most ROI-specific risk factors, highlighting the need for performing further high-quality studies in the future. However, consensus on data collection standards (including the quantification of workload and stress tolerance variables and the reporting of injuries) is warranted.
Running footwear is continuously being modified and improved; however, running-related overuse injury rates remain high. Nevertheless, novel manufacturing processes enable the production of individualized running shoes that can fit the individual needs of runners, with the potential to reduce injury risk. For this reason, it is essential to investigate functional groups of runners, a collective of runners who respond similarly to a footwear intervention. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop a framework to identify functional groups based on their individual footwear response regarding injury-specific running-related risk factors for Achilles tendinopathy, Tibial stress fractures, Medial tibial stress syndrome, and Patellofemoral pain syndrome. In this work, we quantified the footwear response patterns of 73 female and male participants when running in three different footwear conditions using unsupervised learning (k-means clustering). For each functional group, we identified the footwear conditions minimizing the injury-specific risk factors. We described differences in the functional groups regarding their running style, anthropometric, footwear perception, and demographics. The results implied that most functional groups showed a tendency for a single footwear condition to reduce most biomechanical risk factors for a specific overuse injury. Functional groups often differed in their hip and pelvis kinematics as well as their subjective rating of the footwear conditions. The footwear intervention only partially affected biomechanical risk factors attributed to more proximal joints. Due to its adaptive nature, the framework could be applied to other footwear interventions or performance-related biomechanical variables.
Background: Many countries have restricted public life in order to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2). As a side effect of related measures, physical activity (PA) levels may have decreased.
Objective: We aimed (1) to quantify changes in PA and (2) to identify variables potentially predicting PA reductions.
Methods: A systematic review with random-effects multilevel meta-analysis was performed, pooling the standardized mean differences in PA measures before and during public life restrictions.
Results: A total of 173 trials with moderate methodological quality (modified Downs and Black checklist) were identified. Compared to pre-pandemic, total PA (SMD − 0.65, 95% CI − 1.10 to − 0.21) and walking (SMD − 0.52, 95% CI − 0.29 to − 0.76) decreased while sedentary behavior increased (SMD 0.91, 95% CI: 0.17 to 1.65). Reductions in PA affected all intensities (light: SMD − 0.35, 95% CI − 0.09 to − 0.61, p = .013; moderate: SMD − 0.33, 95% CI − 0.02 to − 0.6; vigorous: SMD − 0.33, − 0.08 to − 0.58, 95% CI − 0.08 to − 0.58) to a similar degree. Moderator analyses revealed no influence of variables such as sex, age, body mass index, or health status. However, the only continent without a PA reduction was Australia and cross-sectional trials yielded higher effect sizes (p < .05).
Conclusion: Public life restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in moderate reductions in PA levels and large increases in sedentary behavior. Health professionals and policy makers should therefore join forces to develop strategies counteracting the adverse effects of inactivity.